Template talk:Infobox song/Archive 8

"Single" chronology parameters broken?
Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) uses the soon-to-be-merged " ". Currently, I see "I Confess" / &thinsp;. On the other hand, "Always Be My Baby" doesn't have that problem. Maybe it's related to two-track releases? --George Ho (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 09:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In writing the wrapper, I assumed that the date would be included for each single, in brackets, after a line break. I honestly don't want to write any more regexes for it, since there are already about six or seven nested layers, so the best thing to do is to add  (where year is the year of release) to the end of the text. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * To be honest, I see no good reason to maintain chronology parameters and recommend deprecating them entirely. Here's why:
 * They detract focus from the article subject (which is supposed to be one song, maybe two for tracks with B-sides)
 * What was released right after/before a certain track isn't particularly relevant to the article subject
 * In certain cases, they violate WP:Verifiability (WP:CIRCULAR) when solely depending on what other Wikipedia articles give for release dates
 * Even if coding wasn't an issue, this overall isn't really worth keeping. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All valid points. The same may be said of the various album track listings used in infoboxes. Perhaps open an RfC on the WP:SONGS talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I also encourage deprecating album chronology for each of the above rationales (just replace the words "single", "song", and "track" with "album"). Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments on updated documentation
When was it decided to do away with the option of using commas as separators, as an alternative to the various list templates? (cf Note 2 in previous version.) I remember us talking about it but I hadn't got the impression we were going forward with it … no?

One thing, and I'm sure it's not a new addition: under album we say, "If it was originally released as a single, |album= should not be used, since it is not from the album, but later added to one." So does that mean a lead single, released a week or two before the album, and clearly marketed as representing the forthcoming album, shouldn't carry the album title? For example, is "Miss You" not from the album Some Girls?

Also – again, possibly something that's been in the documentation since the year dot – under released (and reinforced under format), we stipulate that the pertinent information is the first known release date. So, does that mean we're doing away with examples where arguably the most notable release and format for the track – a hit single issued months after the parent album – currently appears under released? Some examples: the Stones again, "Beast of Burden", issued on a single three months after Some Girls; Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" and "Beat It"; countless others …

Finally, I'm confused by the chronology for double A-sides – by the fact that we're allowing for such a chronology. Is it really needed? I'm just imagining the result in infoboxes that already have two tiers of chronologies. Take "Day Tripper": is it necessary to let readers know that the next instance of a Beatles double A-side was "Eleanor Rigby" / "Yellow Submarine"?

Sorry if these comments appear to ignore the good work that's gone into this and focus only on the negative. I don't mean them to sound that way. (The words "welcome", "fart" and "spacesuit" come to mind, perhaps.) JG66 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

to reply to me 08:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 07:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 08:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 08:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 08:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points – I'm running into these all the time while cleaning up the infoboxes:
 * Hlist=class vs list temps vs commas – this came out of a recommendation by (something to do with using bots?)
 * Well, we did have the choice previously, and now we don't. I'd be interested to hear about the bot-related rationale. I admit I prefer commas (and I've seen other editors support their use), and until a couple of days ago I was able to indulge that preference. If we're canning the comma option, then fine, I'll get over it, because it just won't be an option to consider anymore. But what's important is whether it's been agreed that commas are not to be used as separators, rather than the choice (which appeared first in the list of options, after all) simply being withdrawn. JG66 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically this is to make the template transition easier, since there will always be edge cases like song titles containing quotes and the like which can't be handled easily. After the transition the rule can be changed back, although it might not be such a good idea since the quotes won't be automatically added and it could confuse editors. (Additionally, for multiple songs in comma-separated lists quotes can't be added automatically, since song titles can contain commas, whereas it's possible with hlist.) Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * I think we might be talking at cross purposes. I'm referring to commas being used as separators for genres, songwriter(s), producer(s), etc., and the fact that this option has always been acceptable (Notes section > "2") until just recently – when it vanished. I can't see the relevance to quotes at all, nor how songs would be appearing in a comma-separated list inside the infobox (?) JG66 (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to songs which have two or more B-sides (for whatever reason), since quotes are automatically added for A-side and B-side now. Rest of it (genres, songwriters, etc.) is probably up to WikiProject policy and I would defer that to others who've spent more time in this area. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Again, I can't see what quotes around song titles have got to do with this at all … Okay then, we're back to where I came in: we had talked about the possibility of doing away with commas as separators, just as we did about whether words such as "in" should ever appear in the studio field (e.g. Record Plant, in New York City, vs Record Plant, New York City). But it never went beyond a discussion, as far as I know, and now the comma option has disappeared. JG66 (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3,400+ infoboxes must be manually cleaned up before the merger is completed (I'm managing about 30 a day). Using an automated process would be a helpful option.  From what I remember about the middot vs comma discussion, the two should not be mixed within the same infobox, i.e., if one is used in one parameter, then all must follow suit.  Would adding something like "Alternatively, two or three entries may be separated using commas.  However, please note that middots and commas should not be mixed with the same infobox" to the  footnote address your concerns? —Ojorojo (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Something like that, yes, although the pre-19 June wording seemed better, imo. Thanks. JG66 (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've removed the tracking category from both Infobox song and Infobox single, because it's not really useful and the quote removal resulted in thousands of errors. Now, if the songs in A-side/B-side are separated by tags then ubl will be used in place of the tags; and if there are otherwise more than two quotation marks then none will be removed (if I did it correctly). Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Back again. I finally realised what the relevance of song titles and quote marks was (with regard to comma separators) after seeing this post about "Love Will Tear Us Apart" having two B-sides. Apologies, I get it. And if I understand the situation correctly, with the subsequent removal of this tracking category, there's no reason not to revert to the previous wording for Note 2: "For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists the use of flatlist or hlist is preferred as they offer a benefit to users of screen readers …" [[User:JG66|JG66] (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "from the album" – common sense should prevail: if it's within a month or two, came out of the same recording sessions, promoted together, etc., that should be fine. I added this to prevent the most flagrant misuses (and they are quite frequent), when the song is eventually added to an album well after the single release (for example, the "Beck's Bolero" single preceded the album release by almost a year and a half). Suggestions to clarify this point?
 * Ah okay. ("Back on the Chain Gang" comes to mind for me, a single in late 1982 and an album track in January '84.) I think it might be an idea to clarify the point with just the sort of proviso you cite – common sense: if the single's within a month or two of the album / from the same recording sessions / promoted together. I'll have a think and come back with a suggested rewording. JG66 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "first known release date" – yes, this is a carryover from Infobox single (from 2008?). I think the idea is to discourage long lists of all the various subsequent releases and formats (and labels, B-sides, lengths, etc.) in secondary markets.  Again, suggestions for better wordings?
 * Sure, I agree with the thinking. I'd never read this (or much of the documentation) before now, but it seems we should include wording that allows for the situation you identified in March with the infobox for Cream's "Crossroads". Having said that, I see the article's infobox now focuses on that song's status as a Cream album track ... So, just to be clear: we are still allowing for instances where a song was subsequently issued as a single (those Michael Jackson and Stones examples, the Beatles' "Come Together", Oasis' "Don't Look Back in Anger", etc etc); or not – i.e. are we saying that released means the very first instance that a recording was issued commercially? For me, this is one of the grey areas I was alluding to back in that March RfC. If it is the former – whereby released and format ignore the song's initial album release and focus instead on the track as a single "from the album" – then some guidance is obviously needed in the documentation. Currently, and since '08 perhaps, we're advocating only that very-first-instance approach. (Not trying to pass the buck re suggested rewording – simply want to confirm what the approach is first.) JG66 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Now with songs and singles falling under the same guideline, this area needs to be reassessed. I started a new section below. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (pinging, , and  for additional input) To clarify this, if a song is released as a digital "promotional single" (before the album itself) and then released as a single at some later date, which date is used in the infobox? "Grenade" uses the promotional single release, whereas "Touch" uses the UK radio release (which is the closest thing to the single release that anyone could find after half a year) . Jc86035 (talk) <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left">Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * "Double A-side" – I think this was Jc's answer to an editor's push for a single to be recognized as a two-track release. I brought up the limited application, but…
 * Probably best I stay out of this one, then ... Curious. JG66 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The application is limited (to the few hundred double A-sides and releases where the B-side is of equal importance), but it's probably better for controlling formatting, as well as for exporting information to Wikidata if it's done someday. Note that a few singles released after the 1970s (e.g. "Thankyou Whoever You Are") seem to have this as well but I don't know if the B-side should be kept in the chronology. Jc86035 (talk) <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left">Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Although some editors may add them, B-sides usually aren't included in chronologies. For a long while, B-sides used Infobox song, so their addition to infobox singles is unexplained.  An exception may be older 78s, when the A-/B-side distinction wasn't made or marketed.  If the instances of double-A is better handled this way, fine, otherwise the Bs probably wouldn't be missed.  It seems that if there is a parameter, someone will always find a way to (mis)use it. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * —Ojorojo (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the closest date to the single release I could find tbh. The other dates are already on the following year and the single was released to radio stations in US, New Zeland, and Australia as well. Besides this, it was very likely to be released soon after that promo date since rumors started around early October of becoming the next single. In this interview, Mars confirms as the next single plus video was released mi november. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Earliest release info only or?
Since the infoboxes are now merged, the documentation needs to be clarified to address the different releases. The former infobox single included:
 * Released
 * This field should refer to the earliest known commercial release date, using a single occurrence of Start date...

