ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Template talk:Infobox Single - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template talk:Infobox Single

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Infobox Single page.
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Syntax

{{Infobox Single 
| Name           = Smells Like Teen Spirit
| Cover          =
| Artist         = [[Nirvana (band)|Nirvana]]
| from Album     = [[Nevermind]]
| Released       = [[September 10]], [[1991]]
| Format         = [[CD single|CD]], [[Gramophone record|7"]], [[12-inch single|12"]]
| Recorded       = Sound City, [[Van Nuys]]<br />May–June, 1991
| Genre          = [[Grunge music|Grunge]]
| Length         = 5:01
| Label          = [[Geffen Records|DGC]]<br /><small>DGCCS7 ([[United States|US]], 7")<br />DGCS (US, 12")<br />DGCDS-21673 (US, CD)<br />DGC ([[United Kingdom|UK]], 7")<br />DGCT5 (UK, 12")<br />DGCTP5 (UK, 12", picture disc)<br />DGCCD5 (UK, CD)
| Producer       = [[Butch Vig]]
| Last single    = "[[Here She Comes Now/Venus in Furs]]"<br />(1991)
| This single    = "'''Smells Like Teen Spirit'''"<br />(1991)
| Next single    = "[[Come As You Are]]"<br />(1992)
}}

or the empty version:

{{Infobox Single 
| Name           = 
| Cover          = 
| Artist         = 
| from Album     = 
| B-side         = 
| Released       = 
| Format         = 
| Recorded       = 
| Genre          = 
| Length         = mm:ss
| Label          = 
| Writer         = 
| Producer       = 
| Certification  = 
| Last single    = 
| This single    = 
| Next single    = 
}}
-Revised copy & paste syntax. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:32, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

All fields except Name and Artist are optional.

This is how it would look like:

“Smells Like Teen Spirit”
Single by Nirvana
from the album Nevermind
Released September 10, 1991
Format CD, 7", 12"
Recorded Sound City, Van Nuys
May–June, 1991
Genre Grunge
Length 5:01
Label DGC
DGCCS7 (US, 7")
DGCS (US, 12")
DGCDS-21673 (US, CD)
DGC (UK, 7")
DGCT5 (UK, 12")
DGCTP5 (UK, 12", picture disc)
DGCCD5 (UK, CD)
Producer Butch Vig
Nirvana singles chronology
"Here She Comes Now/Venus in Furs"
(1991)		 "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
(1991)		 "Come As You Are"
(1992)

[edit] Articles using syntax instead of the infobox

A lot of them can be found at Special:Whatlinkshere/Songwriters and Special:Whatlinkshere/Single Certifications. Extraordinary Machine 19:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews sections

KitteKlub tried to make the Reviews section work using template:boolnot, but that template is being deprecated due to WP:AUM. Shortly, that template is going away, so we need to make this work. I am going to remove the "Reviews" rows for the time being until a complete solution can be tested and so that the pages can be updated. Once they are, we can restore the Reviews to the template and they will automagically appear on the articles.

The syntax being used in the articles is just ugly. We can't expect users to know how to use HTML tags, and we can't expect the html to work within a template parameter. A better way to handle this is needed. -- Netoholic @ 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Review bug is fixed without boolnot now. I still can't see an easy alternative to test whether Reviews is empty because of the HTML in the parameter. Every time you use the parameter it is evalutated and will get printed. I think that a version with Review as no HTML parameter will make it a lot easier (also for the user) and doesn't require any bug work around like boolnot or the horrible expression I had to put in as a replacement. KittenKlub 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't throw it out before there is some consensus about this. I am not happy with the Review section either, since it is mainly blank. There are nevertheless many pages with reviews, so don't delete a valid option until the creators had their say. I mean they haven't even had the change to say their piece. KittenKlub 01:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
We can live with it for a short while, but ideally not too long. Is there a way to put nofollow in the URL? - David Gerard 10:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so, because it's an HTML parameter, so you can't use any expression on the parameter because it'll break the pages where it is referenced. And that is one more reason why it's not a great parameter. I think we'll soon reach some sort of consensus. But I like to hear the reasoning behind the singles review. KittenKlub 10:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AllMusic ratings

Do reviews even belong in an encyclopedia article, let alone this template? Who is going to continue in the long term to keep all these external links up-to-date?

Most of the Reviews links so far added have been to allmusic.com, a commercial website. Also, the links used often include session or token data in the URL. For example, one entry uses http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=ADFEAEE47D1BDD4CA97420CA932D42E9B972FB05D74DFB9A11320456D3B82D6CAC5C4CD669FBBF81B0FA6AB67BB0FD2EA45E43DAC0EC51F6D96E2D5DF0&sql=10:53rc28oc058a. The token= portion may be some sort of affiliate tag or personal session information (someone logged in when the copied the url). To demonstrate, this shorter url minus the token= part - http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:53rc28oc058a - takes you to the same page.

