Template talk:Infobox single/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Next and previous singles and data granularity

Mentioning data granularity, above, reminds me that this template has

  • |Last single=
  • |This single=
  • |Next single=

parameters, with values like:

  • |Last single="[[To the End (Blur song)|To the End]]"<br />(1994)
  • |This single=""Country House""<br />(1995)
  • |Next single="[[The Universal (song)|The Universal]]"<br />(1995)

We should convert those to:

  • |Last single title=
  • |Last single date=
  • |This single date=
  • |Next single title=
  • |Next single date=

with values like:

  • |Last single title=[[To the End (Blur song)|To the End]])
  • |Last single date=1994
  • |This single date=1995
  • |Next single title=[[The Universal (song)|The Universal]]
  • |Next single date=1995

That way things like the parentheses and quote marks can be applied automatically, and the data will become easier to enter and to parse.

We don't need |This single title=, as we have that in |Name=.

A bot could handle conversion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've unarchived the above. Unless there are objections, I'll make this change in the sandbox and put in an edit request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Length again

This has been raised before but not resolved adequately. The guidance on the Length field is rather vague. Given that we have separate infoboxes for songs and singles, surely the song infobox should use the length of the song, while the single infobox should use the total length of the single (A-side + B-side or total length of all tracks on the release)? A single rarely consists of a single track. This vagueness seems symptomatic of the song/single confusion on Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've said before that these two infoboxes should be merged; whatever the purist intent, they are in practise used interchangeably; not least because our articles talk about both "songs" and "singles" on the same page. Total length of a single would be less useful, and in most cases is impossible to source reliably. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
How is the combined length of all tracks any more difficult to source than the length of one of the tracks? The fact is singles and songs are not the same thing. A song may be recorded by several artists or even several times by the same artist, with a different length for each version, so a 'length' for song doesn't make sense. Length could apply to a 'track' rather than a song (i.e. an individual recording of the song) or a distinct release of tracks, but for a song is meaningless. My view is that we should try to resolve the confusion between songs, tracks, and singles rather than further muddle them together. --Michig (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The two infoboxes should NOT be merged. A song and a single are two different things. As for the length being for the total single (i.e. A-side + b-side) I disagree. In this modern age and era of digital releases, a lot of songs are simply released on their own as a digital single, whereby the song gets its own cover and release separate from the album. For example see "On the Floor", a 2011 release by Jennifer Lopez. It was released in the following ways: Digital download (1-track), CD Single (2-tracks), Digital EP (12-track), Digital Downlad (1-track remix), Digital Multimedia single (3-track + music video). Now which length would go in the infobox hmm? It would be silly to have every "total" length in the infobox and equally it would be silly having just the first release. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
In the cases where the single is a single track it's moot as the length of the track and the length of the single would be the same. I would have to ask whether a length field is really useful at all. It certainly isn't key information about the single. In the J.Lo case above the lead track isn't even the same length on all releases. It's equally silly to have an infobox about a seven-inch single with about 3 minutes of music on each side where the length is shown as 3 minutes. --Michig (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you're idea of clarifying tracks and songs would also be considered confusing given the terminology used. For example it is generally said that an album contains songs and that songs might be released as singles. Yet, in industry one often refers to the number of tracks on an album, and also when individual recordings from an album are downloaded digitally that is referred to as an album track. Therefore I think you would find it difficult to clarify the differences between tracks, songs and singles. Presently we define an album as a collection of songs/tracks released together. A single is usually defined as the independent release of a song from an album, whereby the song is packaged and marketed sometimes with other songs (b-sides or remixes). Within those realms trying to define tracks makes the situation a whole lot more complicated. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
A song is a composition with music and lyrics. A track is a recording of a song or a piece of music. Albums and EPs are collections of tracks. A single is a separate release that can be a single track, especially in the digital era, but typically contains two or more tracks. Seems simple enough really. --Michig (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting responses, given that I did not claim that a song and a single are the same thing, but pointed out that "whatever the purist intent, they are in practice used interchangeably; not least because our articles talk about both 'songs' and 'singles' on the same page". Lil-unique1 says both "a song and a single are two different things" and "I think you would find it difficult to clarify the differences between... songs and singles". Consider "Another Brick in the Wall Pt II is a song by Pink Floyd. It was their first number one single". Anyone care to address that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It was the lead track on their first number one single. --Michig (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Really? I've never heard anyone, much less reliable sources, refer to it in such terms. Would you care to address my wider point, as quoted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Which one? The confusion of Wikipedia editors, Lil-Unique's perhaps contradictory statements, or the sloppily written sentences about the Pink Floyd song? --Michig (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You've misunderstood me. I've said there's a clear difference between songs and singles. But trying to define tracks from singles/songs is much more difficult and near impossible because of how the terminology is used. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Singles and independently notable songs are different that they can not be used interchangeably. Example: A single is a release and despite most reviews are about that one specific song, they do make that review off that single, not only that but they may review additional songs that came with that featured song. And since single is a release, sales are also relevant.