For Infobox song:
 * Released
 * This field should contain the date the song was released, using Start date. This is typically the release date of the album on which the song was released. If the song was released as the B-side of a single, specify the release date of the single.

Some of the issues:
 * If the song was released on an album and also released as a single, should song or single be used? Should it be determined by which was released first or does any single release qualify for single?  What about minor (specialty, limited, etc.) or secondary market releases?
 * If released on both, should the earliest date be used or both? Should this apply to format(s), length(s), etc.?  If the single is re-released or the song added to another album, should the additional info be included?

Comments


 * Since an infobox should only present key facts about an article, many details on subsequent formats, release dates, labels, etc., are more appropriate for the body of the article. The guideline should reflect this:
 * The type should reflect the most notable release: if the song charted or otherwise known as a single, single should be used. If an album track was released years later as a single or in a secondary market, etc., that is not otherwise notable, use song.
 * "From the album" should not be identified for singles issued well in advance of the album.
 * For released, use the first commercial release date. If an album track also becomes a popular single, add that as a second date.  Dates of subsequent releases, remixes, album appearances, in other markets, etc., should not be included unless otherwise notable.
 * Format, length, label should reflect the same as type, with only other notable releases added.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In reply:
 * 1. Yes, absolutely. I'd even say – and taking "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" as an example (since it came up earlier in the year) – that, whether it became a chart hit in a primary market or not, a single released many years after the album should still be type=song. Reason being, the single is completely out of sync with the artist's work, and quite likely a move by a jilted record company. Having said that, I'm focusing on a song that was the opening track on the most eagerly anticipated album release of the 1960s, some would say the century, and no belated hit status is going to trump that for notability.
 * 2. Yep, and perhaps we should stipulate with some obvious examples ("Beck's Bolero", "Back on the Chain Gang").
 * 3. I can't decide on this – I've certainly got used to seeing released with a date for the single, ignoring the earlier album release, and that seems logical, imo. We are saying it's a single "from the album …", so the implication is there that the single has been pulled from a previous release. Taking that "Sgt. Pepper" example further, btw, my preference would be to include a singles chronology in the infobox as well as a sleeve image for the 1978 single. This acknowledges that there was a (notable) release in a separate format, and it ensures that the artist's singles chronology is not broken.
 * 4. Yes to the first half. I'd say that only length, e.g. when a song is edited down for its single release, is worth adding.

– JG66 (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

to reply to me 07:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 15:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) OK, just because a song was released at some point as a single, doesn't automatically mean that type=single be used. Maybe add "If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known. For example, "Stairway to Heaven" was released as a promo single in several markets and as a digital single in 2007, but it is best known as a song from Led Zeppelin's fourth album."
 * 2) Will add with examples.
 * 3) & 4) These should be bundled together. I've tried an example here, but maybe adding the album is overkill. Will try others.
 * —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The first (single) example might be better without the album release date & format; the second (song) doesn't add B-side, format, or chronology. Suggestions? Also, should class=plist be added to Released and Length or class=hlist (or neither)? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that first example, with album release and single reissue dates is too much (and what if there's a fourth or fifth notable release/reissue?) Basically, I still see the best way as outlined above: giving "released with a date for the single, ignoring the earlier album release ... We are saying it's a single 'from the album …', so the implication is there that the single has been pulled from a previous release." This approach seems to have been used widely across the encyclopaedia, from what I can see (I gave those Jackson or Springsteen, Stones, etc examples), so I think it's important to try to stick with the approach that many editors have used. The tricky thing is, in the current context, trying to interpret and present the logic behind this approach, long after the event.
 * For now at least, the common-usage approach should be followed, which would eliminate most of the "earliest" and "single-occrrence" only language in the guidelines (and leave out the extra details I tried). I'll make the changes. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From my experience, the inclusion of a second or more date should be reserved for examples where it's really useful in defining the particulars of a notable single. I just added a new example (and stuffed up the formatting for the heading, I'm afraid, such is my ignorance). In that example, "My Sweet Lord" was a double A-side release in November 1970 with "Isn't It a Pity", a huge worldwide hit, but was only released on a single in the UK the following January, with a different track on the flip side (the latter designated a B-side). I think a second date is needed in that instance, but not for the earlier (or later) album release, nor for a notable reissue of the single. JG66 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems appropriate, but at first glance two chronologies with the same header seems like an error (I don't know how else to present it though – my "Dream On" chronology attempt looks overdone). I added a couple of extra details for "Purple Haze", although the B-side may be better using plist. I'll ping  about adding class=plist for A-side, B-side, released, and length. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no list class provided by the template for those four parameters yet, and depending on song title length it might be better to use one or the other (hlist or ubl). Interestingly, adding the hlist class to the infobox overrides the plainlist class if added by ubl, but not the other way round, so the class could be added and hlist could be used if preferred. The wrapper and substitution currently convert tags in A-side/B-side to ubl, although it could be changed to add regular bullets I guess. Jc86035 (talk) <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left">Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Since class=plist is already used for recorded and studio, I thought it would be easier to use the same for the other four (class=ubl doesn't seem to work and  needs to be used instead of  ). The choice between ubl and hlist for each parameter would be a benefit, although it might complicate matters for the guideline and many editors. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (The class name is .) I'll add the class for those parameters then. Jc86035 (talk) <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left">Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * It appears that quote marks need to be added to the song titles if class=plainlist is used for A-side or B-side (see A-side vs B-side in "Dream On" example on Template:Infobox song/testcases). I'll explain this in the guidelines, unless you think it's worth changing. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's what I had in mind re "Sgt. Pepper", btw:, vs the current version. (It's infobox hell there, as we established a while back …) JG66 (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Added comments about SP on that talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Add link to sheet music (only open source, which is common for opera, lieder, and older songs) to song infobox
I propose an addition to the song infobox which allows the addition of an uploaded open source version of the sheet music of the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuess (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would lead to more infobox bloat. An infobox should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." (see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE)  There is no reason why a link in a relevant "Composition" section (where it may be used as a reference) needs to be added again to the infobox.  Also, there is the potential for abuse. It would not be possible to restrict the links to open sources (presumably because the songs themselves are in the public domain).  There are dozens (hundreds?) of guitar tab sites that are purely OR and often include lyrics still under copyright.  A similar parameter isn't included in Template:Infobox musical composition, which is the infobox that opera, lieder, and many older songs use. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Types for promo-only singles and digital downloads
I plan to re-categorize "No Me Ames" as,  , or simply   because the song was never released as commercial single but received radio airplay instead. However, that would default to using the background color of  or anything that is not. Can the promo-only singles use the same background color as  or , or which other color is best suited for promo-only singles?