I think this feature is bad for Wikipedia because it at a minimum is unencyclopedic, and at worst, could be used as a link-spamming tactic for someone else's gain. -- Netoholic @ 01:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The proliferation of AMG links has been bothering me a bit, too—the reviews section also appears in {{Album infobox}}, which my bot has been converting old cut-and-pasted tables into. Some statistics that may or may not be useful, culled from its logs:
  • 468 total articles with 307 total reviews
  • 239 articles with no reviews
  • 177 articles with 1 review
  • 33 articles with 2 reviews
  • 14 articles with 3 reviews
  • 4 articles with 4 reviews
  • 1 article with 6 reviews
Number of reviews by source:
290 of the review lines have external links, leading to:
  • 185 - allmusic.com/www.allmusic.com
  • 32 - rollingstone.com/www.rollingstone.com
  • 14 - www.robertchristgau.com
  • 12 - www.buy.com (!)
  • 8 each - www.q4music.com, www.savatage.com
  • 4 each - www.nme.com, progressiveworld.net/www.progressiveworld.net
  • 2 each - www.nowtoronto.com, www.phisharchive.com
  • 1 each - enjoyment.independent.co.uk, jesusfreakhideout.com, pastemagazine.com, rateyourmusic.com, shopping.guardian.co.uk, www.amazon.com, www.dprp.net, www.findarticles.com, www.guardian.co.uk, www.mazontheweb.5u.com, www.metroweekly.com, www.montrealmirror.com, www.mp3.com, www.musicomh.com, www.nme.co.uk, www.punknews.org, www.rootnode.org, www.stuff.co.nz, www.xmtp.de
—Cryptic (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, those stats are in fact very useful. -- Netoholic @ 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I write some music articles and haven't yet added reviews, but would only add them if I needed to back up a description of the music (which is, of course, subjective). Though that would require notable critics and probably a printed source by preference — I'd be loath to add any old review just because it exists unless there really wasn't anything better. It's A Tricky One requiring Editorial Judgement - David Gerard 10:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See also the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/temp — that would certainly cover current bands. Note the stress on solid references - David Gerard 10:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem I see is that these allmusic ratings (and others) "have no face". They are just numbers with no information on how they were derived or in what context. I don't think there's anything wrong including a summary of a review that the song/album received in the form of "So-and-So, a noted expert in slam-dancing, calls this song "wicked"" in the main article body, but I dislike reducing things down to the numbers just to cram it in a will-be-outdated infobox. -- Netoholic @ 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I have a hard time seeing that as very useful. Of course, others presumably consider it an improvement on nothing - David Gerard 14:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an interesting statement from AllMusic - "we rate albums only within the scope of an artist’s own work -- we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist." I think we should just remove the ratings field from both Template:Infobox Single and Template:Infobox Album. -- Netoholic @ 19:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody made a case to keep them and it's been a week, I think it is fine to delete it from the singles. If possible try to move the information on the existing singles, because it'll prevent people getting upset. It may look quite a long list, but overall most don't have any reviews so you'd probably spend most time opening and closing. As far as the album box goes, it is different because most have reviews and there are a lots of other reviews as well including Rolling Stones, Billboard Magazine which are pretty much unbiased, so maybe you can better start a discussion there first. KittenKlub 22:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews belong in the article, surely

If I recall correctly, WP:MUSIC recommends the All Music Guide as "[A] good online resource [which can be used to] give a level of indication as to what a band or musician has done", so it makes sense that reviews thereon should be mentioned somewhere.

However, this kind of information should surely be shown in the == References == section of the article rather than stuffed into a template.

I note that the reviews on AMG can be focused on individual songs as well as on albums, and we should really use the more specific URL where available.

For instance I note that the URL in the example above (Smells Like Teen Spirit) does not lead to an actual review of the "single": it leads to an overview page from which it is possible to select a song for which a review is available (Aneurysm).

This suggests that in some cases "review" URLs are being added for the sake of it to suggest that the "single" as a whole has been reviewed and rated, whereas the rating is really for a song which appears not only on that but several other singles and albums: this might well be construed as misleading.

It would be much more sensible if the reviews for the individual songs were explicitly referenced.

I agree thoroughly with Netoholic's comment about URLs: more care should be taken to ensure that the shortest URL that actually works is used. To this end, I commend to you {{amg}} and its buddies {{AMG Artist}}, {{AMG Song}} and {{AMG name}} which make it rather less easy to bog up the URL (because if you get it wrong it simply won't work when you test it, as you obviously will because everybody tests their URLs :-) HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the Reviews from the template. The review links are still on the articles, but not being displayed. They can be moved as needed as future editors work on them. -- Netoholic @ 09:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It's an optional field. If you don't feel the need ot use it, disinclude it. We've had album reviews in the infobox for quite some time, and I personally feel that single reviews in the infobox don't cause any problems, especially since they can easily be left out at will. --FuriousFreddy 14:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
My feeling is that we should actively discontinue use of it. This isn't about "personal" feelings - I think that the infobox is not the right place for Reviews and that the presentation of them in the infobox leaves a lot to be desired. I ask again... why should Wikipedia have to keep in sync with another website's rating is? What if they change their rating? To properly WP:CITE that review, one needs to document the source/author, and date. Putting this in the References section, or separate Review section in the article is the more preferable method. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Certification field

I removed the certification field from the infobox. We already have a chart positions section to indicate the popularity of a song, and I think another field dedicated to the commercial aspects of a song is overdoing it somewhat. Also, not all singles have certifications, and the template is long enough with the current fields as it is. Extraordinary Machine 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a portion of your reasoning; while it is true that chart positions indicate a song's popularity, there are a handful that receive a certification from the RIAA, OCC, CRIA, etc. I do disagree with the part of your comment concerning the template being "long enough". Adding one additional field is not going to inflict any harm. If you do not find "certification" notable enough to include in the single information box, is it possible to display it in limited articles about a music-single? For example, if one has the knowledge of its certification and would like to place it in the information box, then they should be allowed to follow through. I propose that the "certification" field become optional. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
For now, I have replaced "certification" in the information box as optional; it can be omitted if desired. Since certification plays a moderately important role in a song's success, I think it appropriate to include it in the box. If a song was not certified, then the field can be removed. Does anyone oppose this action? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The infoboxes are supposed to provide basic summaries about a song. Having one field dedicated to certifications and another to chart positions is, in my opinion, unnecessary. Surely we do not need to have two fields providing information on essentially the same thing, it just takes up space. The template is bigger than the display as it is (see, for example, Check on It), and we need to condense it as much as we can. I won't remove the field again for now, but I do believe that the template is now somewhat unwieldy for no good reason, and I'd like other users to weigh in on the matter as well. Extraordinary Machine 18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name field now optional

I have made the "Name" field optional, so that the infoboxes on articles about songs that contain more than one of them (such as Without You) don't end up reminding the reader of the song's title over and over. Extraordinary Machine 19:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Had I not already made it optional as noted above? Well, perhaps not. Thanks for the clarification. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I understand. You made the "name" field optional, which I did not catch prior to this post. All right, I understand now. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Code update from Album infobox?

