Template talk:Infobox single/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

Any thoughts on what to do when there are multiple notable cover versions of a single?

I just tweaked "Always on My Mind" and I noticed how the use of this template led to a poorly formatted article. Basically on what's in the current version of this article, the two most successful cover versions of this song were by Willie Nelson and Pet Shop Boys, yet only the PSB cover gets the infobox treatment, and with two covers it dominates the article, overflowing into the "other covers" section.

I could of course simply create one or two or even three more infoboxen on the page, one for Willie, another for Brenda Lee (the first single), and the third for Elvis Presley (since his version came out the same year as Lee's and did better). It would be a struggle to flesh out the various narrative sections of the article to force the infoboxen to stay within the per-release single sections written for each notable release.

Has someone already come up with a way to deal with this? If not, here are the options that I can think of:

  1. Perhaps the answer in this case to have three articles: "Always on My Mind" would be the overview article, with {{main}} links in the two sections for the versions by Nelson and PSB. Those {{main}} links would link to "Always on My Mind (Willie Nelson)" and "Always on My Mind (Pet Shop Boys)", respectively.
  2. Another option, less appealing to me, would be to move the two cover images into the PSB section as a <gallery> or something similar. This could be accompanied by a style guide convention that says less-notable versions of a well-known song should get a pared-down infobox.
  3. The most dramatic departure would be to change this infobox to support some sort of feature that results in a smaller version, perhaps through collapsing or some other design change.

Something should be done; the status quo is unsatisfactory. 72.244.206.156 (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC).

Option #1 might work, but I think you'd find those articles re-merged back into this...I'm frankly a bit surprised to not see Elvis' version on its own page, as well-known as it seemed to be. #2 is out of the question, since we cannot have fair-use image galleries. #3 is always possible, but that may take a very long time to come to a consensus on. However, there are some alternatives. One is to remove the infoboxes altogether...having just one seems biased against the others. Or, you could try removing all of the images...that may free up some room, but probably not enough. You could leave out some parts of the infobox, such as the Chronology line, the writers and producers...leave just the material that wouldn't work well in prose...the technical stuff. Plenty of options...just play around with it. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually made an infobox for this kind of problem - template:Infobox Standard. It was supposed to deal with all songs, and features only information relevant to the song as a piece of music, rather than as a particular recording (writer's name, but no running time, producer, etc.). I figured it would satisfy the kind of infobox lust that leads people to use the single box where it's not really appropriate, although I didn't have the stamina to edit it into a lot of pages. It works quite well in situations like this where there's been a few covers and the original song isn't really thought of as a single, per se - see Wheel of Fortune (song) and Route 66 (song) for example. Flowerparty☀ 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ohh, nicely done Flowerparty, I'd not seen that before. Looks very useful...has it been advertised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard or such? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was a couple of years ago - before that noticeboard existed, apparently. It's not in that many articles so I guess it's not that visible. Maybe I'll crowbar it into a few more.. Flowerparty☀ 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:Huntster, Flowerparty's {{Infobox Standard}} sounds like a useful option. Its name might even been a bit limiting, since some editors might think a song has to be a standard (music) (e.g. jazz standard) in order to get the {{Infobox Standard}} treatment. Regardless, I'm going to give it a try soon, and expect to find it appropriate for many cases where multiple cover versions are notable. Thanks. 68.167.253.148 (talk) [previously known as 72.244.206.156 (contribs)] 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
Possibly. It's probably more to do with the fact it was sitting in my user space for a long time till someone found it and moved it to its current title. I always wanted to call it Infobox Song, but that was already occupied by this, which should really be called Infobox Album track. Sigh.. the whole system is warped. Flowerparty☀ 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging {{Extra album cover 2}}, {{Audiosample}}, and {{External music video}} with this template

Right now, there are at least three commonly used "add-on" templates to the Infobox Single template. This is creating a mess in article mark-up, so I think it might be a good idea for us to discuss integrating some or all of them into this template. If there are policy issues that would preclude people from commonly using these as parameters (as mentioned in the audio sample discussion above), we should explain that in the template instructions. By not supporting any of the functionality that these add-on templates provide, however, we are only driving people to work around the template. This isn't helping with policy issues (as only {{External music video}} provides any sort of instructions about appropriate use), and it's causing the wikicode to get really messy in some articles. I would like to propose that we add the following new parameters with detailed instructions on their use:

  • Alt cover - image file
  • Alt cover size - number of pixels
  • Alt cover caption - text
  • Alt cover border - yes or no
  • Audio sample - audio file
  • External video - link to external video

Obviously these won't cover every possible scenario, but for 99% of singles I think these will cover it. Here are existing examples of the use of one or more of these add-on templates (so you can see what they do):

Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While merging everything into one is normally good, the nice thing about using external templates is that you can use multiple copies of the template and arrange the different ones in whatever order you want dependant on the situation at hand (of course, this should not be overused). Unless the merged result can do this without significantly bloating the code, it might be a be better to standardise both code and documentation on the external templates used. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Misc" parameter example

Please add one - I don't understand how to use it.