Also, what about color setup for  or , intended for singles whose only format are digital downloads? George Ho (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with using "infobox song"? It's still a song, regardless of whether it was released as an individual single or not. And it wasn't just a promo release, it had a commercial release as the B-side to "If You Want My Love". Richard3120 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with "infobox song" (unless I don't know what you meant). It's... Well, cases vary individually. Recently, I just changed the template from "infobox single" to "infobox song" but then used "single" for the  parameter. Before the merger of two infoboxes, I tried switching templates a year ago; previously, "infobox song" didn't carry the infobox layout for singles. Someone else switched it back, leading to one discussion at an article talk page, then to another discussion at WT:SONGS, which led to "infobox single" becoming backwards-compatible with "infobox song". If I try changing from   to something else (i.e. using   by default), the change would be reverted. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would assume you are familiar with the changes made this year, right? George Ho (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did know about the changes, I just didn't understand why they would cause a problem with what you want to do. It seems like it's going to cause a lot of complications to try and change this to "promo", and I'm not sure it's necessary. Richard3120 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If adding another coding /more parameters for other types is unnecessary, I guess I should continue discussing just the song instead at Talk:No Me Ames and then forego the color-coding idea at the moment. I'll come back to this if I want to. Fair? George Ho (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC); amended, 04:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC); see below, 23:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind (almost?). Billboard referred "No Me Ames" as "single". Not only that, but also Radio.com, PopCrush, HuffPost, Vibe, one book and another book, and another book referred it as a "single". Other sources refer it as a "song" or "track" or something else. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my feeling... it seemed like an unnecessary recategorizacion to me, and one likely to be challenged. Richard3120 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ghost producers?
Should ghost producers be included in the Producer field? See this edit for context. -- ferret (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have thought you'd need a reliable source to prove that KSHMR was involved in producing the record in some way. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That aside, would they normally be included? (KSMHR's article uses this source. No comment on reliability, got pulled into this via a user talk page message). -- ferret (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Only if they're officially credited.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Vocal Production
Should we not credit somebody who produces vocals alongside those that produce the music? Much more in pop music, the music and vocals are sometimes produced by different people. In my eyes, and where credit is due, if a song has both vocals and a music backing track and the liner notes make reference to both producer (vocals) and producer, both should be listed in the infobox and tracklisting notes. The article Record producer lists vocal coaching as a competency and the article talks both about the vocals and music.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  19:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I most definitely agree Lil, vocal producers should be credited to the 'Producer' field together with the actual music producer! — Tom (T2ME) 20:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Producer field is for the person(s) credited with the overall production of the recording. Producers for components, such as vocals, orchestration, programming, etc., should be discussed in the article if noteworthy.  However, they should not be listed in the infobox, which should provide an overview or summary of the article and not all of the details. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If the individual is credited as a producer, they should be listed. The "executive producer" does not actually do the work of a producer and should not be listed in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have an issue with the words "credited with the overall production of the recording" for the reasons that songs are often a composition of both music and vocals. Both equally make up the overall recording. Where someone is credited for producing the vocals and someone else is credited for as the producer surely both should be credited? By suggesting that the person who is just credited as an overall producer is the only person(s) to be credited you're making an assumption that they may have worked on all elements of the song. Unless we have references and sources detailing all of the production notes and history I think logically we should credit all of those who are listed as "producers" regardless of whether this says instruments or vocals. Agree with Walter too that Executive producers don't actually do the same job as a record producer, they're more curators or overseers of a project  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  14:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is a misunderstanding of record production. A producer(s) is not just responsible for the music or instrumentation.  Unless otherwise noted, they are credited with the hands-on responsibility for the entire recording project, including the vocals.  (There may be an "executive" producer, which generally doesn't have a hands-on role).  It would be helpful to see specific examples where the "music" producer is identified separately from the "vocal" producer. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Lil Unique is talking about Camila (album), where Louis Bell and a couple of other people are indeed credited as recording and producing the vocals on some of the tracks. But the other producers aren't credited as producing the music, just as "producers", so that doesn't exclude their work on the vocals either. Bell and the others are credited for their additional production work in the track listing section, which seems the appropriate place to me. Richard3120 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Camila has producers listed for individual tracks. Some are included in the infobox, even if they only co-produced or produced the vocals for one song (Skrillex, T-Minus, Schoudel, the Futuristics, SickDrumz), and others are left out (Bell, Harrell).  Shatkin is not listed as a track producer nor in the "Production" personnel section, but is in the infobox.  This type of detail is not appropriate for the album infobox and in fact it is misleading – it is better discussed in the "Recording", "Personnel", and/or "Track listing" sections. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Substitution
Thank you for continuing the infobox substitution process and fixing errors, which I didn't get to finish last year.

I'm not sure where to put this, but I was also planning to add something which would allow, in the singles chronologies and track listings, the addition of brackets (e.g. "live", "acoustic", "remix") after the double quotes and before the brackets containing the year or the track number. I tried testing this with Module:Parse chronology, but I don't think I finished it and I'm not sure if it works. The module would allow, using Lua regexes, the display of e.g. "Song" (acoustic) where the input is.

I now don't think doing it this way would be a good idea since it would be much easier to put it in new parameters such as prev_track_type / prev_type, though this might require a bot run or a tracking category to find pages where some text needs to be moved outside the quotes. Currently the existence of brackets outside the quotes in the legacy parameters (commonly "(reissue)", which I personally don't think should be included in chronologies) causes a Module:String error. Do you think the the parameters should be added? Jc86035 (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I think that a parameter would be the easiest way to do this, although how would a bot find which one (reissue, live,acoustic, etc) it is supposed to be? -- The SandDoctor Talk 13:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume regular expressions? Having a tracking category or doing a regex search for,  , etc. within the parameters would probably flag most of them; and many of them are in unformatted brackets before the year (some of those brackets, e.g. "feat. Artist ", could be deleted semi-automatically or otherwise semi-automatically fixed). Currently the entire substitution is based on a complicated mess of Module:String calls, although regular (non-Lua) regexes like those in pywikibot and AWB might be better for future edits. Jc86035 (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So the album title parameter? Sorry for asking if it seems obvious, it's just that the bot needs specific things to look at, telling it to just "look at the template as a whole" can get complicated. It is far easier just to query specific parameters and run matches on specific ones. It is possible to run a pattern match on a whole template, it's just in my past experience, that can go more wrong than just querying specific parameters (using mwparserfromhell). Would be willing to give it a shot though (just need the total list of terms to look for). -- The SandDoctor Talk 14:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * These are the song titles in the chronology and track listing parameters; i.e. prev_title, next_title, prev_track, etc. in this template and in Extra chronology; and the deprecated Last single title, Last single etc. in Infobox single and Extra chronology. Jc86035 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A new parameter may be the solution, but it could be misused and lead to infobox clutter. Perhaps it can be set up to accept only defined terms (live, remix, etc.).  How many infoboxes use these? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a tracking category would probably be used to check for unusual values; only allowing several values might be a bit heavy-handed. I don't know how many infoboxes need this, and the use of the extra parameter might also depend on, for example, whether "(Remix)"/"(remix)" is semantically considered to be part of a song's actual name. Jc86035 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * From the few I've seen, It doesn't seem that the actual title of the release is regularly followed. Editors use a variety of descriptions, capitalization, and punctuation (dashes, colons, in and outside of the quote marks). It would be helpful to hear from those who actually use this. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think an RFC might be needed to ascertain whether the parentheticals should be considered descriptive or part of the proper name, given that I'm not aware of any guideline about this specific to song titles, and sources might not use quotation marks to indicate song titles. Jc86035 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , - if you're considering an RfC, you might want to check this out: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 17. Richard3120 (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