Continuing from Template talk:Album infobox#Spinoff infoboxes, I was suggesting that the new code changes applied to that infobox should be instituted here. Some of the new features, as I've observed:

  • almost all fields are optional
  • nocover.gif is used in all infoboxes without a picture supplied
  • alt text for the album cover automatically includes the album title
  • the need for all the <nowiki></nowiki> business has been eliminated.

Since people have been saying in the edit history here that both infoboxes should match, I think this would be a good time to synchronize these changes. –Unint 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a work-in-progress available at User:Locke Cole/Template:Infobox Single. Two things though– 1) I've made the {{{name}}} parameter mandatory and 2) I've not finished making the other parameters optional (but I did get the image deal exactly as it is in the album infobox). Is the name parameter a problem though? Do many articles not have that filled in? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
{{{name}}} and {{{artist}}} fields should be mandatory. They should be filled in if omitted. Jogers (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for new features

As long as things are under development, I have another issue I'd like to bring up. This is the problem of complicated chronology fields, for singles only. (Albums... occasionally, but not nearly as much.) Consider some cases:

  • Different credits for the individual single and the entire chronology. Example: Silence (song). The single is credited to "Delerium featuring Sarah McLachlan", so I would like to put that in the Artist field without the same showing up in the chronology (since no other Delerium singles feature Sarah McLachlan).
  • Multiple, possibly noteworthy, releases of the same single. Example: Brian Wilson (song). What we have here is an attempt to divide the chronology into two rows, using dashes. It doesn't really look good, though, since the rows are not aligned. "Silence" would have had the same problem, only I decided to use two consecutive infoboxes. I haven't been following that as a standard, though: see Blue Monday (New Order song), where I put three releases into one infobox, but only included the chronology for the first release.
  • Multiple artists' chronologies converging on the same single, then diverging again. Examples: Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now), When You Believe. It's just... messy.

I know there have been examples where people have been neatly making additional rows with manual modifications, but the problem seems common enough that we could use a standarized solution that won't require many articles being updated by hand with every new change here. My suggestions:

  • Mandatory Artist field, with optional "chronology artist" field that conditionally overrides it. This shouldn't be difficult, but would make things divergent from the Album infobox... unless we implement the same thing over there. I did just propose some similar, new fields for other purposes, though, and possibly this could be worked in. Also, see examples like Battleship Potemkin (album) where this would genuinely be useful.
  • Optional, additional rows for the single chronology? This would really make things divergent and I'm not even sure how it would be done. Of course, we'd also have to pick an upper limit for the number of rows that can be generated. (For an extreme example of upper limit, see Energy 52's "Café del Mar". A new release for every calendar year, on different labels, for nearly seven consecutive years.)

However, if you're going to do that then you might very well think about automatically generating multiple header bars for multiple artist chronologies. At best this might only require two... but it feels like a messy enough solution as it is and I don't even know what weird cases are out there that I haven't come across. Comments, please, because I can't really figure this out anymore. –Unint 05:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Composer and Lyricist

I would like to request that Composer and Lyricist be added as variables in the box. --Bensin 20:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

... or perhaps an infobox for songs? --Bensin 02:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

I've recorded some thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Infoboxes which are pertinent to this template. I'm (boldly) suggesting a rather different approach to the infobox. Please feel free to comment there. Flowerparty? 01:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive update

For details, see User talk:Locke Cole. For some history/examples, see User talk:Locke Cole/Template:Infobox Single (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs). See also {{Chronology}}. If there's problems (and you can't work out a fix yourself), please revert the template, explain what was wrong and (most importantly) link to a page where I can see the problem myself. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 07:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we broke Without You by going against the earlier decision to make {{{Name}}} optional (see Name field now optional, above). I completely missed that and just went by what Jogers said later (in Code update from Album infobox?). I was going to consult the people who made the change, but then I read that they're both leaving, so... Honestly, I could see just leaving it as mandatory.
However, I'm changing the link to RIAA single certification to Music recording sales certification, for globalization purposes. –Unint 07:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd leave it mandatory. There should not be pages with multiple instances of this template on them (with rare exceptions anyways). If there's enough info at Without You, I'd suggest splitting them off into their own articles (each with their own infobox), if not, I'd remove the boxes which clearly do not belong (very little actual content about them) and fill in the name fields for the ones that remain (if any). Agree with your other change, seems reasonable. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, is that wise? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#ONE article per composition. We don't need to create loads of duplicate articles for the sake of an infobox. Flowerparty☀ 14:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
So I tried something new at Without You. Please pass judgment on how insane it may or may not be. –Unint 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Insane. =) I think the only way to keep it from looking like a mess would be to split them off into their own separate stubs. If there's some commonality between them, you could have the main Without You article be some special form of disambiguation page (where it talks about the song itself in relation to the various artists who have performed it). IMO of course, if it looks good to you I have no objections. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It's.. different. Flowerparty☀ 01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I think the bottom line is that not all cover versions (even those released as singles) have enough information available regarding them to be feasible as a proper article, and in the case where some versions are article-worthy and others aren't, it's just going to be a mess trying to decide which ones are.
You know, I think we may be at a turning point as far as single article coverage and chronology use goes. Now that we have the option to exclude the chronology entirely or include multiple ones, I think it's time for some new guidelines as to when to do what. Some questions:
  • With regard to the creation of the singles chronology in the same way as the albums chronology, I can only imagine that the idea was to have some "complete" singles chronologies, as we're getting all the time these days. (See Erasure discography for a brand-new string of singles articles from just last week.) However, not everyone believes this is the way to go. (See The KLF discography for a non-completionist approach.)
  • If not a complete chronology — if we exclude non-notable singles, whichever they may be — then is the chronology "broken", as it were? We don't want red links for articles that we never plan to write, so we may replace them with plain black text — but does that undermine the "continuous series of pages connected by links" concept? It would be annoying if just one single were skipped in a series and the one after that couldn't be reached by chronology. In which case, should we create stub articles as bridges?
  • These "chronology stacks" that I'm advocating — do people start yelling when they get to be three, four rows high? (I suppose I should be implementing them to get actual feedback... Time constraints, etc.) If they are okay, then when should we merge multiple infoboxes on one article into one? Always, so as to avoid debate? And then, where do the other single covers go?
I have plans to start this discussion on multiple fronts. Someone else has already started one at Category talk:The KLF#Singles chronology (Three covers in one infobox? It's one solution...), which prompted me to get thinking... I should probably get over there about now. As for other fronts, stay tuned. –Unint 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brackets in usage