Looks like a very nice template though. Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge (editprotected)

{{editprotected}}

I'd like to propose that {{Infobox Song}} be merged into this template. Please add:

{{Merge | Template:Infobox Song | Template talk:Infobox Single#Merge | date=September 2008}}

then see my similar request on that template's talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Language field

See Template:Infobox Song Why does {{Infobox song}} have a "Language" field, but this doesn't? Apparently, it would be a matter of including: 

{{#if:{{{Language|}}} |
! scope="row" style="width: 5.2em; text-align: left;" {{!}} [[Language]]
{{!}} colspan="2" style="width: 14em;" {{!}} {{{Language}}}
{{!-}}
}}

Can someone do this and edit /doc accordingly? Also, there is no explanation of "Audio sample?" given; someone should write up how it works. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my above note about merging these templates (both of which are used for "singles"). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Merging That makes some sense to me; you might want to post on the talk of the relevant WikiProjects if you haven't already. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said above; I tried, but couldn't get the templates to work! Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Please discuss the proposed merger with {{Infobox Song}} here. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. The target of the merge should be {{Infobox Song}}, and there should be a "yes/no" parameter to denote if it is a single. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
What effect would the switch have (that could not be achieved by simply adding data to the relevant fields)? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I support the merger as well. The target should be {{Infobox Song}}. Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Merger is fine, but I think the target should be {{Infobox Single}}. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
[moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music] :For popular artists the two are often distinct. Especially when every song on an album has a separate article. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song) is an example of a song that has both boxes. A particularly useful feature is when browsing by "tracklisting" in the song box, or by "chronology" in the single box. However, if the merge were to be done the main box should be song as they are all songs, but not all are singles. - Steve3849 talk 00:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps; but instrumentals are not songs. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
But very few instrumentals are released as singles. Perhaps {{Infobox Musical composition}} would be better? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not a major concern. My point was really that any name is a compromise, and having just one name is the important thing, not which one it is. Any way, what about Infobox tune? ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

what would be gained by merging these templates, please and thank you? they seem to me to have quite different functions. if there's some kind of epidemic of people mistakenly using the "single" template for album-track-only releases or vice versa, maybe the instructions for using the two templates need to be made clearer. Sssoul (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

They may once have been intended to have different functions, but it's very apparent that they're used interchangeably. Many album tracks have been singles. Merging the templates will make life more straightforward for editors, and allow a combination of fields from either (see lists below) to be used. . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
yeah i realize album tracks may also be singles (and have now edited my comment above to clarify that) - that's why some articles feature both templates. whether or not it's "very apparent that [the two templates are] being used interchangeably" might depend on what genres/artists/eras one is interested in - i haven't noticed any tendency like that, so i don't see any need to merge them, but ... okay, if you say so! can you give us an idea of what the merged template would include, what it would look like, how it would accommodate "album track only" and "single only" and "album track also released as a single" and "originally a non-album single but later released on one or more compilation albums" and all the other variants? thanks Sssoul (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Other than including most if not all of the combined set of fields listed below, I don't know what it should look like; that's why I've opened discussion here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
okay - if a workable merged version is developed i might be in favour of it, but without that all i can say is that i don't see a need for a merge; if the current templates are being widely misused i suggest making the instructions for them clearer. Sssoul (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
ps: one useful clarification of the existing templates (if their misuse is indeed problematic) might be to rename the "song" template to "album track", as briefly suggested here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Single#Any_thoughts_on_what_to_do_when_there_are_multiple_notable_cover_versions_of_a_single.3F
Sssoul (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether to comment here or under the "Fields" heading, so anyone can feel free to move it. I would say that "album track" should be used, as usually they are notable and given a page due to being a distinct track on a specific album, hence album track. This would cover the whole "instrumental" side of things, as they are still tracks. Also, could the template for one not just be changed to include all possible fields available (see below)? Only what was appropriate would be used, allowing one template covering two originally. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 20:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Bump) So have we reached a verdict on this? Merge the two? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