BPM
Should Beats per minute be added, Wikidata has a matching field and it gives a simple way for readers to see if its a slow, fast or medium paced song


 * Infobox song is more suited to commercially released recordings, which often aren't discussed in musical detail by reliable sources (key, time signature, tempo, form, etc.) If available, this info may be included in a "Composition" section.  As a practical matter, the terms "slow, fast or medium" are more readily understood by most readers than 60, 150, or 100 bpm. (As an alternative, see Template:Infobox musical composition). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Make it go away -- partial track listing
The last time we talked about this (some 15 months ago) it seemed like there was enough of a consensus to get rid of the partial track listing from the template documentation. The only person in the discussion that wanted to retain the partial track listing was User:Gonejackal, later blocked as a sockpuppet. So can we revisit the issue and get rid of the partial track listing? Or can we simply act upon the apparent consensus from March–May 2017?

My problem with the partial track listing is that it bloats the infobox unnecessarily (see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE), in by far the most cases it's unimportant what song came before and what song came after on the album, and if that information were actually important for a particular song, I think we should tell the reader in prose why it's important, not just list it without context. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree about getting rid of it, but what was the consensus in the end? It looks like it was to replace it with a collapsed full album track listing - I'm not sure even that's necessary, personally. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should replace the partial track listing with anything. If the album's full track listing is important, it will usually be present as a navigation box at the bottom of the article. And if it's important, then a prose description can be made in the article body. I don't want to see the infobox larded up with unimportant details – per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it should quickly supply the most important information, and not get bogged down in details. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the partial track listing is unnecessary, and we should ditch it if possible. I was in favour of the full, collapsed version because that at least offers something meaningful – it's giving the song's position in the context of the whole album rather than just the trivial matter of the tracks either side of it. But I wouldn't be averse to doing away with that option as well, which is what several of the editors at the 2017 discussion were saying anyway, I believe. JG66 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I only think a full, collapsed version is useful if the majority of songs on the parent album have their own individual articles, or maybe if it's from a concept album, because otherwise it's not normally important or relevant to know what other tracks are on the album the song is from – I could see the point in having a collapsed list for Sgt. Pepper or The Dark Side of the Moon, for example. But we should probably ping the other editors who were involved in that discussion, to make them aware of this new thread –, , , , and I think , and maybe  and  may want to have some input as well. Richard3120 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can someone link me to an example of it in an actual article currently? I just want to make sure I understand its practical usage. Sergecross73   msg me  17:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Little Lamb Dragonfly. Richard3120 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or Please Please Me (song), for a really cluttered infobox. JG66 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , perfect example of how too much information in the infobox makes it impossible to pick out key information. The album sequence is already included in the navbox at the bottom; the audio sample should probably go in the "Composition" or "Recording" sections; and the alternative cover (which isn't an alternative cover at all) should go in the "Original US release" section. Richard3120 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I see now. Yeah, I agree, it's not necessary. I think it's useful to go from an artists single to their previous/next single, but song to song on an album is much less useful considering usually albums don't have an article for every song, and if by chance it did, then there's usually a navigation template created for the bottom of the article for that. (or there's just working through the track list on the album article too.) Sergecross73   msg me  18:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, on all points. Because of the inclusion of an album navbox at the foot of the article, that partial track listing is actually a candidate for removal, it's just that the few of us who made a point of removing them from Beatles song articles haven't got around to that album's songs, I imagine. JG66 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

DO NOT INCLUDE TRACKLISTS IN INFOBOXES as they serve as needless filler and go against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, please remove that partial track list, it clutters the infobox unnecessarily. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 04:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There seems to be support for doing away with all track listings in infoboxes. Since they appear in so many articles, a RfC at WT:SONGS would be appropriate.  Maybe present several options:  remove all, remove partial listings, remove displayed full-album track listings, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , : Is this discussion sufficient for removing prev_track, this_no, next_track and the earlier prev_no, next_no, and related partial track listing parameters from the infobox and Template:Extra track listing? —Ojorojo (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like you are all in agreement to me. In theory, all that is needed is to remove the fields from the template - as unknown fields don't show, thus the partial track listing then vanishes. You can, of course, tidy the articles up and take out the lines, but with a low urgency. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 20:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds easy to me (the unseen misc info can be dealt with later). Are formal template edit requests needed? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox song is admin and template editor only - User:Jc86035 is a template editor, he can change the template, and just refer back to this discussion in the edit summary. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 21:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the visible code from the two templates, although some parts of each template and both templates' documentation still treat the parameters as if they still exist. Jc86035 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll update the documentations. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I noticed that when using subst: for an infobox that doesn't have single, parameters for a partial album track listing (prev_track, etc.) are added (along with prev_title, prev_year, etc.) when there were no fields. Is this what you mean by "as if they still exist"? Otherwise, can this function be removed? — Ojorojo (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. Jc86035 (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Jc86035 (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should album track listings be removed from infobox song?
A RfC has been opened at WT:SONGS. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Producer credits
What would be the best way to handle songs (or for that matter, albums) where the producer is unknown? For instance, I've searched high and low and have been utterly unable to find out who produced Ronan (song) or All Cried Out (Kree Harrison song). Allmusic says nothing, and Google searching extensively gives only false positives. Should the field say "unknown" or something to that effect, to differentiate from instances where the "producer" field was just left blank by mistake? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, leave it blank. The infobox is a summary of the article content, I think unknown should only be used where it is specifically referenced in the article, where there is a source to back it up. - X201 (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC on removing genre
There is an RFC on removing genres from music infoboxes at WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Request for comment on removing genres from musician, album, and song infoboxes — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Consistency
picking up on the thread from your talk page... (putting here for transparency) Any reason you went with &  instead of  & ? These would be much more consistent with the other parameters. I think we should make these all lowercase and underscored for consistency. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They're never referred to as "a side" or "b side", so I chose to keep them capitalized. There's some guidance in WP:IBX that recommends doing this for proper nouns, I think. Jc86035 (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * hmmmm. I guess I could see it both ways. IMHO I favor consistency with capitalization and using underscore. But unless there are other's who feel strongly, I don't see any reason to push the issue and am fine leaving it the way it is. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

YouTube links
I think that, since we're already linking to music videos in the infobox, we ought to also include authorized YouTube videos that present an audio recording and nothing else. But I'm not sure of the best way to achieve this. The example on the right is how I'd imagine the addition of youtube_id and youtube_title.