I think the brackets should have been left in. Observe what happens when someone pastes it in with brackets and all:

“Foo”
Single by Bar


Now observe what happens when you remove the brackets and fill in some fields:

“Foo”
Single by Bar
from the album Baz
Released 2006
Format CD
Genre Rap
Label Warner


If people are trying to fill them in and leaving the brackets, we should update the instructions with a bolded warning to remove the brackets if you use an optional field. But this appears to be a clean way of making it possible to (at the time someone is viewing the usage) see which fields are optional and still have it work when pasted into an article (instead of putting a * next to them for example, which would have to be removed). Just my thoughts. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, in my experience most infoboxes work fine in practice without visual cues for optional fields inserted into the code. (Pick one of many at Cat:Infobox templates.) Certainly the album infobox seems to be working (although usually all of its fields are applicable, unlike b-side and certification here). Anyway, it's not like people are racking their brains to fill out every single field that they think is required; I just ran across Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm today, for example.
I also came up with this, which it turns out some infoboxes already use in their usage examples:
{{Infobox Single |
| Name           = 
| Cover          = <!-- optional -->
| Artist         = 
| from Album     = <!-- optional -->
...
Or, as some people are doing it:
{{Infobox Single |
| Name           = 
| Cover          = <!-- optional -->
| Artist         = 
| from Album     = <!-- optional, remove line if not applicable -->
...
I guess I like my white space. These things can get cluttered enough as it is. –Unint 21:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I find the extra square brackets confusing. And infobox syntax is confusing enough as it is unless you know how it works. Flowerparty☀ 01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No cover available"?

If there's no cover, shouldn't we just omit it instead of putting a big image there? æle ✆ 2006-04-27t00:12z

We do the same thing with {{Album infobox}} if no image is provided. I don't know what the actual original thinking was, but I think the idea is to encourage people to find the covers and upload them. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra Albums?

Would it be possible/viable to impliment an 'extra albums' field? IE: From the album Album 1 Also appears on Album 2

For example; So that songs which are originally on one album but are re-recorded for another album, re-released on another album (or live album, etc.) don't just make a really long 'from the album' box (and it can't be altered to say 'from the albums' so that's another reason for it)

[edit] Questions

  1. On the song table it has a category called B-side, what would this be used for?
  2. I got told that if the song i was putting a table in for was a song from a soundtrack, it had to be the colour purple. How do I change the colour yellow to purple? Or doesn't this need to be used anymore? Lillygirl 16:05, 30 April 2006
  1. For B-sides, see the B-side article; in practice we use it to refer to previously unreleased songs found on a single release, even though CD singles nowadays don't have B sides per se.
  2. There is no way to change the colour of this infobox (that's why I removed the relevant information from WP:SONG). Nobody seems interested in elaborating on this or implementing colour changes, so I think we're leaving it at that. –Unint 18:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] single chronology by country?

Many bands release different singles in various countries. Is there a way, for example to list the UK single chronology as well as the US? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MistaTee (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

I'd say use additional instances of {{Extra chronology}}. –Unint 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

Should the length field refer to the length of all the songs on the CD, or the length of the song? Waseem7

It should refer only to the length of the A-side. --Oagersnap 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Album chronology

I think it would be good to show a single's chronology relating to the album it's on. For example, you can get to Pennyroyal Tea from Milk It and Radio Friendly Unit Shifter, but you can't get to either of those from Pennyroyal Tea. It's handy to be able to browse through an album's contents without having to go back to the album article, but the single infobox prevents this.--Teiladnam 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just made Template:Extra tracklisting to get round this very problem. I've got to sort it so that it's not alway the same colour but it seems to work pretty well. (I was reading OK Computer when I realised that it was a bit irritating that I couldn't do this but now you can through singles as well as album tracks on that one). --Thetriangleguy 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Could someone possibly go over to the {{Extra tracklisting}} template and add a Type field similar to the {{Extra chronology}} and {{Album infobox}} template? To distinguish track listings of EPs, compilations etc.. Thanks. -- Reaper X 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More chronology stuff

Does anyone think it would be better to allow for the chronology to go from album->single->EP->Album->single->single instead of having it say "singles chronology?" I think it would make for an easier chronology. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "from Album" line