Independently notable songs however, may have only been released in an average studio album so the reviews and development have to be pinpointed specifically to that song. Beside the point: I agree with Michig on having "total length" on singles, and just "length" on feature songs.Lucia Black (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected by Lil-unique1 and accept without reservation that his statement on "differences between tracks, songs and singles" was meant to convey that "there's a clear difference between songs and singles" (a fact I have not disputed); I also acknowledge Lucia Black's untenable assertion that (my emphasis): "singles and independently notable songs are different that they can not be used interchangeably". Neither of these statements acknowledge my pointing out that (and I apologise for repeating this again; I trust I shall not need to do so again; emphasis added) "whatever the purist intent, they are in practice used interchangeably; not least because our articles talk about both 'songs' and 'singles' on the same page". Unless this fact is acknowledged (I can provide evidence if required) there seems to be little point in discussing the matter further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes the terms are used in a muddled and confusing way on Wikipedia, which is a problem, and we should aim to resolve this. --Michig (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That would be nearly impossible to solve without either giving the single aspect of a release a separate page to the song or without being able to produce a guideline as to when to use the word "song" and when to use the word "single". I think this is beyond reasonable expectation particularly as wikipedia's interchangable use of the words "song" and "single" comes from their interchangable use in media and reliable sources. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Resolve how? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
We let the RS do all the defining.Lucia Black (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but definitions are not the issue. My question was "resolve how?", not "define how?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you would clarify exactly what you are saying from now on. Asking "reselve how/" implies the word "resolve" was used which it has not (at least not in the current chain of discussion). And defining it is how I consider it resolved. But you're not being clear exactly.Lucia Black (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
My reply was to, and indented directly after, Michig's comment "Yes the terms are used in a muddled and confusing way on Wikipedia, which is a problem, and we should aim to resolve this." (emphasis added). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe lil unique responded to that. So you can see how the chain of discussion can break. I agree with lil unique.Lucia Black (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If Michig wants to explain how she/he thinks we can clarify the use of "song", "track" and "single" on wikipedia then I'm sure we'll all be willing to listen. But right now all I can see is a small technicality which doesn't add up with the way music releases are promoted in the media and reliable sources. Our use of terminology matches how the media/RS report music releases and therefore is most understandable to the masses. I can't support any kind of change (based on a technicality) just to be precise if it makes things massively more complicated for editors and readers. TBH I'm not sure its a much of an issue as being suggested if I'm being completely honest. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 11:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I already clarified this above. We currently have a very confused, muddled approach. We have editors who believe every song played on the radio is a single, and editors who seem to be unaware that most singles are not individual tracks (I've come across both on this project), so we can either aim for clarity (this is an encyclopedia after all) or just go with lowest common denominator approach. It looks like it's going to be the latter. We've strayed from the point of the discussion which is whether an infobox for a single should contain details about the whole single (as is the case for EPs and albums) or about one track (for which we have a separate infobox, putting aside the difference between songs and tracks). --Michig (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Michig: What you've clarified is what you perceive as the problem. what I'd like you to clarify, please, is how you propose that we resolve this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll repeat myself again: "Given that we have separate infoboxes for songs and singles, surely...the single infobox should use the total length of the single (A-side + B-side or total length of all tracks on the release)." --Michig (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
We seem to be at cross-purposes. You said "the terms are used in a muddled and confusing way on Wikipedia, which is a problem, and we should aim to resolve this"; I asked "Resolve how?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO taking everything into account, the one track/recording/song which is being promoted as the single should have its length in the infobox. The other tracks/songs that form part of the single are secondary to the release. I.e. in my example with On the Floor), it is the main version of "On the Floor" which was being promoted and charted, the remixed recordings which also formed part of the single package (the EP and the CD) are secondary to that first track/recording/song. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC) btw is is pointless aiming for clarity when the industry itself and media/reliable sources also lack the same clarity. Michig, I think its generally irrelevant whether we consider that a single is made up of multiple tracks or not because as given in examples, single's these days usually come in multiple forms. They can be released as single tracks or as a bundle of tracks so we'd always have a conflict over which length would be included if a particular recording received multiple single releases. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ever feel like you're going round in circles? --Michig (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
A little, cause it feels like we're missing an explanation. I might be willing at accept that technically Wikipedia is ocnfused regarding the whole single vs. song thing but when I've prevented a scenario as above which is a typical single release you're unable to give me a definitive answer. My issue is that there's no point in Wikipedia trying to hammer home that a single consists of multiple tracks and then putting just the first track length in the infobox when this wouldnt match the coverage in the media etc. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
What explanation are we missing? You're now arguing that "that there's no point in Wikipedia trying to hammer home that a single consists of multiple tracks and then putting just the first track length in the infobox" which is exactly the point I made at the start of this thread. We have lots of articles about singles (as opposed to songs) which spell out all the tracks that appeared on the single, and all the argument above from other editors is that we should just put the first track length in the infobox, even when that one song has different lengths on different releases. Take a look at Anyone Can Play Guitar for an example of how ludicrously the Length field is being used. Now excuse me while I bang my head against a wall. --Michig (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is similar to OVA being direct-to-video releases but have also received TV-premieres and theathrical release for promotion. Single tends to deviate from its definition (and no I'm not referring to the general word "single"). Its best we just let sources call it what they call it. As in if 1 source deviates from calling 1 song a single, we should take it with a grain of salt.Lucia Black (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Anyone Can Play Guitar includes the statement "'Anyone Can Play Guitar'... remained a staple of the band's live sets throughout the early-mid 1990s." To what does "Anyone Can Play Guitar" refer, in that context? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You know damn well that it's referring to the song so why ask? Singles are generally referred to by the name of the main track - nobody has argued otherwise. That doesn't mean that the track and the single are the same thing. --Michig (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no sources whatsoever...so we should only bring up articles that have been well written and well sourced. Otherwise issues such as these will be made because one or two editors didn't see the original research.Lucia Black (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Release