Is this a good/bad idea? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I think it would be more appropriate to include links to multiple streaming services (e.g. Spotify, Tidal), since only linking to YouTube is probably inappropriate where there are alternatives available. Wikidata could help with this, to some extent, although it's not really structured well enough at present as most YouTube links on items for songs/singles are links to the music video rather than to the audio-only "video". Jc86035 (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A big difference between YouTube and those other streaming services is that YouTube doesn't require user registration.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * YouTube Music is only available in 29 countries. For example, I cannot view that video right now (I am in Hong Kong). This makes it useless for most of the world. Deezer is available in 189 countries, but I can't access that either. Spotify covers about sixty countries. Jc86035 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing quotes from being automatically added
I've been noticing a number of issues with the fact that the template is forcing quotes to be added to templates around the song titles. For example see 'Round Midnight (song) where the title is super confusing. Additionally if the or  contain more than just the song name, the quotes surround the entire value. For example see the template to the right. I don't see any reason for the quotes to be automatically added. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Song titles should always be quoted, and prev_title and next_title should only contain the song title. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually the text is superfluous (in particular, "featuring" and "with" are usually unnecessary and can become unwieldy). I did start work on some functions of 12:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC) a module which would automatically place "(remix)" and "(acoustic)" outside the quotes per what is now in WP:MOSMUSIC, but I never implemented it in the template. Jc86035 (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * meh. I agree with you on not needing the extra stuff but it is still likely going to be put in. I don't see the need to add the quotes, but not a hill I want to die on. :-p -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Format
Any thought on removing the format parameter from this infobox? It's not included on the album infobox, and I was wondering if it's even relevant since the format will, for the most part, just match the technology of the time it was released: 50s through early 80s: 7 inch or 45 rpm, 80 and 90s: cassette and CD, 2000s: CD and digital download, 2010s: digital download and streaming. Also, isn't the "format" for both downloads and streaming the same: digital. Is a download an actual format? Is the act of streaming music a format? Anyway, it seems unnecessary in the infobox, and if it is important to note, it can be done so in the text. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. A lot of recent singles have had vinyl special editions released, for example. I agree that it might not necessarily be that useful, though.
 * Perhaps it's more useful than it would be in an album infobox, because many older albums have been (automatically?) published to streaming services by record labels. Jc86035 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove Oddly enough I came to this talk page to suggest the same thing Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove Besides Star's reasoning, it can be misleading – some editors add subsequent reissue formats, so they do not coincide with the release date (to add all formats, release dates, labels, etc., would overburden the box and be contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Better to explain in a "Releases" section. Also, it's only used for singles, not songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 March 2019
For the infoboxes of multilingual songs (see ), it would be useful to have bullet points be formatted into a hlist without having to transclude the hlist template (consistent with songwriters and producers). Minor but convenient addition. TheKaphox  T  20:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * please work up your change in the sandbox (Template:Infobox song/sandbox) and validate the testcases first, then reactivate the edit request. If you don't intent to make this edit and just want to discuss someone else making the edit, they can continue to disucss in this section. Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk 01:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Mixtape parameter
Would it be possible to add a mixtape parameter like with the EP/album parameters. For example Don't Call Me Up is a single from Ivy to Roses which is a mixtape, not an album or EP.  Cool Marc  09:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an  field to cover all possibilities would be the way forward. - X201 (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The types in this infobox should match the types of Template:Infobox album and should probably be implemented as X201 suggested. --Gonnym (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the parameter is used to identify the first (prior) release of the single and will generate "from the album (or EP, etc.)". Singles are usually later "added to" rather than "from" greatest hits, remix, box, compilation, etc., so many of the Infobox album types are not applicable. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually is not always. As a quick example Primal Scream (song) an original song from the compilation album Decade of Decadence 81-91. I'm pretty sure that a lot songs can be found similar to this. --Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But isn't how it currently reads "from the album Decade of Decadence" sufficient to identify it? (after all, it is an album) I'm not sure there are enough of these to justify complicating the parameters and the process of converting them. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * well, it is definitely needed in the case of a mixtape parameter for the sake of accuracy. The prose is now saying mixtape and the infobox is saying album, so what is the truth?  Cool Marc  04:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be an easy answer – Ivy to Roses is included in Category:2017 mixtape albums (itself included in Category:Mixtape albums by year (that are further categorized as 2017 albums and Albums by year). The mixtape article (incredibly lacking inline citations) sometimes explains it as an album or EP. The infobox EP= parameter is only used in about 141 out of 62,000+ song articles (Mar. 1, 2019, report).  At some point, adding more/changing parameters for such a small percentage of cases may be akin to feature creep. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Caption
The parameter guidance for "cover" and "caption" is out-of-date. The caption "[Article name]" cover is no longer automatically produced when cover is used and caption is missing or left blank. Propose to change the wording as follows:

cover
Add an image of a sheet music cover, picture sleeve, or other image appropriate for the song. First, one must be uploaded (see Uploading images for details). Then, enter the file name (without File:) into the field, such as. This will automatically produce the caption "[Article name] cover" beneath the image if the caption field is not used.

caption
If something other than the automatically generated "[Article name] cover" is desired, add the description here. If there is an image, a suitable caption may be added that follows MOS:CAPTION (begins with a capital letter, no period at end if it is a sentence fragment, etc.) Please note that if the image is unambiguously a picture sleeve or record label for the release that is described in the infobox, then it is "self-captioning", and a caption is unneeded.

Sometimes my computer displays things differently than others; if the auto function still works, let me know or I'll go ahead with the changes. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