i stll don't see any need to merge them, or any viable proposal for how the new dual-purpose template would be structured. can someone point out examples of the widespread misuse of the existing templates, and/or explain what the misuse seems to stem from? if it's due to people not grasping that the "song" template is for album tracks, i propose renaming the template to "album track" and making the instructions for using the templates clearer, including big bright banners stating which is which and where to find the other one. these steps (renaming & clarifying instructions) are no doubt simpler to carry out than creating & installing a merged template, and might go a long way toward relieving the perceived problem.
on the other hand, if the misuse is arising from users not being sure whether a given song has been released as a single, how will merging the templates help to remedy that?
plus: it seems like a merged template would need to be pretty complex to accommodate all the necessary variations, and that will make it harder to use, not easier. Sssoul (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fields

Ignoring the fields which they have in common, these are the fields unique to each infobox:

Infobox Song:

  • Type
  • alt Artist
  • Published
  • track_no
  • Language
  • Composer
  • Tracks
  • prev
  • prev_no
  • next
  • next_no

Infobox Single:

  • Coversize
  • A-side
  • B-side
  • Format
  • Certification
  • Last single
  • This single
  • Next single
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion at this time on whether to merge, but I will say that I would not miss the track listing fields on the song infobox. I think they're too version-specific, and the amount of information they contribute to the article is minimal. -Freekee (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Variable separation

Instead of merging, I propose we separate the variables from the various music infoboxes so the templates can be used in the same article simultaneously with minimized information overlap. On User:Bensin/Proposal for music infoboxes I illustrate how the variables could be separated. I separated variables from

Anyone interested in following my train of thought is invited to do so starting here. Anyone interested in updating the page is encouraged to do so. --Bensin (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

-Hymn, -Anthem, -Standard and possibly -Composition should be merged into -Song. I'm not happy with there being no "title" attribute in -Recording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 October 2008
You might be right. My vision, though, is to separate as many variables as possible. This way, using "recording" without "song" makes little sense. --Bensin (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC) ... And when used together the title is always given in the song infobox. --Bensin (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
However, since an artist sometimes records several remixes of the same song, an optional variable for title might actually be a good idea. I added it now. --Bensin (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Soon(ish), there will be a microformat for audio recordings; and the title will be required. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
i guess i don't understand: what sense does it make to rename the "single" infobox that way? not every recording is a single. renaming the "song" infobox to specify that it's meant to be used for album tracks makes a lot more sense to me. i am cognizant of course that the forms in which music is distributed are changing, but these infoboxes are also supposed to be used for music from the not-too-distant era when singles and albums were two distinct products. Sssoul (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that a song is recorded and that particular recording is then delivered to the listener by means of a media like an album, a single or a download. One recording but several ways to distribute it. The means of distribution may not be as important as the recording itself. Remember that the same recording may be available on both an album and a single. --Bensin (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering it has been almost two months since the last message, a little less than three since the proposal was started, and there is no apparent consensus to change anything, perhaps this proposal should be closed. I'll do this within the next few days unless there is relevant opposition. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus and no relevant discussion for over two months. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Instrumentals vs songs

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Instrumentals vs songs, where I have raised some concerns about discrepancies in the way we deal with articles about instrumental recordings. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}} Please replace Image:Nuvola apps kaboodle.png with Image:Nuvola apps kaboodle.svg. Thanks in advance! TKGD2007|TALK 03:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Not done, considering no such image exists within this template (at least not in this template's specific code). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cover size

The section about cover size says it should ideally be 200px, while on Template:Infobox Album says it should be 300px. Shouldn't they both say one size, or is there a reason behind the different sizes? DiverseMentality(Boo!) 06:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know the reason for the discrepancy, but I would strongly suggest leaving it at 200px. Otherwise, the infobox starts getting too wide and tall, especially with stubs and other short articles. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If 300x300px satisfies the fair use criteria, and the infobox scales down image to 200x200px, wouldn't it be better to leave it at 300px? DiverseMentality(Boo!) 06:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is up to the individual editors to size the image to what best fits the article in question. I don't like covers to be that big in the article, but this is just a personal preference. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Covers