Is the release for the first known radio play of the song? Or the release date of the single itself? We should make that more clear in the infobox instructions.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A song being played on the radio isn't a release, it's a premiere. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Whatever release as a single came first. That would mean either the date it was released to iTunes/Amazon or the day it was officially released to radio. Note that just because a song plays on the radio does not make it a single. STATic message me! 07:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
It should be the date that it was commercially released as a single, either physically or digitally. Radio stations generally receive pre-release promos and these should not be used for the release date. --Michig (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
In the modern day, with digital availability of songs as album tracks, often songs are sent to radio by the label (this is different to simply being played on the radio). Often, after an album is released, labels don't bother with a separate digital release. Adabow (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Album tracks as B-sides

Hi all. Just want to get some thoughts from others on a point that came up at a recent GAR: when both sides of a vinyl single were lifted from an album, released perhaps just a week or less before the album, should a song article covering the B-side carry a "single" infobox, or the standard song infobox (treating it as an album track)? Logicially, it seems it should be the single infobox, to acknowledge the song's first release. But what about when a single's taken from an album perhaps six months or more after its initial release – should an article about the B-side carry a single or song infobox? As an example, there's the George Harrison track "Woman Don't You Cry for Me", issued as a B-side six months after its initial release on an album. My thinking is, all that's needed there is the song infobox, and that the face-label image can sit inside the 'box (with the necessary caption).