List of genres - capitalize the first letter, or not?
Should the first item in the "genre" parameter (for a song article) be capitalized? The infobox template for musical artists says "Most genres are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. However, the first word in a list of multiple genres should be capitalized." But the template for song infoboxes doesn't mention capitalization either way. So...what's the proper formatting for song infoboxes? Thanks! Big universe (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For genres, this infobox follows infobox album and musical artist, so the two sentences have been added. Maybe adding something like the "Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop) and preferably use two to four" and "Genres that are sourced in the article itself do not require a source in the infobox, but sometimes it can be useful to have the source listed again anyway, to help prevent edit warring. A hidden comment such as  can also be used to this end" would also be a good idea. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ojorojo, sorry for the delay (offline for a bit)—thanks so much for your help! Big universe (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on naming countries in infoboxes
A RfC which may affect this infobox's studio and venue parameters has been opened at WT:WikiProject Music. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding short description
As was successfully done for Infobox album (see discussion), I'd like to propose adding a short description to this template too. The code I've created in Template:Infobox song/sandbox generates short descriptions of the form "year type by artist", e.g "2000 single by Spice Girls" for Holler (Spice Girls song) or "1967 single by the Beatles" for Penny_Lane, which are generally improvements or as good as the Wikidata short descriptions (being often just "single" or "song"). Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. As I've seen recently in a couple of additions to album articles (eg this one), it would be good if a band name appeared with lower-case "the", where applicable, per MOS:THEMUSIC. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it be reasonable to always lowercase the initial "the" in a band name when generating the short description? A short description is not really running prose so it may actually make more sense to use infobox casing with capitalized "the". Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Song articles may be about several renditions and have multiple infoboxes. For example, "Train Kept A-Rollin'" can be described as "1951 single by Tiny Bradshaw", but the article is more about several of the renditions of the song, rather than just one. So an auto generated short description from the infobox may not be any better than "Song". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind you; "a song first recorded by ... Tiny Bradshaw in 1951" is true for the song, regardless of its multitude of versions.  17:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps can clarify, but the suggested template code would only add "1951 single by Tiny Bradshaw", without the additional explanation. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry yeah, I wasn't quite firing on all cylinders there. I wonder what percentage of pages using would have an arguable short desc if extracted from the infobox data, and how low that percentage would need to be to be acceptable? As long as the automatic short descs can be overridden by a manual, and the percentage of whoopsies is acceptably low, we can always run around afterwards cleaning up.   20:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, & others with the know-how: Would it be possible to see a list of all WP pages that have multiple (two or more) Infobox songs? It might help decide this issue of how many song articles are not about one rendition and therefore may not benefit from a short description based on info extracted from the first infobox. Thanks. [Addressed by Galobtter] —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , no short description is added to articles with more than one infobox song (including Train Kept A-Rollin') by the current sandbox code. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've seen several short descriptions added to song articles with multiple infoboxes, but that must be using a different code. Are any more excluded by the suggested code? I'm thinking about song articles that have discussions of "cover versions" or are traditional-type songs or standards where the focus is less on one rendition (The Gospel Train, Frankie and Johnny (song), Deep in the Heart of Texas, etc.). —Ojorojo (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , those are semi-automatically added short descriptions taken from Wikidata; the Wikidata descriptions are probably bot added (by different code). Frankie and Johnny (song) doesn't have an infobox song in the lead, so it would be ignored. Unless the cover versions are very notable/more notable than the original song, there's no space in the short description to talk about them (they are meant to be short of course) - in how many cases would you say that is the true? As Fred said, I think a small percentage of short descriptions that need improvement is fine as long as the number of really incorrect descriptions is nonexistant/very very small - it still saves a lot of human effort. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Famous last words... "the last few can be cleaned up manually"! From my experiences with the last few mergers, etc., after a couple of years and we're still trying to fix things.  With 64,000+ song articles, a small percentage could still be 2,000–3,000, so a cautious approach would be prudent.  Maybe "19XX song", "Song first recorded in 19xx" or "Song written by Bob Smith".  That would leave out naming a single artist (genres are very problematic). Some recent additions don't seem very short – "1929 song with lyrics by Charley Patton performed by Charley Patton".  I'd like to hear some other approaches. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Searching  returned 4,506 articles with more than one. 01:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe these and song articles without an infobox in the lead (or whole article) should be put in a tracking category "Pages needing manual short descriptions" or similar. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. Ideally, a description shouldn't be auto-generated for these cases if possible. Lua can parse page content to determine the presence of multiple infoboxes, then add the tracking category instead of the short desc.  16:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone through several articles and have some questions:
 * Short descriptions have been added to song articles that repeat info already in the title, such as I'm a Man (Bo Diddley song) → "Song by Bo Diddley". According to WP:SHORTDESC "Duplication of information already in the title is to be avoided." Will the suggested code skip these? (I've added to a couple, but it doesn't seem to overwrite the largely duplicated Wikidata description, such as Mercy, Mercy (Don Covay song))
 * Although they use single, most articles are about "songs", which may have been released as singles at some point. A fully-developed article addresses all aspects of a song, not just one aspect of it. Is there really a benefit in using "2000 single by X" vs. "2000 song by X"?
 * Articles about more traditional songs and standards often only have one infobox (usually in the lead). However, to identify them as "1930 song/single by X" overemphasizes one rendition. The description added to "Train Kept A Rollin'" is a better solution "Song first recorded by X in 1930". Alternatively, when the songwriter is known, "Song written by X".
 * When a later rendition is better known than the original, a better description may be "Song popularized by X", such as Crawling King Snake. (Sometimes the article is too short to support an additional infobox).
 * Does this include a  similar to what was suggested for infobox album? (It doesn't appear to have been added to the documentation to explain its use).
 * —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, there are some problems to be worked out (see WT:Short description and WT:Short description). Using Short description should overwrite descriptions from Wikidata and those auto-generated from the infoboxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Probs with bold song titles in singles chronologies
Please see Rain (Beatles song) or Old Brown Shoe. In both cases, the title of the other side of the 7-inch/45rpm single is also rendered bold, and the entry now begins and ends with two set of double quote marks/inverted commas. Anyone able to fix this perhaps? Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article song title should appear first in the regular chronology title (although this is unnecessary, since it's auto generated from the article title & bolded) and not as title2 (which is not bolded). Extra chronologies for double A-sides should use:

<pre style="overflow:auto;">
 * misc        =
 * Regular infobox chronologies for double A-sides should use (no need to use extra chrono):