I have a question regarding which cd single cover should be displayed first, for singles with multiple covers. For example, Mambo! was released in several different countries with different album covers. Which album cover should be displayed first in the infobox? The guidelines arent really clear about this. Some people say "Most notable", but what defines that? Is it highest selling/successful one (which would be the Greek one or Scandanavian one)? Or the first released one, which again would be the Greek one. Or would it be the one released in most countries, which would most likely be the "International one". If it is the third option, since the cd single didnt really sell in those countries with that cover, wouldn't it make it less noticeable? Greekboy (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Greekboy (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
from what you write the Greek cover has the most "claims to notability" so why not use that one? Sssoul (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter that much. The cover image is largely decorative. Go with whichever makes most sense to you - you're presumably in a better position to judge than anyone here. I'd question the need for displaying 6 different covers, though. Especially when two of them are almost identical and one of them is a nondescript promo cover - these don't seem to add any encyclopedic value. Flowerparty☀ 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
i agree that one cover seems like plenty ... and that it's not that important which one is used. but since you asked, it sounds like (as noted above) the Greek one has the most "claims to notability". Sssoul (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I did not know if there was any guideline with multiple covers, as the template doesn't say anything specific about it. Greekboy (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd say go with the original or first release's cover. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest using the first cover released. Additionally, if there are too many used, it would fail to comply WP:NFCC. --Efe (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Music video

For what is the music video link in the infobobox for? I believe it is insignificant. --Efe (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

it is insignificant ONLY in the infobox, but it should be featured under External Links at the very bottom of the article, like the Killing Joke singles, like Love Like Blood --J miester25 (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I had not looked into this before, but I fail to find any mention of a music video link in the infobox. Am I missing something Efe? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Producer(s)

In the Empire Song article, there is more than one producer. so like Writer(s), i put (s) after Producer and it didnt show and neither did the names...i need help--J miester25 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The producer field isn't pluralized (for what reason, I'm not sure), so writing "producers" wouldn't show up because it isn't a proper field. DiverseMentality 17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
so is there any way to change that? --J miester25 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Remove

{{editprotected}} At the top, you will see,

</noinclude> <includeonly>

. Please change to

</noinclude><includeonly>

so it doesn't cause extra space (extra white lines).96.53.149.117 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I just moved the merge request inside the standard "nowiki" field for simplicity sake (and for the sake of clean code). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Auto quoting

Can we do something about the auto quoting in the infobox. For cd singles such as Galazio Kai Lefko + Remixes which could be considered eps, but are cd singles it is incorrect to quote the title and instead it should be italicized. The middle bar should also be able to say CD single since "single" usually refers to one song. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"Album" field

Is there a way that we could add an option for singles that are featured on more than one album? For example, the song "Listen" is present in three albums, yet the infobox reads "Single by Beyoncé Knowles from the album Dreamgirls: Music from the Motion Picture, B'Day and Irreemplazable". I was just wondering if someone could edit the infobox so that there could be a way change album to albums. Thanks, 01:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cover

User:Wasted Time R and I are having a dispute over Wide Open Spaces (song) as to whether or not the sheet music's cover can be used in the infobox. I think it shouldn't but I can't really seem to find the words as to why. Is the sheet music cover acceptable or not? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is on the album single, not the sheet music. Adding the cover of the sheet music would not only be misleading, but also misrepresentative of what the article is about. It's like putting this on this article. — neuro(talk) 04:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is on a song and the recording of that song. Typically these articles cover all stages, from the songwriter's original motivation and how they wrote it, all the way to how the record company promoted the single. The cover of the single of that recording represents one aspect of all this, and the cover of the sheet music of that song represents another aspect of all this. I don't see a difference between them in terms of copyright law or fair use. In terms of ownership of what the article describes, the record label owns some of it, the recording artist owns some of it, the songwriter owns some of it, and the music publisher owns some of it. By putting a single cover in our article we are making fair use of what the record label owns, and by putting the sheet music cover in our article we are making fair use of what the music publisher owns. Again, I don't see a difference. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not just go one step further and get rid of album art for entire studio albums, and just make the infobox image a collage of 10 images of sheet music? Album art is almost always used to identify music because it goes in conjunction with the music - media players display it when you listen to it. You see the album art on TV and in-print when it's being promoted. The album art is often incorporated into live performances of the music. What is the problem with using cover art to similarly identify singles/songs? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

didn't someone get rid of the genre field? This field is a form of masturbation.