The only thing that muddles that first situation for me – regarding an album track released as a B-side to a lead/advance single – is that most readers would probably consider it an album track only. The song has notability for its place on the album, but not necessarily on the single. That's what Sufur222 raised early on in the GAR I mentioned (look under "General" comments), for another Harrison song from the 1970s, "World of Stone". (So I'm talking about in the pre-CD era but post-1970, when B-sides were no longer eligible for inclusion on singles charts such as Billboard.) Any thoughts, precedents maybe – anyone? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This point has already been raised by me at WPSongs WikiProject_Songs#If_a_b-side_a_single.3F. The single, in the days of vinyl, was the a-side and not the b-side. It was the a-sde which was plugged, promoted, bought etc and in many cases the b-side was no more than a throwaway track. Elevating b-sides to singles is not really on. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
My preference would be for articles on songs to use the song infobox and articles about singles (i.e. the released 'record') the single infobox. As I have suggested elsewhere, there is a real muddle between singles and songs (and tracks) on Wikipedia. A 'single' is traditionally the whole release - A-side, B-side(s), cover art - although they are/were generally promoted and named using the title of the A-side. A track only released as a B-side and album track would use the song infobox, I would have thought. --Michig (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for your comments. Hmm. I struggle a bit with the idea that we'll be ignoring a song's first release in the case of a B-side to an advance single, but I can see it's worth going for the regular song infobox in that "World of Stone" situation. I still think a non-album B-side has to have a single infobox. I take your point, Michig, about a single being the full "release", but isn't the purpose of the infobox simply to show where a song "belongs" – either on a single release or an album? (I'm not sure a song is necessarily being "elevated" through the use of a single infobox, I guess.) If song infoboxes allowed for B-side status, i.e. if it weren't for that standard Album field in the 'box, perhaps it would be different. (In other words, if text could read: Song by ... from the single "..." Or maybe I've missed something – perhaps there's a way to make it read like that ...)
Worth pointing out that it's not just record company promotion that was the issue for B-sides in the era we're talking about, during the 1970s. It's also radio play – which of the two sides DJs picked up on, something that was often dictated by listeners' requests. I'm talking primarily in the US, because throughout the '70s, the way I understand it, radio play for both sides contributed to a single's chart placing on Billboard's Hot 100 (which is why chart placings can be some way out compared with Cash Box, which I believe was purely sales-oriented). Record companies had no control over this; at best – I'm thinking in the case of Billy Preston's "Outa-Space" and Wings' "Sally G" – the record company simply played catch-up by printing new picture sleeves. Taking another Harrison example, "Apple Scruffs" was as popular on radio as its A-side, "What Is Life", so one would imagine that through DJs supporting the original B-side, many fans we're going out and buying "Apple Scruffs" (your point, Richhoncho). Up until the end of November 1969, both sides of a single were eligible for listing on Billboard's singles chart, and in cases where the A-side was even reasonably successful, the B-side often charted also – figured that point might be relevant.
Anyway, thanks again ... I might weigh in at that discussion you've got underway, Rich. I just think it's a far from straightforward issue (unfortunately), depending on the era. We can't simply talk about the vinyl era and apply a rule there, for instance, because there's Billboard's approach pre-Nov '69 to consider, and then a period over the following decade when it appears that B-sides still had an impact on a single's chart performance, in the US at least. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Language field