<pre style="overflow:auto;"> "Rain", both are bolded, since anything in that parameter is auto bolded. Please see my test edit, which uses Rain and Paperback Writer in the extra chrono – only "Rain" is bolded. Anyway, this all might be moot, since the articles identify "Rain" as the B-side and "PW" as the A-side. Therefore, only the subject song should be included in the chrono. Two songs should only be included for double A-side singles. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC) , parathetical info "(UK)", "(live)", etc. Basically, anything except one song name (without any other info) per "title" field and one year per "year" field will trigger error messages. As far as I know, trying to add or remove bolding won't work, but you may want to confirm this with a template editor. Problems like these seem like another reason to get rid of infobox chronologies. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * chronology   = The Beatles
 * prev_title   = Get Back
 * prev_title2  =
 * prev_year    = 1969
 * title2       = The Ballad of John and Yoko
 * next_title   = Something
 * next_title2  = Come Together
 * next_year    = 1969
 * The article indicates that OBS is the B-side, so it's unclear why a double A-side format should be used; the regular single chronology format is used for "Balllad" (the "next_title" field for that infobox needs to be fixed though). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this and for your reply. Have to say, I don't get it at all. Why are we setting another song title in bold as well? The singles navbox renders in bold only the subject of the article, not the companion A-side. I see other examples where this phenomenon isn't in place – in the same way that the non-US chronology at Rain currently has it – perhaps because there might be some outdated markup involved, I don't know. And I'm sure, going back years, this approach of setting in bold both sides of a single in articles dedicated to a B-side was not the way it was done. It doesn't make sense and it's not consistently applied. JG66 (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The version of "Rain" you linked doesn't use the proper extra chrono template format (see the first code example above for the correct parameters). Since both songs are incorrectly included as "Paperback Writer" /
 * Again, that makes no sense, imo. And it's not supported by any source – I can give 30 sources at least that say the US single following "Nowhere Man" was "Paperback Writer", and that "Rain" was only the B-side. If you're saying this version is correct, we're presenting it incorrectly. When was this implemented, do you know? – I feel I must have missed something because there's no way I could have failed to notice this issue before. Why can't we just manually mark up the bold where it applies, without messing with the facts by implying that a B-side was an A-side? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My test edit shows the correct use of parameters in the current Infobox song and Extra chronology only. I have no position regarding what is an A-side vs B-side vs double A. The current templates have a lot of auto features, which are screwed up by including extraneous info in the fields, such as quote marks,
 * Ah yes, "another reason to get rid of infobox chronologies" – now, that does make perfect sense(!) JG66 (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I remembered being able to force a year (rather than be auto generated), so I tried it for title for both the regular and extra chronologies and they worked (I doubt these were intended, but...). They might give you the order you want, but the article title song is still bolded (see tests). —Ojorojo (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That looks great, especially the example (for Rain) with the second singles chronology. Big thanks for taking the time to experiment. JG66 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The template still has some old code that can be manipulated for unintended results. It's unclear why the A-side should appear twice in the infobox (in A-side and again in the chrono). Since the A-side is already clearly identified, having only the B-side in the chrono (as is the current practice) does not imply that it is the A-side. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree – I think listing the B-side alone there does indeed imply it's the A-side. The context is "[Artist] singles chronology", and it is/was very common to refer to a single by only its A-side – ie, "the 'Paperback Writer' single" – but not so the flip. I'm very surprised to hear it's now common practice here (when and how did that come about, do you know?). Because, I don't believe it would be common practice anywhere else to list a B-side alone in a singles chronology that gives A-sides for the preceding and following releases. JG66 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree to disagree. For "Rain", the first field shows "Paperback Writer", which is sufficient, IMO. Check out other mostly 1960s songs where this practice has been common for some time (although even earlier, B-sides only used Infobox song instead of Infobox single, which now may seem like a better approach). I'm surprised this is being raised now; title2 (for double A-sides) was added May–June 2017 during the merger with Infobox single and the template upgrade and most of the chrono clutter was subsequently removed. I didn't support the idea – I prefer the "key facts" approach. If the reader needs to see discographical info, there are better ways to do it. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken, and I guess I must've been asleep all this time if I failed to notice this issue before now. As you've said, it is another reason why these chronologies end up so problematic. From my point of view, it seems like yet another example of how attempting to mould facts (that receive abundant coverage) into a Wikipedia one-size-fits-all model goes against how they're presented in dozens, even hundreds, of reliable sources. Thanks anyway. If you or anyone else feel that the chronologies for Rain, Old Brown Shoe, etc should be changed back and "corrected" to suit the accepted approach, I'd understand. Given the situation we've discussed before – whereby at, say, Nowhere Man (song) two infoboxes appear for the one recording – I can't say I'm too confident that Wikipedia goes about these things in a very intelligent way; or, rather, that editors are interested in recognising or addressing any problems that might require a departure from the one-size-fits-all approach. JG66 (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes should try to accommodate the variations that come up (the compromise solution is OK for now). However, infoboxes are also designed for automated features (repeated info, quotes, bolding, etc.) and to facilitate bot operations (imagine implementing changes by hand for 70K articles). This requires a certain amount of standardization. I think a lot of what people feel is essential information is really just what they are used to seeing and has become ingrained. Are a couple of single details (format, B-side, before/after) so important to the Nowhere Man article that a second infobox is needed for the same recording?
 * Many of the track listings have been moved out of the infobox to a navbox at the bottom. A similar approach should be explored for chrono/discographical info. Since only linked info may currently appear in a navbox, some other solution is needed – maybe some kind of collapsible navbox/mini-discography hybrid. With some modifications, it seems that Template:The Beatles singles could handle all the chrono info (as could Template:The Beatles albums for albums). Since there is so much focus on "releases" and commercial performance (most WP so-called "Discographies" are overwhelmingly chart and sales statistics), others may dismiss any improvements as inconsequential.
 * —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on producer entries in infobox album
A discussion has begun at WT:ALBUMS regarding the producer parameter used in that infobox. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The term "digital download" is redundant and needs to be removed as a standard for the format field
All downloads are digital by nature, therefore the word "digital" doesn't need to be included when downloads are mentioned in an article or infobox. It's as simple as that. Using it would be as ridiculous as using "digital streaming" instead of simply "streaming" in the infobox. I've been told that this is the "widely accepted" way of noting a download format in the infobox, which in turn means that we're promoting redundancies, which I thought was something we try to avoid when editing Wikipedia. Pinging and  as I have been involved in edit exchanges with them both over this issue. I think it's time for a change here. Aria1561 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFCBEFORE, I see no prior discussion, no edit warring; so you don't need a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for this. Just discuss in the normal way. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See: prior discussion on MarioSoulTruthFan's talk page and edit history for No Time to Die (song). Aria1561 (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It would have helped if you had linked those at the very start. We shouldn't need to look through the archives of the talk page for a user who was only mentioned as the target of a template, nor look at the history of a page that wasn't mentioned at all. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While I haven't gone through all the history behind this, WP should try to be encyclopedic and not just fall back on "that's how it's always been done". On the other hand, is format even needed in infoboxes? It's not used for songs (just singles) and Template:Infobox album doesn't use it. A discussion (Template talk:Infobox song/Archive 8) was began almost a year ago, but didn't go anywhere. Maybe it's time to revisit the issue. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One issue at a time, please. While the format field is still being used, this is the issue that needs to be discussed. Aria1561 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Parse chronology
Module:Parse chronology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 22:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Track listings in the infobox
Am I right in understanding Template:Infobox song, in that a track listing template should not be included in the infobox if the song already has a navbox at the bottom of the article and appears in that navbox? An editor has been creating these templates for various albums, such as Template:Future Nostalgia (Dua Lipa album) track listing and Template:Rare (Selena Gomez album) track listing, but even though it's true that most of the songs have their own article (as is the case these days, usually most of the album's tracks will be released as singles of some sort), I thought that it wasn't standard practice to include these templates. Richard3120 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * During the discussion which led to the discontinuance of partial track listings, several editors felt that no track listings should appear in infoboxes. However, the follow-up discussion received no comments. So the infobox "track listing examples" entries just reflect the current practices, rather than what many may agree with. One problem with album navboxes is that some editors will remove any unlinked or red linked entries as not meeting navigation purposes, leaving less than a full track listing. One solution for popular artists like Gomez and Lipa is a "songs" navbox, such as Template:Beyoncé songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks – I guess what I mean is that I look at the documentation and it specifically says, "An album track listing may be added to infobox song as long as the following criteria are met: 1) the article does not have a navbox in which the song appears...". In these cases, the navboxes Template:Selena Gomez and Template:Dua Lipa include all the bluelinked songs in the track listing template, and the navboxes do appear in each of the song articles. So it appears that criterion 1) is not being met here. I stated in the original discussion that I was entirely in favour of removing these track listings altogether... I'm not sure why I never saw the follow-up discussion, I would definitely have voted "remove". Richard3120 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Arguably, the links in the artist navboxes should make track listings unnecessary (the Robert Johnson artist navbox example). One could remove the Gomez and Lipa infobox track listing templates and see what develops. Actually, tracks is not used that much (676 out of 65K infoboxes) and maybe whether they should continue to be used could be revisited. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried a soft approach here. We'll see. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

