Template talk:Infobox song/Archive 3

Suggested change
Please fix The  parameter includes the following style:   I think this should be deleted because it makes the track listing impossibly small to read and using an absolute value for the font ensures that readers who have difficulty with smaller fonts will not be able to construe the track listings. At the very least, a relative value would make it easier on them to read it based on their browser preferences without having to actually create their own style sheets with minimum font size values. Simply put, the font size of the text in the template is fine and if a song title gets wrapped to another line, that's okay, since the ordered list will clear up any ambiguity about a song's name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you should leave this suggestion for a few days to allow others to comment before placing the editprotected. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, maybe you could provide one or more article examples so we can better understand your suggestion. I think that would help. – Ib Leo (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Help and examples MSGJ: thanks. IbLeo: I'm not sure what you mean by examples... The font right now is the same size (too small) on every page transcluding this template. I'm not sure what you want me to do. I guess I could make a sandbox with two different templates and transclude them in my namespace if that's what you want. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I don't want you to do anything complicated. I am just looking for a few links to articles that use the  parameter so I can visualize the problem for myself. I don't think that many of the articles on my watchlist use this parameter. Sorry for not being clear. – Ib  Leo (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Example There is one on this template's page itself. I suppose it's as good as any other example, really. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is, sorry for being so blind. I think you are right, the font is indeed very small and hard to read. I would say that for consistency it should be the same as in Extra tracklisting when it is used within Infobox Single. See for an example "Suffragette City". So I am totally with you. – Ib Leo (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:35, 16 March 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. Please discuss at (arbitrary choice) Template talk:Infobox single. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
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) 13:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Error
There is an error in this template that is not apparent in infobox single and infobox album when it comes to the name of a song having two exclamation points. Compare infobox song to infobox single.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see the problem. The other infobox uses infobox, which uses html markup instead of wikimarkup.  One fix would be to convert this one to use infobox, another would be to convert it to use html table markup.  I will work on it right now. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  00:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A-side and B-side
Could we have A-side and B-side parameters, similar to infobox single. It seems ironic that the single one has A-side, but this one does not. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It should definitely be noted what the A-sides of B-sides are if the B-sides are notable enough to get their own page, but are not released as singles. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  18:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for the nom's reasons and Cprice's &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  19:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – In which way would the parameters be needed on songs? Like, what would be an example of a song with a b-side? ℥nding · start 19:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shattered Glass would have the A-side (Unusual You) listed in the infobox. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  19:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. I understand the means of this now. I was a bit confused. I was thinking "how the hell could a normal song have a b-side?" I support this per the nom and cprice. ℥nding · start 19:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I was confused like Ending-start, but I get it now. Per Adabow and Cprice.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 20:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Or, you can just use the single infobox even for the B-side's article (which seems the whole purpose of the A-side parameter anyway). For eg: "Baby, You're a Rich Man".—indopug (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why if it is not a single? That would be confusing. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  21:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments Interesting! Although historically a B-side was one side of a 45 rpm vinyl single release, it was IMO usually meant as just bonus material to the main or A-side. The industry term is 'single' although it is actually TWO songs. I guess? because they are released together you can think of them as a 'SINGLE' occurrence. But we have separate articles for EACH song, we don't report both together in their entirety in ONE article even though they are 'jointly' released.
 * Unsure about wanting to use the single infobox, but whatever is decided...I do Support the B-side article being able to display the A-side information in its infobox.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After more thought Emphatically SUPPORT that B-side articles must display the A-side material in the infobox. The infobox is a summary and the fact it is a B-side is certainly important. Seeing the A-side listed there automatically 'tells you' this is a B-side. If there is any confusion on the part of any reader, it is also mentioned in the article text. This also explains why the release date differs from that of the parent album/EP, etc. It 'inherits' the same release date of the A-side. If it is just an album track, then the release date = that of the parent album/EP, etc.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose that only an A-side parameter is needed, as any A-side articles themselves will use infobox single and thus only B-side articles need this template. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - I have always wanted this to happen. I strongly support this initiative per Adabow. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  05:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per Cprice. Novice7 (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus here, so could an admin please change:
 * Proposed code moved to Template:Infobox song/sandbox to aid readability of talk page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk)

Ta muchly. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Writer(s)
I just had a page where the editor had renamed the Writer field to Writers since the song had more than one.

The editor evidently is not a programmer, just as most people are not.