Given the largish number of songs like Tell Me Goodbye with titles in different languages to the actual lyrics should a "language" field be included as an option for infobox? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an uncontroversial addition, but would welcome comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea, but we need to be clear: are talking about the language of the title, the lyrics, or both? Do we need two fields? What if the lyrics are in more than one language? And how will we handle lang attributes in the underlying HTML (I'm happy to help with that)? I've disabled the edit request, as it won't be responded to with out sample code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Field: "Main language of lyrics". I think language of title is evident from the title in the most common cases. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with the former so long as the label (and documentation) make clear what is meant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It would probably be better to mention country of original similar to TV series infobox.Lucia Black (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
While it might also be useful to mention country of origin, that does not make a language parameter redundant. Some countries have more than one official language; and many singles are in a language which is not official, or even not common, in the country of origin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The language of the title may be obvious in "most common cases", but what about the rest? Also, it may be obvious to us as readers, but we still need to mark up non-English titles to indicate the language used. The current method is to use {{lang}}, and I would recommend reading that template's documentation to understand its workings, but we could automate that with a "title language" language parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes country of Origin is fine as well but - say if it is Canada or Switzerland - doesn't say whether the song is in English, French, Romansch or German. It is a particular issue with some songs where the title is a name, say a girl's name Rosalinda (song), that could be in 20 languages, who would know? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Country of origin could end up being a mess, and is not critical information such that it needs to be in the infobox. What if a British artist and an American artist record a song in Australia? What's the country of origin. Too messy, imho. Language sounds good though. Adabow (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't care about Country of origin. But can we please get on and add the language parameter? User talk:Pigsonthewing User:Adabow? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have prepared the code for a language field at the template sandbox (adding: | label8 = Language | data8 = {{{Language|}}} and moving subsequent numbers down one). Adabow (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I wrote above "how will we handle lang attributes in the underlying HTML?" and "I'm fine with the former so long as the label (and documentation) make clear what is meant.". Please address these. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for "producer" field

Several songs have unknown producers, such as Ronan (song) or All Cried Out (Kree Harrison song). Is there a way to modify the template coding so that the article will generate a category if the "producer" field is empty or absent? I think this would be a good piece of maintenance, both to point out which songs have unknown producers vs. which ones just have the producer field left vacant by mistake. The same would also be good for {{Infobox album}}. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Support. However since this is proposed as a "maintenance" catagory it should Not display on the article pages.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Please make the required change to Template:Infobox single/sandbox and reactivate, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Pluralizing "Producer"

There is a clear consensus, that "Producer" should be pluralised, and it should use the "Producer(s)" format. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the current arrangement, songwriters are listed in the infobox under the section titled "Writer(s)", while record producers are listed in the singular form "Producer". Considering how it is common for tracks to have multiple producers, and also to maintain consistency throughout the template, I propose that the "Producer" section be renamed to read "Producer(s)" in the plural form. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. I don't see why not, and would look better in cases where there are multiple producers. The album infobox should probably have the same change for the sake of consistency. --Michig (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I can't really say that I see a downside, unless you're truly anal about conserving space. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. No reason that it should not be, it would be consistent with the writer(s) parameter. Also agree that the album infobox should also say "producer(s)", since it is even more frequent for albums to have multiple producers than songs. STATic message me! 01:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Please change [[Record producer|Producer]] to [[Record producer|Producer(s)]] per the #Pluralizing "Producer" section. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Done I've also wrapped the hyphenated-words and parenthesis ending word(s) in <span style="white-space: nowrap;">...</span> tags to prevent unwanted wrapping. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox bug?

Why is it appearing at the top of the page, alone, and not on the right side of the text? prism △ 17:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please give an example of a page where this is happening. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Song vs. Single

If a song is on both a side of a single and an album, there should be some way to have the sequence info for both the single series and the album in the infobox. Compare, for instance, A Passage to Bangkok to Closer to the Heart, songs 4 and 5 on Exit...Stage Left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.141.97 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean something like Help! (song)? GoingBatty (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a symptom of the ongoing problem of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}} having overlapping properties, and often being used interchangeably. I've proposed previously that we merge them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Language field not added

I thought there was consensus to add this? Per User:Adabow above? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Prior discussion is archived at Template talk:Infobox single/Archive 7#Language field. I'd say the matter was not resolved, and needs further discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett, I would agree. Where is a good place to centralize discussion? Following Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_9#Singles_template_Language_field? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Probably at Template_talk:Infobox_song#Language_field In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Separate parameters for music and lyrics rather than only Writer