I think the "from Album" line, when filled and viewed as a infobox and viewed on a page, should not be bolded. Makes it look clunky. Either all of it should be standard text or atleast "From the album" doesn't need to be bolded. Who needs to bring extra attention to that? Also, perhaps change "from Album" to "from" or "from record" or something, just in case it's not been released off an "Album", maybe it was off an EP... what if it was radio-only or promotional? Gohst 02:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Different issue, same general topic: I just used the template in the "Summer Babe" article. It's great, extremely user-friendly, my only issue is this: is there some way to make it say "albums" instead of "album?" That song shows up on two different albums, and there is a valid case for each of them as far as primacy goes (IMHO). Any way to work around this? Augustus Chip (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music video director

There should be a "Music video director" field, don't you guys agree? Funk Junkie 17:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so; I mean, the infobox is very large as it is. Extraordinary Machine 15:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audio sample

Could we add audio sample in the infobox? I think it's better if it's included--HW-Barnstar PLS 16:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This would need to be discussed before adding it. Not certain where I stand on it, could see arguments both ways. --*Spark* 12:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with having such a section and hence have created a prototype which can be found here and in use here--AshadeofgreyTalk 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I kinda liked that template you made but did doesn't have a link to audio sample's information (fair use, summary and the user who uploads it) could anyone add the audio sample pls.--HW-Barnstar PLS 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added {{Audiosample}}--AshadeofgreyTalk 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks that helps a lot--HW-Barnstar PLS 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chart positions

Maybe someone can put a link in the syntax or on the template page itself for people to find more chart positions. Most people do not kow where they can get the other chart positions that are really reliable, so I have made a list of official record charts and links to their websites. I think this way people are able to put more peak positions on the single articles. -- Luigi-ish 19:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Composer entry

I think that the infobox should have a "composer" entry in addition to the "writer" entry similar to {{Song infobox}}. Song composers and song writers are different – composers write the music and writers write the music. Therefore there should be a line for both. –Crashintome4196 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see that the "writer"-entry was removed from the single infobox. A single doesn't have a writer or a composer, a song does. A single consists of songs. Consider a song infobox that is called to make up content of both the single infobox and the album infobox. --Bensin 12:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Either would satisfy me - "writer" seems odd. ¦ Reisio 12:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

How should I go about adding a review, while keeping it as the single infobox? Above the latest discussion dates back over a year. In most cases, it is not needed, but if it was the only release by a band, and the review (amg) has worthwhile information. Wikipedia tells me to be bold, and if I came upon a single (or anything similar) that I'd like to know more about, I'd be interested in checking out an external url. The rating alone I understand as not being necessary. Baseballfan Talk 03:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That should go in the main text of the article in a section about critical reception. ShadowHalo 05:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title quotes

{{editprotected}} I'm requesting a slight change of code at the top of the template:
"{{{Name}}}"
to
{{#switch: {{{Quotes|}}}|off={{{Name}}}|on="{{{Name}}}"|="{{{Name}}}"}}

This request is due to several single articles using some kind of graphic as the title, and the quotes somewhat interfere with the display of this. The switch should allow the use of either "off", "on" or nothing at all, yielding valid results. I admit I'm not fantastic with parserfunctions, but my tests haven't shown any errors. Once changed, the /doc page should be updated as well, but I can take care of this if the editing admin desires. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would there ever be a need to use a graphic as the title? –Unint 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Unknown, but it happens. As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with using one, and this simple code change will keep them from looking odd. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm making inquiries about the copyright status of "recreated" logos. Also, I'm personally dubious about placing the exact same text design from the cover right above it a second time. (Yes, this is something I really want to cut down; it just feels like spillover enthusiasm from all the Infobox musical artist logos.) –Unint 03:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why this is necessary; the title should always be text, and the copyright status of the images is not clear. I'm disabling the editprotected tag for now. CMummert · talk 12:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Composer / Lyrics / Music Video

I do think a line for the composer should be added to the template, as in Template:Song infobox. Also, is there an extra template for lyrics, possibly an expanding one, or even one for a link to official lyrics from the group's website? And for music videos.. whats going on with that? Is there a template? 67.188.73.242 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chart Positions

I think it should mention in the title for Chart positions that they are peak positions. Somethingvacant 01:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 12:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to lyrics

I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to put a lyric link into the infobox to the relevant page. I would personally use the wiki website LyricWiki], a wikipedia style wiki but only for song lyrics. For example, the template would automatically place the "http://lyricwiki.org/" in by default so all that needs to be entered is the "Pink:Leave Me Alone (I'm Lonely)" name. It would end up being like this: [1].

What do others think? It's a good reliable source for lyrics (unlike other lyric websites out there with viruses and intrusive ads). I personally believe that majority of people visit song articles on Wikipedia hoping to find lyrics but to no avail. --Lakeyboy 11:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that such a website constitutes a copyright violation, since permission was not received to reprint them. It would be like linking to copyvio material on YouTube...just isn't done for our protection and yours. I'm sure someone else can explain the intricacies if need be. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the copyright jist of it. I'm abit confused. It's not re-printing the lyrics, just linking to the page like an external link. There is external links to YouTube as well in many articles. Can someone please clarify. Thanks. --Lakeyboy 10:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are many links to videos on YouTube, but that doesn't make it right. In the majority of cases, the person who uploaded the video to YouTube does not own the video, thus, it is a copyright violation. It is the same thing with song lyrics. These external websites may post the words, but they do not have the legal right to do so. Take a look at the second paragraph here: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works; this is where it states that we cannot link to copyvio sites. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to hide instructions

Can someone add comment-tags around "Please note: This is not necessarily the same as "Artist""? That information only need to be visible to someone editing the article. --Bensin 12:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You can actually edit Template:Infobox Single/doc to make that happen, if I understand your request correctly. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure how I would go about to do this. Can someone please execute my requested edit and post a link to the diff of the edit here to demonstrate how I should do it in the future? --Bensin 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. Here's the diff. --PEJL 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cover size?