odd case: 7eventh Time Down
There's an issue with linking the chronology of the singles for the band 7eventh Time Down. It can be seen What About Tonight (song) where it capitalizes the first letter, and there's no article at 7Eventh Time Down. It's easy enough to fix by using a redirect there, but it would also be easy enough to fix by not forcing a cap on the first letter in the word if it's not the first letter in the string. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The direct cause is by . I'm wondering why they didn't use the   parser function instead:
 * → 7eventh Time Down
 * -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't work with wikilinks, which are very common in artist:
 * → The Beatles
 * I'll see if I can refine the upper-casing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . Ping me if you see any bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . Ping me if you see any bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Automatic capitalization
The artist name capitalization is causing issues for songs by artists whose names start with non-English characters, such as "La Vie en rose" by Édith Piaf. Is it possible to fix this? I think the issue stems from Module:String2, which only capitalizes the letters that are part of the alphabet of the wiki's content language, but I'm not sure what should replace it. Jc86035 (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That pesky string module. I have expanded the documentation. I don't know of a way to work around the string module's limitations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Image?
I am seeing a growing trend of users uploading YouTube thumbnails, and digital .PDF booklet images as cover images for songs. Is this appropriate, per what the template calls for?  livelikemusic    talk!  20:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to see some examples. Generally, MOS:IMAGES should be followed. Since most are under copyright, WP:FAIRUSE also applies. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too. And are you talking about, say, screenshots from a video on an artist's offical YouTube channel?
 * The booklet images I can understand, in the case of artwork dedicated to the song. I went to some length to find supporting commentary (per Fair Use justification) to include a lithograph used to accompany Ringo Starr's "I'm the Greatest" in the song's album artwork. It appears in our article under Release, accompanied by the supporting commentary; I suppose it could easily sit in the infobox instead. JG66 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * See "Follow God," "Watermelon Sugar" and this file history as examples. User(s) continue to state the inclusion of those images are acceptable per this template.  livelikemusic    talk!  23:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm tempted to say yes, it's okay, based on how great that image looks at "Watermelon Sugar"(!) ... But it seems an odd approach, for us to grab what we think is a suitable artwork image – we should be using what is indisputably the official artwork. Having said that, is it any different from using an opening title image at articles for TV shows (eg, Back to the Egg (TV program))? JG66 (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to the Harry Styles single, I notice the same image accompanied the announcement of the single. Which suggests that it was authorised by the record company and was the "official" image for the single release, I guess. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * [r to ] "acceptable per this template"? The parameter guidance only says "Add an image of a sheet music cover, picture sleeve, or other image appropriate for the song". Since it does not provide any further specifics, what is "appropriate" should be decided by consensus on the article talk page (and consistent with the guidelines I linked previously). Maybe the parameter instruction should be expanded to limit images to those that are used officially to market the song or single (not a random screen shot or miscellaneous promo photo). Why someone is frequently swapping images around (busywork?) is another question. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am busy reviewing "Follow God" for GA now and this is the first time I have seen a lyric video screenshot being used in the cover art parameter in the Infobox. I could not find any consensus or discussion about this type of use. I'm honestly not convinced if this is appropriate use as I don't see this screenshot being used to promote the single anywhere else. Any of your comments would be appreciated. Thank you.  Cool Marc  ✉   21:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that image helps "illustrate the topic of the article", as the fair use rationale would state – it's just the artist's name and the song's title. This is already in the infobox anyway, so I can't see what additional information it's providing the reader. Richard3120 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like an image-for-the-sake-of-an-image and definitely not encyclopedic. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Multiple albums to a single tune
Hi, this is a very minor request, in the case of Pressure Drop (song), the single was used for two albums which are significant in their own ways. However, the infobox says, "From the album Monkey Man and The Harder They Come"... which is only decipherable because one album is linked and the other isn't. Honestly, I haven't noticed this anywhere else, but I just said I'd let you know it was there. ~ R.T.G 06:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Normally, only the original album release is include in album (if not released previously as a single). In this case, the 1970 album Monkey Man (no article to link to) appears to be the original release; it was later added to the various artists The Harder They Come 1972 soundtrack. Identifying compilations, reissues, soundtracks, etc., is for the main body, such as in a "Releases" section, if noteworthy. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, just Monkey Man in the infobox, but it should definitely be mentioned in the text that it was included on the soundtrack for The Harder They Come, a very notable reggae album and one one of Rolling Stone's Top 500 albums, I think. Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You could limit the number of lines, so that people don't list, for instance, every album a Bob Marley track is on. Then the writer of the article could decide, given that they do anyway. You could limit it to two or three. Or you could just add a second parameter, albums, then the decision could be made specifically as needed. ~ R.T.G 20:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Important discussion about singles and when to include in the album infobox
See Talk:Brightest_Blue. Thanks ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 11:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Names
When it comes to Template:Track listing, we list an individual's full name and link it once and from there on we only use their last name. I was wondering how this applies to this template. For example, on Wave (Meghan Trainor song), should it be listed as: or Both names are already mentioned ("Single by Meghan Trainor featuring Mike Sabath") so I'm just wondering what would the general guideline be in listing their full names again. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 22:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Songwriter(s): Meghan Trainor, Mike Sabath
 * Producer(s): Mike Sabath
 * Songwriter(s): Trainor, Sabath
 * Producer(s): Sabath
 * From what I've seen, full names do usually appear each time. I think it's fine, because in the infobox we're talking about quite different (and important) credits, whereas in a track listing we're using a contributor's surname in instances where the individual receives further examples of the same type of credit (writer, vocalist or producer). JG66 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Format section
This issue was brought up previously by another user and including them, there were three users who supported the removal of the format parameter. I think that it's worth bringing up again, as I too agree that it should be removed for the reasons that were discussed previously. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 22:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove format It has limited use and is not used for songs (or albums). If the format is important, it should be mentioned in an appropriate section, where its significance can be explained ("the 12-inch release included a dance mix") and referenced. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I usually work on articles about songs from the 1960s and '70s, format seems fairly redundant to me (further to the point raised at the previous discussion about release format(s) simply reflecting contemporaneous technology). On the other hand, I can't help seeing it as significant at Miss You (Rolling Stones song) that the single was also available as a 12-inch single, at a time when that was very rare for a white rock act. Either way, I'd say it's best to notify WP:Songs for wider discussion; perhaps open an RfC also to seal the deal. JG66 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: would you also be in favour of removing the format from discography sections like this one, for the same reasons that it's irrelevant? Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, studio albums, live albums, compilations, etc., have a place in articles, although their formats are not mentioned in infoboxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove per the points in last year's discussion. Thanks for bringing this back up. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove: as noted, most releases will simply reflect the formats available at the time – if the single is released in an unusual format (e.g. 7" single in the 2020s, coloured vinyl or picture disc in the late 1970s and 1980s, etc.) it's very likely that there are reliable sources noting these types of releases. It hardly seems vital information to put in the infobox anyway... I'm not sure how many readers will care what format(s) a single from 1983 was released on, they're not going to buy it in that format now and it's not really relevant to the song's composition, critical reception or chart performance, unless as JG66 notes above for example, a 12" version contributes significantly to sales of the song, as certain 12" singles did in the late 1970s. But again, this will probably be noted in reliable sources and is better suited to the prose in the text body, rather than simply listed in the infobox without further information. Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove per Ojororo & last year's discussion. 0qd (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I just also wanted to note that I've been noticing a trend of users using digital download and streaming for release formats for singles, despite the fact that they haven't been released on those formats as singles. Just as part of an album. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 11:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove - formats from infobox, per discussion. With respect to the comment directly above, I disagree that digital release of songs as part of albums should be removed from release history sections dedicated specifically to this information. The average reader just wants to see when a song was first released, they aren't interested to know if it was "as singles" or "just as part of an album". The date a song was first made available to download/stream is very basic information that shouldn't be missing from its article. So.. have to disagree with removal of sourced information like what was done here.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 12:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points, but what constitutes a reliable source for WP to identify a release as a "single" or whether non-singles should have a release history should be treated separately. Since it affects more than the infobox, perhaps open a RfC at WT:SONGS for wider input. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the release parameter is sufficient enough to cover when the song was released. A release history shouldn't be included unless it actually is a history... if there's only one date it's not necessary in my opinion. But nonetheless, that is an entirely different discussion. I just think it's semi-related to this because I have seen a lot of people putting songs as being "digital download / streaming" as the format, but what about CD, cassette, vinyl, which they are also available on nowadays? It may not have been released as a single on that format, but it was still released on that format. If a song is featured as part of an album, it by default is on all of the same formats that the album was released on, so the information is redundant. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 13:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be a clear consensus (between this discussion and the previous one) to remove the format parameter from this infobox. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 18:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I have removed format and Format from the main body of the template and the parameter error checks. The 50,000+ articles using these parameters will appear in . I did not modify the substing code. If there is post hoc objection to this removal, I'm happy to revert it or to have another template editor revert this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The documentation page has been updated to reflect the consensus. There's probably no hurry to decide what to do with the 50K+ uses and editors will likely still copy and use older infobox templates to no effect. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will sometimes "subst" an infobox in general editing if it's a bit of a mess; if using that method will it remove the "format" parameter? Thanks. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you take a look at this, please? It doesn't look like using subst: removes format=. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't surprise me. I explained above that I didn't mess with the substing code. Is that code causing any actual problems in actual articles? If so, please include a diff, and I'll take a look. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really cause a problem, but using subst: doesn't "return a cleaned-up copy of itself [the infobox] with unnecessary parameters removed and deprecated parameters replaced" as mentioned in the template documentation. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 September 2020
the "" should imo not be bolded in the infobox heading, as theyre obviously not part of the song name, e.g. "Songname"---> "Songname" --91.64.153.66 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 91.64.153.66 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:INFOBOX includes: "The template should have a large, bold title line. Either a table caption or a header can be used for this." Perhaps this should be taken up on that talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Quotation marks should not be in boldface
Nearly eight years after the discussion recorded in Template talk:Infobox song/Archive 3, the template is still using boldface for the quote marks in the heading of the infobox. This is contrary to the way we do the styling of the corresponding article titles. The same issue is still handled much better by Infobox television episode. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These are the lines concerned:  The quotes are bolded because the   class applies to the whole cell. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a consensus at that discussion. The issue should probably be brought to the relevant MOS talk page so that it can be consistent across all infoboxes where quote marks would be in the title. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)