Is there a way to make it so that music and lyrics could have separate parameters rather than lumping everyone into a misnamed writer parameter? Ideally, if either of those two new parameters is used, then the writer parameter would be ignored, with a warning in the infobox that this is what's happening. I checked the archives and there have been a few requests, but nothing formally attempting to achieve consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Data granularity redux

As promised some months ago, I have made some changes in the sandbox:

  • As an alternative to |Last single=, we now have |Last single title= and |Last single year=
  • |This single= is removed, and replaced with {{{Name|{{PAGENAME}} }}} (reusing code from |title= (the year of the single in question is redundant)
  • As an alternative to |Next single=, we now have |Next single title= and |Next single year=

Please check, test and improve my code (it doesn't yet check for unexpected cases, like "years and no titles"). Separating titles and years will give us improved data granularity, and allow us to do other things with those values, such as (for example) writing database queries or adding categories. We can also remove the presentational <br /> and parentheses from the values, cleaning up our data. Can we hard-code the quote marks, making the data even cleaner? Does anyone foresee any problems with the changes? Once settled, I propose to request a bot to change the data in all instances; and to do the same for sister infoboxes {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox album}}. Eventually, |Last single= and |Next single=should be deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I modified it to have the template add the quotes, since it already adds the quotes for the name. I also change the ordering to prefer the new parameters, and added a check to avoid rendering empty parenthesis. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
That's great, thank you. Any reason not to deploy this now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just tested this out. I like it. However, what about the year for the "this single"? — Status (talk · contribs) 18:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

we could have a |This single year=, but as Andy stated above, "the year of the single in question is redundant". but, I don't really care either way. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It's already covered by |Released=, and so serves no useful purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
now updated so that both syntax forms work. please revert if there is a problem. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Please revert this change. Has the case of a double-A sided single been considered? Like at Let's Spend the Night Together, where before this change to the template the "This single" parameter displayed "Let's Spend the Night Together" / "Ruby Tuesday" (1967), similar to what is in the "next single" parameter of that article's template. There are many other articles like this that deal with double A-sided singles. Dan56 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
both syntax forms work, so what is the problem? Frietjes (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem I cited (only parts of text showing up in the "This single" parameter) was before your changes just now. Dan56 (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Unresolved

So, a month on, are we OK to deprecate the old parameters? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Bold quotation marks in infobox

Just reading a song article now, and realised that quotation marks for the |name= field are bold. Quotation marks should not be bold unless they are part of the song's title. It's the same for the lead, so I don't think it would be any different for the infobox. "Song Name" rather than "Song Name", per MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Melonkelon (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

An edit like this should do it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly how it should be! Hopefully someone can implement it. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Pinging users who have edited the template: Status, Frietjes, Hyacinth, Technical 13, Kww. Could someone please look at this and reply? Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't see this without the ping or without an actual edit request. My question is why are the all being wrapped in arbitrary quotes in the first place? I would think if custom text is entered, then that should be the exact text used. If there is no custom text, then it should default to the page name wrapped in quotes. To do this the code would look like {{{Name<includeonly>|<span style="font-weight: normal;">"</span>{{PAGENAME}}<span style="font-weight: normal;">"</span></includeonly>}}}. Let me know if this is acceptable to accomplish what you want. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Just make sure the quotes aren't bold. Melonkelon (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
How do you know the quotation marks are bold? Hyacinth (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? I'm confused. Melonkelon (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at Infobox standard and you'll see that the quotation marks aren't bold. That's how single and song should be. Melonkelon (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Why should they be that way? You've said that a policy suggests or implies that quote marks may never be formatted similarly to the text they are near, but did not quote the policy or explain why you think the policy extends to any quote marks or why it should. Hyacinth (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox heading is bold. Shouldn't every part of it be? Are article section headings bolded? Hyacinth (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Now, I see and agree with your point. I kept thinking of the bold formatting in the context of the opening sentence, where only the song's name is bold ("Song Name" is a song...), rather than the context of a headline, where the whole name is bold, including the quotation marks (2014–present: "Song Name" and Album Name). Melonkelon (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Syntax for chronology parameters

Please see Template talk:Infobox album#Syntax for chronology parameters. Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Chronology - no more Last/ This/ Next single?