  • I just saw an article about "Don't bring me down" by ELO. Among the genres listed was "hard rock".
  • This field is a form of masturbation. It is just a fanboy slot for fanboys to do what fanboys do best. It is never verified. It is seldom connected with reality in any meaningful way. It is almost but not quite the epitome of "unencyclopedic". Let's say it's the second most unencyclopedic thing regularly seen on Wikipedia.
  • It's just crap. A slot for graffiti. A slot for unverified opinions. If you wanna make a case based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines, call it WP:OR and a violation of WP:V.
  • Oh please God, let someone delete it. I thought it had been deleted, once. Are we an encyclopedia, or Geocities?
  • Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

{{Editprotected}}

  • I am placing {{Editprotected}} on this page, requesting that someone dlete or otherwise hide the "genre" field as a truly humongous violation of WP:V. Genres are never, ever verified and thus are WP:OR.
  • Notice that I left a message on the talk page two weeks ago (above) and no one responded.
  • However, consensus is irrelevant. WP:NOR and WP:V taken togethr always and everywhere trump WP:CONSENSUS. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is always important. Your reading of those policies with regard to this infobox field might be different to someone else's. As no one has commented on your proposal above (interesting title by the way :) I've made the change. If anyone disagrees it can be reverted and discussed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this going to go for the artist and album article infoboxes again?? -- GunMetal Angel 08:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Martin (MSGJ), lease take a moment or two to actually read WP:CONSENSUS. Read the "exceptions" section, very carefully. Consensus never overrides policy. Never. Gunmetal Angel, I do not understand. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 10:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe we kept genre because it caused an uproar last time it was deleted in all the templates. You can't say it violates verifiability and original research because that is a case by case thing. The field itself is fine, how can an infobox field itself be original research, and there are many times where the genres are sourced. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
We have a superabundance of evidence that there are people who love it. It just feels good to place your favorite band or singer within a larger movement. It creates a very real sense of identity, and a very false sense of precision and scholarship. Of course there will be numerous voices clamoring to bring back those well-loved genres. Disregard them. We must. We are an en encyclopedia (say it with me, encyclopedia) and the vast majority of such generalizations need to be verified. But they are not. We have policies; policies override hordes of ardent fans who want the two things listed above. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The verifiability point of view is the same as saying wikipedia cannot have biographies because most lack sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Good job, Ling.Nut. You've clearly gone delusional and lost your mind. What in the world is wrong with having a field in the infobox that distinguishes Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World" from Black Sabbath's "Iron Man (song)"??? By doing this, you are just encouraging people to start putting this information into the leads, which will only encourage more edit warring. If there's an article where the genre is being edit warred and is not sourced, THEN REMOVE IT FROM THAT ARTICLE. Don't delete the field from the infobox and impact every single article that uses it, many cases in which it is used fine.Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You said "what in the world". Let me introduce you to two new concepts: one is policy and the other is verifiability. I apologize if you've never heard of them (much less heeded them) before. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