Is it crazy to have fields like Writer(s), Artist(s), Producer(s) that can recognize their own plurals and resolve correctly?

I might call that bulletproofing my code.

And we redirect things like mad around here in general, in order to deal with millions of users as they really are.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "Published" parameter
Could someone please expand the documentation to explain the proper usage of the "Published" parameter? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Quotation marks should not be in boldface
Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, the quotation marks used in this template shouldn't be in bold. I've failed in my attempts to incorporate such rendering within. Although the sandbox template page itself apparently rendered as expected, I couldn't see the change for the testcases (or within a live article preview). I was trying to base things on Infobox television episode. Can someone who's better at templates than me please assist? (My browser may be at fault, but the other template still seems to render correctly within articles.) Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Current
 * Proposed
 * Proposed


 * While well-intended, it's not quite correct. The bold here is simply a result of the quotes being used in a table heading element: it is not emphasis in the sense that this is. Arguably the correct fix here is to remove the quotes entirely, and treat the infobox title as if it were a page title; we don't include quotes around song titles if they're used as the names of articles. Pending further discussion I'm disabling this, as it results in minimal aesthetic gain while adding addition unnecessary presentational markup to the HTML. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So does that mean that a change to Infobox television episode is required, to harmonise things? -- Trevj (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My proposal attempts to achieve presentational consistency in infoboxes between articles such as Where Is Everybody? and America the Beautiful, based on current consensus. Yours would seem to require a wider change in consensus, which should probably be discussed at WT:MOS. Therefore, I feel it'd be appropriate to either reactivate this request, initiate a discussion at WT:MOS or point participants there over here. What do you think? -- Trevj (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that the proposed hack is currently used in infobox television episode, but that doesn't mean it's correct there either. I can't see that cherry-picking that template as an example results in a "consensus" when this template has gone just as long without such a change. Harmonisation would indeed require changing one or the other: let's first establish which one that should be. My personal belief is that in the long run we'll end up killing off all this special casing for infobox titles, much as we've mostly done with article titles (which, as stated previously, don't use quotes at all, and even italicising them has gone out of fashion IMO). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Musical parameters
Should the tempo and key have their own parameters? I think it would be of use to show the bpm, and whether something was in C or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Songs are very malleable, the key is often changed to fit a singer's range (even in classical music). It's for the most part pretty irrelevant to the song itself. Same thing, the speed its at, while somewhat more consistent, is not nessesarily fixed....this one I could see perhaps adding, but I'm not so sure it's necessary either. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite so; consider the song "Revolution" by The Beatles; they released two different versions, which were played at very different speeds, and in different keys too. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is true, but I'd say mostly for older songs (ie traditional or classical pieces). For most songs, and in particular for recorded pop music, there is only one version of a song. Sometimes there is a shortened version of an album track that is used as a single, or else there is a different remix or cover version, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. Having parameters like Released and Producer implies that we are actually talking about specific recordings rather than just songs.
 * In any case, the parameters would be optional, so could be left out in ambiguous cases. Something like Earth Song has two different entries for length, for example, and with Revolution, there are actually two infoboxes on the same page. Maybe this would be more suitable for the single infobox instead?
 * One recorded version doesn't means it's never performed otherwise. It almost never means that, in fact. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but having parameters for length and recording dates/studios and a picture of a cover does imply we are talking about one specific version... Unless there are several well-known versions, such as About a Girl (Nirvana song), but in that case, it's made very clear in the article that there is more than one version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, I've even seen edit wars over a difference of one second in a running time, so we very much are talking about specific recordings here. At least, that's what's implied. And in that case, I think the tempo is an important thing to note - probably more important than something like Label and Publishing date (especially in this day and age where most new songs are unsigned and unpubished). As for key, what about if it was called "original key" or similar?

Should labels be pluralized?
On Template:Infobox single, one of the labels is Writer(s). However, the same label on Template:Infobox song doesn't have the "(s)". Should the "(s)" be added to Template:Infobox song for the writer (and any other) labels? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support adding plurals; its very common for albums to have been released on multiple labels. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, it definitely should be consistent – Writer(s), Producer(s) – in Album, Song and Single infoboxes. But then, how about Genre(s) and, yes, Label(s)? With so many potential fields/labels apt for "(s)" treatment, though, I am wondering if it might in fact be better to remove them from Temp:Infobox single ... Do you know what I mean – that if we follow the logic of applying "(s)" to all relevant fields, it's going to look a bit over the top? JG66 (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)