What is the "Cover size" line in this infobox template for? It doesn't appear in the example on the template page and I can't find any references to it in this talk page or its archive. InnocuousPseudonym 04:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Cover size can be used to specify the size of the cover image if you want it smaller than the default 200px. The only reason this should be used is if the image that was uploaded is smaller than 200px, in which case it will expand to 200px resulting in distortion. Type in the original width of the image (say, "150", not "150px") and it will display correctly. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Port changes from album infobox

{{editprotected}}

We should port som recent changes to Template:Infobox Album (and Template:Extra chronology 2) to this infobox. Please apply this diff. --PEJL 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes Around Name

{{editprotected}} Could somebody please edit the code for me so there are no quotes around the song title? I would really appreciate it. I'm trying to use images as substitute for words because I don't want the whole infobox to just be Arial. I try to use the logo of the single itself and put it as the title. If others wish to use quotes, they can manually input it. Thank you. Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'll look several sections above, you'll see where this exact thing was proposed (along with potential code) to be implemented, and quickly shot down. Removing tag per above. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion proposal: Classes of single

I find that a need to properly document a maxi single still exists and that my previous Template:Infobox Maxi single failed to meet the requirement (deletion discussion, begun 28 June 2007 at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Maxi single: NoNTemplate deleted 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC) - BCS). Given what WikiProject Albums did on providing for studio, mix/remix, compilation, collaborative, &c. albums on Template:Infobox album, I have reason to believe that this Template may be modifiable to provide better flexibility for similar requirements in terms of studio-original, cover-version, mix/remix, and collaborative singles and maxi singles; notable cover singles are released when warranted, e.g. "You're the One That I Want (from Grease)," released as a studio original on RSO in the 1970's and as a cover version on Epic UK in the 1990's. What classes would be warranted on an improvement of this Template? - B.C.Schmerker 13:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misc no work

I am using {{Infobox Single}} on the page Marvin (song). When I added something to the Misc field, it was displayed in the main text of the article. Er ... 216.123.197.22 02:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't just put any information in the "Misc" field, only templates that are meant to be used there. --PEJL 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so where can I find a list of the templates that are meant to be used in the Misc field? 216.123.197.22 04:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Digging around a little I found Category:Music infobox templates. There are some templates there I wouldn't recommend using, but it does include the relevant ones: the Template:Extra... templates (Template:Extra album cover 2, Template:Extra chronology 2, Template:Extra musicsample, Template:Extra tracklisting) as well as Template:Singles (only relevant for the album infobox, not this one). --PEJL 09:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that the displayed Usage for Template:Extra musicsample does not mention

| Type           = Single

. 216.123.197.12 08:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Template:Extra tracklisting

I propose Template:Extra tracklisting be renamed to Template:Extra track listing to use the standard phrase "track listing" rather than the non-standard "tracklisting". (Leaving a message here as well because this talk page likely gets more traffic). Any objections? --PEJL 09:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, though for consistencies sake, it would be a good idea to try and AWB those articles using the template to reflect the new name so the old name isn't simply replicated by those copy'n'pasters. If needed, I can probably do this. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. (I have been granted AWB access, but I haven't started using it yet.) We might also want to rename Template:Extra musicsample to Template:Extra music sample. --PEJL 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't yet renamed the templates mentioned above, but I have renamed Template:Song infobox to Template:Infobox Song as proposed on that template's talk page. If someone goes through and updates existing uses of that template, I recommend at the same time adding the standard comment to the first line of the infoboxes, where missing. --PEJL 09:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean the <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs --> part? Yes, that should be easy enough to do. I'll attempt to get a start on this when I get off work this morningon Saturday (I hate work), though given the nature of AWB (sometimes fast, sometimes slow) I cannot guess how long it'll take. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly (after a space but no pipe, to be precise). Great, thanks for doing this! --PEJL 10:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
When you do so, would you mind keeping track of the number of replacements you make of Infobox Song? If I remember, AWB does it for you. The number of uses of this template will be useful in deciding how to deal with misused fair use images as is being discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_Song#Cover. Λυδαcιτγ 05:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That wouldn't be very representative, since that only gives the number of uses of the infobox using the name "Template:Song infobox". Some already use "Template:Infobox Song" (which was previously a redirect). This can quite easily be counted using the "What links here" feature in Wikipedia. I found 2128 links to "Template:Song infobox" and 852 links to "Template:Infobox Song", which makes roughly 3000 links total. Some of those are links from non-song articles (references from talk pages like this one for example), but it gives a rough estimate. --PEJL 09:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catalog number

The fields in the Infobox include Label, so why not Catalog number? My workaround to this was to tack the information onto the end of the Label, eg "Label = [[Polydor]] (POSP 261)". Is there a better way? 216.123.197.12 08:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit-protected request: add hCalendar mark up

{{editprotected}}

As described debated and implemented for Infobox Album. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G-Unit Records WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject G-Unit Records. We are currently on demand for new members and we believe that the project could benefit from your contributions. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards

--The-G-Unit-Boss 20:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide Points

Can wikipedia please include worldwide points for singles in the infobox, it will be included for singles that have entered the United World Chart. It is very informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ginascrew (talk • contribs) 01:55, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removing chart positions field

I'm not going to ask why we have the chart positions since that seems pretty obvious, but from what I've seen, having them in the template isn't worth the trouble. Awhile ago, the convention was to include English-speaking countries since this is the English Wikipedia and countries where it reached the top forty. English-speaking countries are no longer used by default since that's biased toward the Anglosphere. What remains is probably a worse bias; it only includes the countries where the single did somewhat well. Now, the best solution, in my opinion, would be to do what's normally done with record charts, which is using the largest music markets (IFPI publishes yearly lists of the countries' shares in the world market). But this just raises another question: why would we be using an abbreviated list of an already non-comprehensive list of chart positions at the end of the article?