  • I am placing {{Editprotected}} on this page, requesting that someone reinstate the "genre" field as a its removal went against consensus and because of the weak reasons stated above. Y2kcrazyjoker4's point was right on target while attempts to say it violates verifiability and original research guidelines are extremely weak and frankly a little silly. It was said that most genres are not sourced, but then again, most biographies of living people are not sourced as well, so should they all be deleted? Let's not forget how many genres are sourced already. Why should they have to be taken out? If there are no sourced for the genres, take them out, no ones stopping you, but to take the complete field out is preposterous. We can discuss whether the field will be removed in the proper way and it may be, but it needs to be reinstated first because there was no consensus to delete it in the first place. When you have a problem, you discuss, then act. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I keep explaining to you that consensus is patently irrelevant. I'm so sorry that you don't understand Wikipedia. Policy always and everywhere overrides consensus — as the WP:CONSENSUS page itself states oh-so-very-clearly, for those who would take a moment to read it. Read my posts above; search for the word "superabundance." Fanboys by the tens of thousands could descend on this page and !vote to reinstate; they would all be irrelevant. Verify the genre of a band is often doable; verifying the genre of a single is seldom so. Take my favorite band, Led Zeppelin. Heavy metal, sure, but what about "Down By the Seaside" or "That's the Way" etc? Led Zeppelin is a supergroup; perhaps many of their singles can be verified. maybe. The vast undistinguished mass of singles throughout history cannot and are not. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Genres can be sourced - in many cases they are. I repeat - for songs where you can't verify the genre, remove the field from the infobox for that particular article. Simply removing the field altogether because many articles DON'T verify the information listed in the field is like blowing up a house to kill a rat. You don't need to be so elitist about the issue. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not this again… this was discussed before, and there is consensus to not remove the genre field. Genres are not "impossible" to cite. If consensus never overrides policy, I'd like to know why exactly WP:IAR exists. — Σxplicit 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Good granny. Not a soul in this house knows what they are talking about. Consensus never, never overrules policy, as WP:CONSENSUS very very clearly states. Please please please, before you post, read WP:CONSENSUS, particularly the Exceptions. It is clear, for those who read. WP:IAR never overrules WP:V, WP:NOR (or WP:BLP, but that's neither here nor there). IAR overrules everything except those. IAR says, "Do whatever it takes to make an excellent encyclopedia, in line with the Five Pillars." The soul of IAR is its goal: "an excellent encyclopedia". Adding unverified and unverifiable info certainly makes a fun encyclopedia. It's cool to say "this song is this or that genre", even though you have absolutely no proof. Adding unverified and unverifiable info certainly makes it fun to be a Wikipedian. It does not improve the encyclopedia, however. We all need to focus on two facts: individual songs are seldom verifiable, and adding info "because it sounds like a country song to me (see "Hot Dog" by Ledd Zeppelin) is a truly blatant example of WP:NOR. Think of the encyclopedia and its policies. Stop protecting your fave band. IAR was never intended to make Wikipedia more fun or cool or fannish or clubbish. It was intended to make it more verifiable, NPOV, etc.Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you are incapable of looking beyond your own solution to the problem, let me lay it out in terms anyone can understand.
  • Leave the Genre field alone - the problem is not the Genre field. The problem is the people editing it and the ability to verify some songs.
  • For songs you can source the Genre for, do so in the infobox for that article - many songs can have their Genre sourced. Do so where applicable.
  • For songs you can't source the Genre for or come to agreement on, remove the Genre from that article's infobox - if there are songs whose genres you can't source and it makes your blood boil to have that information there, deal with those articles individually and remove the Genre for those particular instances.
So to recap: it's absolutely stupid to carpet bomb a particular data element just because it's hard to reference in some cases. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Y2kcrazyjoker4. You offer your solutions above. I see clearly that those are the solutions you prefer. I see your strong desire to have everyone support your goal and share your preferences. However, you did not provide any logic or reasoning, based on Wikipedia's policies, to support your argument. None. Let me offer the logic that supports my stance:
  1. WP:V and WP:NOR are policy. Policy trumps everything.
  2. if info cannot be verified, then adding it violates WP:NOR. Such unverifiable info constitutes Original Research.
  3. How many singles – singles I said, not bands – are verifiable as being within a genre? Only a very few, and only those by the most famous groups.
  4. Therefore the genres slot in a SINGLES articles is unlikely to provide info that is acceptable to the encyclopedia. Instead, it is an Original Research farm. The huge number of unverifiable singles (not bands) vastly outnumbers the few verifiable ones.
You and I both agree that there is a behavioral aspect to this problem, but we disagree about the solution. You are saying, "The fanboys will edit war if we don't have a place for them to express their Original Research. Edit warring is bad, so let's just let the Original Research remain in the Infobox". On the other hand, I am saying, "The fanboys will edit war if we don't have a place for them to express their Original Research. Edit warring is bad, so let's start warning and eventually blocking them for their edit warring." The appropriate solution for a behavioral problem is to address the behavior itself; not to bend or break policy in order to accomodate the desires of the edit warriors. In short, let's follow policy, shall we? And even more urgently, let's make the result – the quality of the encyclopedia – more important than the happiness, wishes and desires of many of its contributors. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If you simply remove the Genre field altogether, editors will just start putting the song genres in the first sentences of the articles (e.g. "Iron Man (song)" is a heavy metal song, "Take Me Out" is an indie rock and dance-punk song). Not that this would be bad in all cases, but I really don't see removing the field as a solution to the problem. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ling.Nut, you keep bringing up policy trumping things and it would if it was on the actual article, but it's almost irrelevant here. You can't cite original research guidelines to remove a well sourced field from an article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • @Grk1011: "Well sourced" is the problem, mate. They are not well-sourced. They cannot be well-sourced, as the info seldom exists. The core of my argument is that the overwhelming majority of them cannot be well-sourced. Let me repeat: the majority of bands (not singles) can be sourced. The overwhelming majority of singles (not bands) cannot be.
  • @Y2kcrazyjoker4:We need to start educating people that Wikipedia is not Geocities. You can't (or shouldn't) just stick stuff on the page because you believe in your heart that it's true, because it seems true to you, because you and four or so of your buddies at your high school are all convicted and convinced that it's true, etc. You also can't (or shouldn't) just throw crap on a page that makes you feel good. This is a real encyclopedia, and you have to prove what you say. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 22:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: I'm checking many instances of infobox singles. So far I've checked 252 articles. 164 had the genre field populated. NONE were verified. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE 2 413 checked, 1 genre verified in infobox, 412 unverified. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
What about the other information fields, like song length and producer - are any of those verified? Point is, the infobox information - all of it - needs to start being verified. The fact that it isn't now doesn't mean we should just abandon capturing that information altogether. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
That's an easy question. I think a case — even a strong case — can be made for keeping other fields (assuming you want to keep the infobox). Release date, recording date, length, label, producer — all of these are verifiable. In fact, they're easily verifiable. Much of it is probably repeated again and again in various places: on the CD sleeve, and on the producer's website, and the label's website, and the band's website, and in various trade magazines. I could make a case for leaving it unverified by WP:CITE's "common knowledge" clause, or perhaps by the "challenged or likely to be challenged" wording... I could make a weaker case (but still a real one) by Wikipedia:Eventualism. But genre info for singles seldom exists. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 22:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE 3 653 checked, 1 genre verified in infobox, 652 unverified. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
When you searched, did you by any chance check the article body? Infobox fields are usually not sourced because they are in the article body. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I saw only one instance where they were cited in the body ( a song called 3 am by Matchbox 20, I think), but it's true I wasn't looking hard. But I would gently suggest that your use of the word "usually" is misleading. I think genres ares "usually" completely uncited. And even that is beyond the point, since the real core of the argument is that they cannot be cited, since the info doesn't exist. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(editprotected) The genres field needs to be removed.