I've noticed the "Last single", "This single", "Next single" parameters are no longer being displaying in infoboxes once they're saved. Is this a glitch or does Wikipedia no longer wish those parameters to be displayed in singles infobox chronologies? --Cherrylimerickey (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Cherrylimerickey, example? Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Genre parameter

Most well written articles now include more than one sourced genre, so I think the parameter should be changed to say Genre(s), in the same way that it says Writer(s). Thinking about it, the same should be applied to Producer, as most song's now are produced by more than one person, and there are often co-producers, vocal producers and assistant producers. 11:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the Producers being pluralised, but not genre. Because a song can only fit into one genre, but can be influenced by or contain elements of many. Influences and elements should not be included in the info box. Only genres whereby critics have specifically said "it is a pop song/track/" for example.  — Calvin999 12:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Single covers for airplay-only singles

I would like to propose an addition to this template's documentation that makes specific mention against including artwork for songs that were not released as commercial singles; i.e. were released to radio only with no retail release (vinyl, CD, download) in any country. This would be keeping in line with WP:NFCC#8, which says that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Single artwork generally meets this criteria as it helps the reader to visually identify a purchaseable product, similarly to an album cover.

However, there has been a fairly common recent practice where artists release "single covers" via social media (Twitter, Instagram, etc.) and the song only sees a radio release, and is never made available as a download or physical single. Additionally, some singles (mainly pre-digital era) have artwork that is only available in promotional distribution to radio stations, and is not available to the general consumer. In these cases, such artwork would only be decorative and would not help the average reader to identify a work.

Examples of song articles this would affect:

I propose that the documentation be updated to include this addition to the explanation of the "Cover" parameter: Covers that are not attached to a purchaseable single release should not be added. This includes fan-made artwork and covers of promotional singles for radio stations. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose such a change. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I oppose such a change. In fact being released to radio only is the historic definition of a single. Being released to sales channels only is not a single but a venue for sales. They two should be separate concepts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you might be missing the point here. If a song, regardless of the historic definition, only makes it to radio and is not available for purchase, then how is cover artwork giving the reader any extra understanding or opportunity for visual identification? Chase (talk | contributions) 18:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you're missing two points:
  1. Many radio singles have cover art. DJs would recognize the artwork even if non-industry readers would not.
  2. We need to start to distinguish between types of singles.
I hope that clarifies my earlier comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Radio release is a form of commercial release, as a listener can go on iTunes and download the song from the album. Even remixes get covers for the clubs. A digital release for a single owes it's success largely to promotion at radio, as people like Madonna and Mariah are finding out. A single is a single, regardless of whether it is radio only or not. More and more singers are opting for radio release only or "Impact days".  — Calvin999 11:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • But when a listener downloads the song on iTunes, they're downloading it from the album when the song does not have an independent commercial release. Radio is not a commercial release as it is not purchaseable. The point of having single covers is to help the reader identify a work, not to decorate an article with unnecessary non-free images. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Artwork is artwork, release is release. This is moot suggestion. American radio contains a lot of airplay-only singles. It's still a format of release.  — Calvin999 12:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Deprecation

I propose deprecating the chronology parameters for the following reasons:

  1. What was released right after/before singles isn't particularly relevant to the songs themselves.
  2. It can make an infobox ridiculously lengthy when a bunch of artists are featured on a song.
  3. The songs used in chronology tend to be based on what another Wikipedia article states, which goes against WP:CIRCULAR