My other concern is just the logistics of the section. It usually takes up several lines of space, one for the "Peak chart positions" heading, and then several lines of the positions themselves. That can lead to messes like this. Even a trimmed list is relatively unhelpful. With several lines of space, we can include, say, the writers, producers, length, and genre of a song, which are far more fundamental characteristics of a single. An individual chart position is not exactly a defining characteristic, so it seems best to leave that information in the text of the article itself. 17Drew 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted at WT:SONG#peak positions (where this proposal originated), I agree with removing the peak positions from the infobox, and instead having them only in the article body. --PEJL 05:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. I've been deleting # signs to adhere the guidelines but IPs and other users kept on reverting and even leave a message not to erase the sign which contradicts the policy. Just keeping the page cluttered and leaving the home chart futile because of repeated not-so-essential infos. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with the idea of removing Chart positions from the template if they already exist in chart form. Chart form inherently allows for a better display of information. Personally speaking, I'm about to be bold and remove positions from templates for the articles I follow (Evanescence primarily)...after leaving a message on the main article talk page, no one has objected or even commented on the issue. And speaking to 17Drew above, that particular article you link to has way too many chart entries as it is, rather violently going against WP:CHARTS.
Ultimately, I would suggest the removal of this field from the template itself. I have never seen an article with only position information in the template. Thoughts? -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
So, what were gonna do now? Admins? BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 09:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to make a sandbox for this template. I'll ask an admin to make this change after having done so. --PEJL 09:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks PEJL. Put it this way, the primary argument here is needless replication of large amounts of data. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It may be a good idea to wait a day or two before requesting the change. The template's applied to a bunch of articles, so if there's any opposition to making the change, it's best to discuss it now. Otherwise, it could turn out that there are a bunch of editors who oppose the change, and we're pointing to a brief discussion between a couple of people. I did leave a message at WT:SONG to notify people of the proposal. 17Drew 13:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree about waiting a few days. I've made a sandbox and a testcase, and applied a number of changes to the sandbox, see here. Note that I've made some other changes as well, of which the visible changes include:
  • showing the album the same way as the other fields, for consistency with the recent change to {{Infobox Song}}
  • removing "(s)", for consistency with the recent change to {{Infobox Album}}
  • tweaking the column widths, for consistency with the recent change to {{Infobox Album}}
--PEJL 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks great PEJL, thanks again. Though I was always rather fond of the "from the album..." line ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm also Agreeing. Chart stuff not need in the infobox if it is already within the text and/or in the charts table at the end of the article. This is just another mess that is best removed. - eo 14:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely agree we should ditch them. It makes no sense to list chart positions in the 'single' infobox and not the album one. Now, if we could get this kind of consensus to scrap the reviews section in the album box... Flowerparty☀ 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems we have the consensus already? Admins? please consider this one. Thanks. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine, let's go ahead with this change. Please apply the current sandbox to this template. --PEJL 10:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Wait, where did the "from the album" bit disappear to? Was that discussed somewhere else? 17Drew 08:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I moved it to a regular "Album" field, as noted above. No, it was not discussed. I was WP:BOLD and made that change to the song infobox a few days ago. No one has complained so far, so I made this change to this infobox as well. Do you disagree with this change? --PEJL 09:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I made this change because:
  • It was the only information that was bold (which goes against WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface) and center-aligned without being a table heading.
  • The capitalization was inconsistent with the rest of the infobox.
  • I didn't see any reason for this info to be shown differently than the other fields.
I also added "Album" as an alternative name for the field "from Album", for consistency with the other fields. It was inconsistently capitalized compared to the other fields in the infobox, and "Album" works fine. We don't have "by Artist", so no reason to have "from Album". Both "from Album" and "Album" will continue to work, but we can update the documentation to use the latter. --PEJL 09:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm a little mixed on it. Although not included in the heading, it looks like it was being used as one, especially since it forms the phrase "Single by <artist> from the album <album>" when read with the previous line. If I understand correctly, singles were originally issued to help promote an album. (I'd argue that they still are, to some degree, since singles generate less profit than albums.) It seems to me like articles about singles are akin to subtopics of an album article, much in the same way that album articles are subtopics of an article about an artist. So, it seems like the artist and album are the fundamental characteristics of a single, while the other pieces of information are important, but not as defining. As for the change from from Album to Album, that sounds fine to me, and it's easier to remember. 17Drew 22:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, to me it doesn't form the phrase at first glance, mainly because of the differing background color. If we want to keep the "from the album..." bit and want it to be seen as part of the preceding table heading we should consider moving it into the table heading (which visually means giving it the yellow background color). I've done so in the sandbox, see testcases. I think both of these solutions are improvements on the current template, and would be fine with either. I'm updating the editprotected request below to use this method, as it is a smaller change from the current template. --PEJL 23:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
At first I figured that adding the line into the table heading would make the color overwhelming. But it doesn't look too big at all in the sandbox, I'm guessing because the single cover is much larger. That looks like a good solution to me. 17Drew 00:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I assumed the same, which is why I initially used a separate "Album" field. It looks better than expected. (Consider also that most artist names will be longer than "Blur", in which case it will look even better.) I just noticed a bug, so I'm removing editprotected while i debug. 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There was no bug, just a typo in the test case. I tried to improve the line wrapping further, but didn't come up with anything that works for all combinations of artist/album name lengths. So let's go ahead with this change. --PEJL 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The code in the sandbox has two issues: one, it introduces a lot of extra code to make cells text-align:left, when the old system was better. There are more fields that would benefit from the table being text-align:left than there are headers that benefit from being able to not use text-align:center. Two, I'm sure there are plenty of pages that use the chart parameter. If it's suddenly going to be removed, the template code should generate a category of all the pages that use the parameter (e.g., {{#if:{{{chart|}}}|<includeonly>[[Category:whatever]]</includeonly>....) so that a bot can remove those fields or a person can ensure that the information has been moved / merged into a separate section. Also, I'm not really seen on using width's (e.g., 5.2 em;) throughout the infobox, however, if you do use those, they only need to be declared once. The rest of the cells below will conform; there's no other option for them. If any of my comments were unclear, let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The code in the sandbox has been changed for consistency with the album infobox, which has this formatting. The old system isn't actually better IMO, it uses less markup, but the markup is less correct HTML. The field labels are technically row-scope table headings, and should be marked up as such. The widths need to be used on every row, because we don't know which rows will be included in the infobox, as they are all more or less optional. The category sounds like a good idea. --PEJL 20:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I have added the category. Please apply the current sandbox to the template. --PEJL 23:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I did want to comment on the category. Not that it shouldn't be added, but I wanted to make sure to ask that no one put in a bot request once the category is established. Since it's removing a conspicuous field from a widely used template, there's a decent chance that there may be people wanting to include the template coming to the talk page. In that case, we don't want to lose the information until it's established that there's consensus from not only people watching this page and WT:SONG, but the community as a whole. 17Drew 01:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It'll be a long process that must be done by hand, no doubt; any idea of how many articles are using the template at the moment (sorry, nowhere near a computer with AWB). However, it'll be more tedious than difficult, since the field can simply be removed if a chart is already present, or the data migrated if there isn't. If someone can work up a set of instructions on how to use AWB to do this chore, I'd gladly assist...I just have no idea how to use Regex or any of the higher fuctions of find/replace in that program. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say it was a good decision to remove the chart positions. By excluding redundant details already repeated elsewhere, we're maximising the usefulness of the information in the infobox and articles. Spellcast 10:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Single articles with infobox field chart position