{{Editprotected}} (note that the template was placed here earlier, but I subsequently rmvd it in response to others' concerns -- Ling.Nut)

  • The genres field needs to be removed. The arguments are very robust:
    • I have verified that the genre field is unsupported by verification in 652 out of 653 articles. I could continue, but I'm not sure there's a reason to do so.
    • I have explained that consensus is irrelevant. The information simply does not exist for the vast majority of singles. If the info does not exist, then adding it into the article is a flagrant case of WP:OR. The problem is here is not so much that he fields are being left unverified and that people are engaging in OR; the problem is that the field cannot be verified and thus people cannot avoid engaging in OR, if they populate it. WP:V and WP:OR are policy. You cannot use consensus to utterly reject policy.
    • I have explained that WP:IAR is not an argument for keeping the genres field, since the heart of IAR is "ignore all rules that hinder us from making an excellent encyclopedia". Adding WP:OR to articles does not help us make an excellent encyclopedia; in fact, it helps make Wikipedia suck.
    • I have contrasted the Genres field with other fields, explaining that even though the other fields are also almost never verified, the info is extremely easy to obtain from numerous sources, and thus need not be verified, as per the "common knowledge" and/or "challenged or likely to be challenged" wording of WP:CITE.
    • I have explained that the "if you remove the field, people will edit war" argument does not hold water. Edit warring (motivated by a desire to add their favorite OR) is a behavioral problem. The way to deal with a behavioral problem is by addressing the behavior (warning, blocking, etc.), not by merely creating a place for them to engage in their OR.
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 22:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a discussion with a larger audience before any action is taken. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"A larger audience" simply means a greater number of fanboys to argue vehemently (but with support from any policy) in support of their beloved OR. Why would a larger audience help? Are you still trying to say that Consensus overrules policy? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I too would feel uncomfortable pushing this change at this moment. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've "nowiki'd" the {{Editprotected}}. You guys wanna RfC, or ... another option...? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Man, take a step back and take some time away from Wikipedia for a bit. You sound like you're getting way too into this debate... greater number of fanboys to argue vehemently in support of their beloved OR? Pessimistic statements like this add nothing. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That is altogether unbelievably lame, and a rather obvious ploy. It's an attempt to place the focus on me instead of the facts. Please, generate a meaningful rebuttal, if you can find anything meaningful to add. Stop tossing out colorful distractions. Your comments are unhelpful. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. Let me try to respond again: "Thank you for your concern, although it's really completely unnecessary. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?" Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Topic not placed on {{RFCpolicy list}}. Bot broken? Did I miss a step? I'll check. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Genre needs to have a parameter, because if people do not know the song, knowing the genre of it may be helpful. Adabow (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of name

Since the early 1990s, all of Reba McEntire's songs have been credited on the charts as just "Reba". Similarly, all of Wynonna Judd's singles are credited as just "Wynonna". Should the infobox, then, just say "Single by Reba" or "Single by Wynonna"? I've been kind of split on this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a similar situation with Beyoncé Knowles, who releases her work simply as Beyoncé. The infobox and articles list her as Beyoncé Knowles. — Σxplicit 18:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I use stage name since that is what the artist is known professionally as. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC - I give up

  • Look, folks. You guys actually know that the info in the "genres" field is not only completely unsubstantiated, it in fact cannot be substantiated. You know Wikipedia is supposed to be a real encyclopedia. You know that the insertion of info that cannot be unsubstantiated is original research along the lines of "it sounds like genre 'x' to me". Yet, all of this means nothing to you. You just don't care.
  • There are two Wikipedias, then: there's the bits that approximate a real encyclopedia (or at least holds that standard up as one to be desired), and the bits that converge to Geocities. Yours is irrefutably the latter. I'm too, too weary of trying to force people to do something "because it should be done" even though those folks have no desire to do what should be done.
  • So forget the RfC. Police yourselves – or not, according to the inclinations of your heart(s). Keep your field; keep your Geocities-like region of Wikipedia.
  • Have a nice day. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing audio sample from infobox

The audio sample field of the infobox needs to be removed. Per WP:FU#Audio clips, "Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder." As it stands, the infobox does not provide a way to add sourced commentary; one can only add the audio sample alone. Also, per WP:MS#Inclusion in article, "It is better to insert the samples next to a paragraph mentioning them to justify their fair use, instead of grouping them at the end of the article." This is also another restraint; because the audio sample can only be placed in one spot (the infobox), users are unable to justify their fair use. It is better to use the {{listen}} template in an article when using an audio sample, so the sample can be aligned to the relating paragraph. Thoughts? — Σxplicit 04:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your statement is certainly well-researched, and I tend to I agree with you. Do you have any idea about how many articles would be impacted by such a change, i.e. how many single infoboxes contains an audio clip today? Personally I only remember to have come upon one (The Ballroom Blitz, which perfectly illustrates your point as there is no text accompanying the clip) but I would suspect that there are many others. – IbLeo (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not that often I come across audio samples in infoboxes, as they're either is the body of the article or simply don't have one, but they still are around. Personally, I don't think that removing the field would cause damage, mainly because the audio samples are probably in the infobox just to be there, not to illustrate a certain sound or style of a certain band or musician. If they were essential, the audio sample could be placed appropriately in the article (assuming someone noticed). Even then, another audio sample can be re-uploaded any time after the file's deletion (again, assuming they are tagged as orphaned). — Σxplicit 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. So this would be far less controversial than e.g. removing the genre field. I don't have any objections. – IbLeo (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd certainly agree with removing this field. Very hard to justify fair-use for a sound clip in an infobox. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, that's three of us who agree. Should I proceed with the requesting this edited out or should we wait for more replies? — Σxplicit 17:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Seeing as no one has opposed this, I can't see why this field shouldn't be removed. For the administrator: there was no opposition in removing the Audio sample? field, and with the reasoning made above, it only makes sense to remove it now. — Σxplicit 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't defined in the code for this box, there are separate templates for it, {{extra musicsample}} and {{audiosample}}. There might be others? If you want to stop this practice you should nominate those templates for deletion. I'd be for getting rid of them. We should never have brought in this misc field really, it's a charter for an ever-growing infobox. Flowerparty☀ 23:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I wasn't aware of that. I'll nominate the templates shortly. — Σxplicit 00:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging the template

Unresolved

Hey folks,

Can we merge the Infobox Single Template into the Infobox Album Template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PK2 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you propose doing that? — Σxplicit 22:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
And why would you propose doing that? What purpose would it serve? They are two different entities and require different formatting. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Better to merge with Infobox Song. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Definitely some merit in that. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyone want to grasp this nettle? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Language(s)

Can't we add the language section below the genre section like the Infobox Song Template.

Posted by PK2. (3:36 PM)

Infobox template

{{editprotected}} Hey folks,

Can we put this template on the Infobox Template like we did with the Infobox Album Template this morning?

Posted by PK2 (talk). (3:50 PM)

Disabling as this doesn't meet the editprotected guidelines. Leaving note with user. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text support

{{editprotected}}

For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, this template should support alt text for the image that it generates, as per WP:ALT. I have done this with a straightforward sandbox edit, and have tested the result. Can you please install it? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Double A-sided single

Is there more than one of these (the one I know being the US version of Something/Come Together)? If there is more than one, should somehow adjust the template for such things? (John User:Jwy talk) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First question answered affirmatively: A-side_and_B-side#Double_A-side.
Any objection to a neutral "backed-with" parameter? (John User:Jwy talk) 01:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_single/Archive_4&oldid=1131603973"