With this being said, the chronology parameters overall don't really benefit articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Navigation templates can be used for this sort of chronology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose While with artists like Chris Brown and Nicki Minaj for example, it's a chore to keep track with all the singles they feature on. The chronology is very useful and is great for accessibility in my opinion. Walter Görlitz refers to the navigation templates, however, a number of artists do not have single navigation templates but song navigation templates instead - in order of the parent album's track listing - e.g. Template:Katy Perry songs, Template:Nicki Minaj songs which gives no indication of singles chronology. While other artist navigation templates have missing single articles making singles chronologies per this suggestion inconsistent. The current infobox chronology is the most consistent and accesible way of presenting this information in my opinion. CoolMarc 12:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If a song is not notable, it shouldn't have an article. If it is notable it should. For instance, "It's Nobody's Fault but Mine" was not a single, but it uses this template, as do all of the other songs released by the artist. They're also all listed in the chronology. The navigation templates could indicate which songs were released as singles and which are simply notable songs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose It provides chronology for the timeline of singles released and helps to navigate through this. Navigation templates just list linked articles in order of tracklisting, not the order in which they were released as singles. Also, this helps for when there are featured artists. Most templates also are not singles templates now, they are song tempaltes, due to the rise of articles being created out of songs not needing to be a single in order to chart in the digital modern era. Also, very, very few articles have more than two featured artists, so that's a bit of a non-starter and superfluous to the reasoning given.  — Calvin999 12:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Streaming format?

Some editors are starting to add "streaming" as a format to the singles infobox. How is streaming a format? The format is digital and no different than a digital download, only the location and the accessibility of the digital file is different. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not. Digital isn't a format either. Release to radio is the only possible format. Everything else is a way to monetize an investment in a recording and to attempt to publicize a larger, upcoming work. If there's no charting, it shouldn't be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
How is release to radio a format? Physical formats include vinyl records, cassette tapes, CDs. I wouldn't consider a digital download a format though. Since singles are simply released in a manner relevant to the time frame they are released, why is a format even necessary in the infobox? As you say, more often than not, singles are simply marketing tools. The album infobox doesn't have (or need) one. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I was rushed. Release to radio is the only consideration for a charting single. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding ISWC parameter

Should an ISWC (International Standard Musical Work Code) parameter be added to infobox single? It was added to Template:Infobox song in April 2014[1] after no objections (Template talk:Infobox song/Archive 4#International Standard Musical Work Code). It should be as useful for singles as songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: There haven't been any objections. Since this is not a controversial parameter and is already used in infobox songs, would it be possible to add it? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Ojorojo, done. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Format parameter

Should the format parameter appear as

or

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units, a double quote should not be used as a symbol for inch. Piriczki (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Just seeing this now. I don't see why the MOS should not be followed. The field has plenty of room and 7" is not much shorter than 7-inch. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The MOS § Specific units is quite clear: For inches (and feet) "Do not use ′ (′), ″ (″), apostrophe/​single quote (') or double quote (")". WP:NUMNOTES includes "In tables and infoboxes, quantities are expressed in figures (Years in office: 5); but numbers within a table's explanatory text and comments follow the general rule [i.e. Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words]." Also using the measurement alone appears too colloquial for an encyclopedic article; the format type should be added (7-inch single, 10-inch record). The examples given in the Template:Infobox single#Parameters Format follow the MOS: 7-inch single, 12-inch single.

Proposal to clarify the Parameters Format instructions following the examples already given and WP:Units (additions in bold):

Format
The way that the single was originally released; i.e. 7-inch single, 12-inch single, CD single, cassette single, digital download (note the piped download link). Do not use &Prime; (″) or double quote (") for inches (use 7-inch instead of 7"; if necessary to abbreviate, use 7 in). Numbers should be expressed in figures rather than spelled out (use 10-inch instead of ten-inch). The format type should also be specified (single, record, etc.), rather than using the measurement alone. See WP:Units. Separate multiple values using {{Flatlist}}.

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections, the above will be added to Parameters Format explanation. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Length parameter

Should the length parameter include the different lengths of the song e.g. the duration of the album and single version or just the duration of the single as the infobox is about the single issue? --Mistymountain546 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox single parameters pertain to information about the original single: release date, format(s), length, label, etc. (the album parameter generates "from the album", not "later included on the album"). Other releases, including those with different durations, should be discussed in an appropriate section in the body of the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Singles rarely contain only one song. It should be the length of the single as a whole. --Michig (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_single/Archive_7&oldid=1147425256"