Category:Single articles with infobox field chart position seems to appear in many or even all articles with this infobox - and even this discussion page. Could that please be sorted. Agathoclea 20:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

See above. --PEJL 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
ok. Someone else just as puzzled as myself created the Category in question. Maybe you could fill the category with a blurb about the purposeif the cleanup will take longer. Please remember to get it deleted once the cleanup is done. Agathoclea 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Req: Reduce line-height

{{editprotected}}

Please apply the current sandbox, which reduces the line-height in the caption and chronology sections, for consistency with the recent changes to Template:Infobox Album, Template:Extra album cover 2 and Template:Extra chronology 2. --PEJL 17:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certification details

Where are the detailed guidelines in adding/editing certifications? BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 01:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if there are guidelines, but I would suggest the following:
  • Add citations for any certifications.
  • If there's only a couple, add them in prose to the appropriate section of the article (ie. "Mainstream success", "Critical reception" etc.)
  • If there's more than a couple, add them as a table.
Does that help? Cheers. -- Reaper X 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. But what i am looking for is in the infobox thing. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Make sure you add them to the article body as well, not just in the infobox. Add citations in the article body. --PEJL 10:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What i've observed in most singles articles do have ceritfications on the infobox field but wasnt edited in detail in the page. Usually, users do not cite sources in the certifications thats why it's sometimes dubious. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chart Positions

Somebody deleted the "Chart Positions" section. Could somebody put that section back again? It's really helpful when editing articles. Cuyler91093 (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been decided tht this should not be inluded anymore. Please delete the field in articles when you come across it if it contains no data. Also, this template it broken. I unsuccessfully tried to fix it and so reverted it to a revision as of 19:42, November 5, 2007. Somebody please try and fix is ASAP. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you tell me why it has been decided to be deleted? Thank you. Cuyler91093 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
See WT:SONG#peak positions. --PEJL (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
And also the thread above; Template_talk:Infobox_Single#Removing_chart_positions_field. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images used in singles chronology fields

Does Wikipedia and this template support the use of images within the singles chronology fields? See Teen Age Riot

Or should the images be deleted from the infobox in the above example?

Noting that the three examples shown on the template page do not make use of images, but at the same time there is no statement make to indicate that images should not be used. Dbiel (Talk) 03:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We had this issue some time ago, and it was determined (as I recall) that use of images in that fashion violates fair-use policy. The images do not directly support the article in any fashion other than decorative, and should be removed with extreme prejudice, as the saying goes. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audio sample field

It seems inappropriate for the "Audio sample?" field to be implemented they way it has been...aren't we pushing fair-use enough with allowing cover art to be included with every single/album, even if it is not discussed in the article itself? Including this seems to be a intrinsic allowance for audio samples to be included, again, regardless of whether or not the sample is discussed. Further, using a category to list all articles without samples seems even more inappropriate, as it gives the impression that an article *should* or *must* have a sample. Has any of this been discussed, or were these unilateral edits? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Esprit15d (talk · contribs) added the "Audio sample?" field, but I don't see any prior discussion of it on this or any other talk page. I was thinking the same thing: if I'm reading Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips correctly—music clips must be "accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary"—any song article containing a sample from that song should contain (reliably sourced) information about the style and/or subject matter of the song. As far as I know, a lot of song articles (probably most, in fact) include information about secondary, almost peripheral aspects of the song (chart positions, music video, etc.), but little about the song itself. I don't see how the presence of audio samples in these articles would constitute "fair use". Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; as a general rule I avoid audio samples like the plague, because it is so difficult to justify their use. Is there any agreement that this may be best removed until proper discussion takes place? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, there was a prior mention towards the top of this page, but no real discussion was made, and nothing resulted except the formation of {{Audiosample}}. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -