Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Should the infoboxes for singles and songs contain miscellaneous information?

Template:Infobox single and Template:Infobox song contain fields for miscellaneous information, such as additional chronologies, a track listing using, extra covers, and a sample of the music. A recent discussion pointed out that these are not key facts about the subject of the article, which an infobox is supposed to summarize. MOS:INFOBOX includes:

the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. (emphasis added)

As a summary of the article (similar to the lead), an infobox should not contain information that is not discussed (and referenced) in the body of the article. Chronologies and track listings are more for navigational or background purposes. Likewise extra covers and audio samples are better included in the article sections where they are discussed. Also, details about additional releases, labels, etc. are sometimes added, when the parameter instructions specify using the original or earliest release. Again, if significant, these should be discussed in the appropriate article section. Limiting the information to key facts also helps to reduce the size of the infobox, which can easily dominate short articles. Should the miscellaneous and any other non-key information fields be removed? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I've already stated my views above, but just to summarise them all in one place, I believe the infobox should not contain (a) audio samples (should be included in the article body), (b) the extra track listing template (pointless), (c) certifications (should be included in the article body). You *might* make a case for an extra cover in certain circumstances, for example, including the covers of both the original 1984 version of "Take On Me" and the re-recorded 1985 worldwide hit version as almost nobody outside of Norway will ever recognise the original cover picture, but there will be very few of these cases.
And with reference to Template talk:Infobox album#Studio parameter, take #2, I do think it would be a good idea to include separate date, studio and venue parameters in this infobox as well.
As an aside, all and more of this applies equally to Template:Infobox album, but of course that is better discussed as a separate issue at WP:ALBUMS. Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • An additional chronology parameter works when a single is a split release. And sometimes audio samples have no better place in an article than the infobox.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Removing audio samples from the infobox would be a major overhaul - for instance, the featured article "Like a Rolling Stone" uses one in the infobox. I don't see how additional covers are not useful. The point of debate is what is useful and what isn't. In a case such as "Round of Applause", the article is dealing with two different variants of the song, so it's difficult to determine which cover is more "important" or "useful" to include in the infobox.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do we even have separate templates for singles and songs anyway? It's like having different templates for compilations and LPs. If the infobox were to note variants of a song, such as remixes or rerecordings, maybe something like {{Extra song variants}} would be appropriate. But when distinguishing whether the song was originally released as a single — why not just use |type=single? A "variant" module could also note when a song would be later released as a single.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

We've become used to seeing infoboxes loaded up with so much info that they have taken on a life of their own. The original purpose of an infobox is to be a summary of the article – to provide key facts. Is the artist's (or multiple artists) singles chronology a key fact about the single itself? Or the song's sequence among album tracks? If this is important information, why is it rarely discussed or referenced in the body of an article? It is probably in the infobox because we are used to seeing it there and it has become expected. Similarly, some infoboxes contain all the information on subsequent releases: additional dates, timings, formats, B-sides, etc. The template instructions specify that only information about the original or earliest release be included in the infobox – probably to prevent them from becoming overloaded. It may be useful to look at what are the key facts to provide a summary of the article. One possibility:

  • Primary (obvious): Title, artist, writer(s), release date, from the album (as opposed to later added to the album)
  • Secondary: When & where recorded, label, format, producer(s), B-side, cover

Genre will probably remain, but it is subject to so much BS, that it is practically useless. The rest can go in the body of the article: certifications in a "Reception" or "Charts" section; different covers in a "Releases" section; a music sample in a "Composition" or "Recording" section; music video in a "Video" section; etc. Arguments about "major change" or "overhaul" should not be a determining factor – this streamlining would be in keeping with basic MOS:INFOBOX policy. The much-used "Review" field was moved out of album infoboxes a while back without significant problems; changes to infobox singles and songs could be dealt with similarly. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

3family6 does have a point though that you have to tread carefully when proposing changes to FAs, I hadn't thought of that.
Regarding singles chronology, I don't have a problem with including it in the infobox, but it can be awkward when the chronology differs from country to country: the singles from Little Earthquakes were released in a different order in the US and the UK, for example, and I think the same applies to the singles from Nightclubbing, so you would have to specify which country's chronology you are using. Of course, both the singles and albums chronologies for the Beatles differ completely between the UK and the US, so it's necessary to include both, or neither. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
1) Maybe BU Rob13 could tell us if infobox fields, such as Audiosample, Certification, etc., can be relocated out of the infoboxes by an automated process without causing disruption (I don't recall FAs were an issue when this was done for album infoboxes).
2) Point taken. At some point all this extra information becomes counter productive (clutter). If a second country's chronology is added, what about a third, fourth, etc.? For re-releases? I've seen extra track listings for compilations. It's interesting that this is not usually included in the body of the article (an infobox should not have info that is not in the text). An artist's navbox at the bottom of the article provides links to other singles and albums and sometimes provides as much as a mini-discography. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
You can also argue to take out the months and days from infoboxes since most articles only ever cite the year of release, not the specific date. This is contrived. Of course a song's placement in an artist's discography is a useful, key fact. So are track list sequences. Concept albums have been ubiquitous for the last 50 years — articles like Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 will note when a track segues from (or to) another. And whoever said infoboxes can't function as navboxes? Infoboxes are sidebars, and sidebars are a type of navbox.
As with navigation templates, the purpose of the infobox is for its utility (MOS:INFOBOX).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If you want to talk about removing useless, miscellaneous parameters, they should be the ones on {{Infobox song}} that were merged from {{Infobox standard}}--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:22,20 July 2016 (UTC)
This was brought up at the time of the merger,[1] but no action was taken. Perhaps this is a good time to address it. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd argue that track sequences are even less useful with regards to concept albums, because the point of a concept album is that there is some kind of narrative that flows through the album, and simply seeing that "Track 4 Name" follows "Track 3 Name" tells me nothing about the storyline, or that it segues into the following track – for that you need a section of text... indeed, in the Pink Floyd example that you cite, that is exactly what the "Concept" section does.
The argument about Template:Infobox single and Template:Infobox song has been made before... I'd have to dig in the archives to find it. Richard3120 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
A concept album is not necessarily a narrative, it's loosely defined as a collection of tracks that belong together like chapters of a book or episodes of a television series. Many song articles provide track placement info in the lead, usually in the first or second sentence. It's crucial, rudimentary information. You don't know whether certain tracks segue, but you know where they lead, which is enough.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding extra covers for singles, editor GeorgeHo has proposed a whole host of them to be deleted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 15, should anyone here want to express an opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Could you show me an example edit of what you would want such a bot to do? Are you talking about creating a whole certifications section in the article automatically? ~ Rob13Talk 14:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: this explains what was done for albums. Moves out of Infobox singles and songs would probably be similar. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Singles chronologies I would consider important, in the same way that album chronologies are. Of course, the chronology should also be mentioned in the article, not just the infobox. However, I've never really understood the point of putting the album tracklist into the song infobox - I've never found that useful. With extra album covers, I can see either way. I'd think mostly you would only need it for the following types of cases a) there are multiple cover versions released simultaneously (like the album The Triptych), b) there is a subsequent, more well-known version (such as "Take on Me" as mentioned above), or c) you have an article that deals with two different versions of a song, but with a single infobox (like my example, "Round of Applause", that I listed above. Finally, regarding FAs, my contention is that not only would some of the changes affect them, but that, if the information is given in the infobox of an FA-quality article, clearly editors considered it useful (even though I personally can't find how the tracklisting field is useful).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As a practical matter for layout, infographics/images (number of extra covers, infoboxes, etc.) should not exceed the article section for which they are intended. WP:LAYIM provides guidance which is relevant to infoboxes:

Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in ... When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section; if the images in a section spill over into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution, that may mean that the section is too short or there are too many images in that section. (emphasis added)

Too many can overwhelm an article and give it an unbalanced, amateurish look: a) alternate covers of Triptych should go in a section which discusses the artwork, not the infobox; b) the alternate cover for "Take On Me" should go in a section which discusses the subsequent release (also, an infobox is not intended for listing all the B-sides and lengths); c) the "Round of Applause" article is too short for two infoboxes (there is no separate section which discusses the remix). Many details about a song/single belong in the body of the article. There is no reason why all this extra material be added to the infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I can see your point about Triptych, though in this case, how would we determine which is "alternate?" (Although that is a problem regardless of whether the "alternate" covers are given in the infobox or not. "Take on Me" - I also concede that point. With "Round of Applause," that is exactly my point - the article is two short to have separate infoboxes, so the information is combined. The alternate cover section is needed in this case to supply the cover for the other version of the song.
Regarding B-sides and lengths: I can totally see your point about B-sides, since those would be given in the tracklisting. However, how are the song lengths NOT important? Or do you mean giving multiple, different lengths, as opposed to only the earliest released version?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
For ROA, are the single covers that well known? My guess is that people are more familiar with the album cover. Since the single covers are very similar, I don't think including both in the infobox is necessary; a caption may be added that identifies which cover is used. Length was an oversight on the previous list[2] – yes, it is important. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

To clarify some of my points:

  • The main parameters for Infobox single are fine – title, artist, writer(s), release date, from the album, when & where recorded (& add studio = and venue =), length, label, format, producer(s), B-side, cover, genre (ugh). As already noted in the template parameters explanation/guide, these fields should be limited to the original or earliest release. I don't think anyone is arguing against these, but the problem with multiple original releases has been pointed out.
  • There is support for the chronology parameter. I don't support extra chronologies; if they are important, they can be discussed in the article.
  • Extra covers present the same problem as multiple releases. I don't think we can come up with a one-size-fits-all. Only one cover should be used, to be determined by consensus for that article (which is used by RS? – AllMusic doesn't include multiple album covers).
  • There doesn't seem to be support for the Certification, Music sample, and Video fields. These can be moved to the body of the article.
  • Most seem to be against the Track listing field. A quick review of FAs and GAs doesn't show that a particular song's placement on a album is discussed in articles – if indeed important, it would be. This seems more important for the album article.

Template:Infobox song is in worse shape. Many parameters are carried over from the merger with Infobox standards and are completely inappropriate (do we need more areas for covers?). Should a separate discussion be started on that talk page? Ilovetopaint questioned the need for two different infoboxes. I agree, but in the past, no one has been willing to consider it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't think of a serious objection off the top of my head for separating the two infoboxes, particularly now that the definition of a "single" has become less clear, with the release of promotional radio singles, "grat" tracks, etc. making the charts. Richard3120 (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, Richard3120, Richhoncho, Ilovetopaint, 3family6: It's been over a week. Is there enough interest for removing the Certification = and the use of Misc = for {{Audiosample}}, {{Extra track listing}}, {{External music video}}? Anything else before bringing it to a vote on Template talk:Infobox single? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus regarding audio samples. The extra track listing and external music video templates seem to have garnered more support for their removal. I would put it to a vote, though, because far too few editors have commented so far.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just to respond to the above, moving out certifications, etc. probably can't be automated because an editor has to check if they're already discussed in the article body, etc. It requires editor discretion. Moves of things like {{External music video}} are more likely to be possible for automation. I'd need to see the exact instructions written up for this conversion before being able to say for sure. I'd go for consensus at an RfC first, write up the instructions, let project members comment on the instructions and make changes as necessary, and then follow up with me. I'll take a look to see what, if anything, can be automated. (Also, in response to the edit conflict above, the RfC should be structured with separate sections for each proposed change to make things easy.) ~ Rob13Talk 18:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Been meaning to join the discussion for a while – this seems as good a place as any to jump in … Although I appreciate the concerns raised about disruption to past FAs (and disruption to GAs, solid Bs, also), I don't think the infobox is any place at all for audio samples and sales certifications.
I see a good argument for retaining alt covers, as long as they really are important for visually identifying the work. The thing with your suggestion, Ojorojo, about moving alternative covers to a section in main text, is that then the fair-use rationale would need to address an image's usefulness in the article – there needs to be critical commentary on the image, whereas if it's in the infobox, any image is there simply to provide visual identification of the subject.
I'm pretty ambivalent about the release chronologies. But if we lose them from Infobox Single, then we should do so in Infobox Album also (which, for some reason, I find unthinkable).
I disagree with a lot of the comments here about track listings, though. I think they're very useful, because an album track is defined by its place on the album, particularly in the case of songs first released during what's considered to be rock/pop's classic era, mid 1960s through to the early '70s. I hasten to add: I'm most certainly not talking about those before-and-after, partial track lists (trivial stuff); I mean the full track listings that I see used quite a bit – for solo Beatle song articles, along with the Stones and Dylan (e.g. here and here). The same template was used in all Beatles song articles until quite recently, when they were picked off at TfD or whatever it's called. Richard3120, I think the full track listings might avoid the pointlessness you referred to, re the situation with songs that are part of a concept album. And both the full and partial listings (that is, either of the two) are still permitted, according to Infobox Song. I realise that the basis of this discussion is to determine what should or should not be retained, but if we're talking about usefulness and what details are really pertinent to a song, I can't help thinking its sequencing on an album is vital. Perhaps that's partly because I pretty much only work on songs from the '60s and '70s, I don't know … JG66 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for |misc= – for several reasons I've already stated
  1. Some extra chronologies are necessary for collaborative releases. Plus for singles, there is no way to append an album track list chronology without it.
  2. The infobox is sometimes the only appropriate spot for a sample to be located, particularly for stub articles.
  3. Video fields are also useful, they're similar to |website= on other infoboxes.
Also, I don't understand this logic:
  1. "[X] might not be stated in the article, thus it doesn't need to be in the infobox."
  2. "[X] could be stated in the article, thus it doesn't need to be in the infobox."
Why have an infobox at all? This could apply to every field except the title, artist, and year of release. Why is it so difficult to consider that there are some things you can't adapt to prose? Why would anyone want to read
"'Daddy's Car' is a split single by Brian Eno and Karl Hyde. The last Brian Eno single before 'Daddy's Car' was 'Strange Overtones' (2008) and the one after is 'The Ship' (2016). The last Karl Hyde single before 'Daddy's Car' was 'The Boy With The Jigsaw Puzzle Fingers' (2008) and the one after is 'DBF' (2014)."
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Using infoboxes as repositories for miscellaneous details that don't work well in prose goes against their intended purpose. As any summary, infoboxes are not supposed to introduce information that is not in the body of the article (MOS:INFOBOX uses "not supplant"). To take your point to the next step, why have prose at all? Song "articles" can be one big template where editors can fill in the blanks and add links to everything. Encyclopedia articles are based on prose and not collections of graphs, images, and charts. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You are sorta right, but that's not "next step" of my point - that's the "next step" of a totally different point. My point is that infoboxes impart key facts better than the body ever could. It's impossible to reasonably summarize "chronologies" in prose (WP:BECONCISE).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with 3family6, it probably needs a vote to be able to make a clear decision on each extra template, because clearly opinion is more split on some of them than on others. I do think the extra chronology should probably stay though, for the reasons Ilovetopaint states: sometimes you do need it for collaborations (duets or split singles) where it's not clear that there is a primary artist, like the 1991 version of "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me".
Ilovetopaint: if we kept the certification parameter, would you limit the number of regions listed in the infobox, to stop it becoming too long? For example, how would we choose what certifications to list from "7 Years"? Richard3120 (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a Danish band, so I'd think the only organization it should list is IFPI Denmark. If not that, then perhaps whichever lists the most units sold.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been another week and there doesn't appear to be any agreement. Each of the parameters has its supporters. At this point, opening a RfC would probably not be useful. However, Template:Infobox song could use some attention – a list of "Covers versions" with supplementary information doesn't belong in an infobox. Fortunately, these parameters have seen little or no use, so it might be a good time to remove them. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Help me with music single articles please!!

Question 1: I'm currently working on The Boxer (The Chemical Brothers song), I want to list its Digital download single, but it was released everywhere on iTunes except the US, how can I list all of the countries on my Release history table? Should I only name 3, 4 countries randomly ?

Question 2: And what's the deal about CD/vinyl/etc... formats, should I list it when I have sources (Discogs, Amazon, Eli,...)? For example, if I see a CD of "The Boxer" on Amazon Japan but it said "Import", I shouldn't list it on my table right? Because it's "Import"?

Question 3: Now that Radio & Records website is dead, can somebody help me find the airplay release sources for the track? I've found one here, but I want to find it on Rhythmic radio. It's so hard to find it on Wayback Machine.

Question 4: In "Track listings" section, I have this track list called "Non-US radio edit digital download", so should I list like 10, 11 links to prove that is a "Non-US" release or just one randomly?

PLEASE HELP!!! P/S: Beyoncetan (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Beyoncetan – this is why many song articles don't include a release history any more... with digital releases it's too complicated. The answer to your first question is probably "Worldwide except US". But really, it probably isn't worth bothering with a release history table at all. Richard3120 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Thank you so much for acknowledging my questions. But still do you have any ideas about my question 4? :(... I do have lots of problems about listing the tracklist section, do we have any WikiHelp page about this section though? Thank you so much! Beyoncetan (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Beyoncetan: no, I would just leave it at one, and I see you've picked iTunes which is a safe choice. But I'm not sure whether you need to "prove" a track listing anyway.
There is some help given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Article content about laying out a song article. But the problem with this and the equivalent album article style guide is that they were probably written ten years ago in the early days of Wikipedia, and the changes that have occurred since then with regards to the switch from physical copies to digital downloads and streaming means that the guides are somewhat out of date, and unfortunately like most WikiProjects these days you struggle to find enough editors willing to discuss the issue and form a consensus and update the guides to reflect the new reality. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I know right? That's very sad... But thank you so much for spending times to answer my questions. :) Your help is truly precious to me! Thank you! Beyoncetan (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC at NCM

FYI, I requested for comments at WT:NCM about the current wording of WP:SONGDAB. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Single with non-song title

In South Korea, singles (also called single albums) often have a title that is not the title of any of the songs on the single. Examples on Wikipedia are Myst3ry, Square One (Black Pink single), and Boys' Record (single). Some of these are called EPs on iTunes [3], while others are called singles [4]. Should these singles use the single infobox or the album infobox? It looks wrong to me to see "Square One" when that is not a song title. Random86 (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, those ARE the names of the single albums, so the article titles are correct, although perhaps the articles should be retitled "Square One (Black Pink single album)" or "Square One (Black Pink EP)". I guess the UK/US equivalents are EPs which also don't include the name of any of the songs on them, such as Spiral Scratch, Abba-esque and The Roussos Phenomenon. Richard3120 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I know the article titles are correct. I was asking about the infoboxes, because when the single infobox is used the title is in quotes like a song title, but "Square One" is not a song. Myst3ry uses the album infobox, which looks better to me, but I wanted other opinions on that. Random86 (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, apologies. Well, the examples I mentioned use Template:Infobox album, which makes sense as the formatting for an EP title (italics, no quotation marks) is the same as that for an album. So I think I would use the album infobox. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Tbhotch, since you changed all three examples to EPs, is that what you think they should be called on Wikipedia? I think this approach makes the most sense. Random86 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Including "Cover versions" in infobox song

A discussion about including cover versions in song infoboxes has been started at Template talk:Infobox song#"Cover versions" parameters in infobox song. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Something never seen before: an uncommunicative IP changing many song genres

186.154.38.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Most changes are unsourced genre -> different unsourced genre. Worth a look from someone who knows this stuff. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

What songs are "about"

The project page recommends against giving information on what songs are "about" unless it can be supported by "quotes that can be cited from sources with some authoritative insight". Although I do respect the need for Wikipedia to be a reliable source, this seems to me to be too strict a standard in many cases. For comparison, Wikipedia does not require citations other than the work itself for plot synopses of books and movies. Again, I recognize that songs are often more abstract and allusive than books and movies so that an objective description of what it's "about' is harder to make, but even in such cases it still seems that some kind of description of the lyrics is in order. Otherwise, as it is, the result is that there are a ton of articles about sonds which contain next to no information about the songs. They'll tell you all about the song's chart performance, the circumstances in which it was written, who has covered it—but no description of the song the article is ostensibly about. In extreme cases we have absurdities like the article for "She Will Be Loved", which has six full paragraphs of synopsis of the music video for the song (with no citations) but no information of any kind about the song itself apart from its duration and genre. AJD (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

But unless you have quotes from the song's writer that state directly what the song is about, you are adding original research. Richard3120 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
We don't have any quotes from the writer of the music video (the director? the... storyboarder? I don't know who does these things), and yet we seem to be able to say what it's about in some detail. AJD (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, we can say what happens in the video because we can see it – we can't say what it's about or what its meaning is because we don't know, and I would certainly remove that sentence saying it gets compared to The Graduate unless somebody adds a reliable source that explicitly states that. Richard3120 (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I've always thought that the plot descriptions in WP articles were a weak spot – they are essentially OR. Yes, it's too bad that most song articles read like sessionographies or discographies, but without RSs to quote or paraphrase, it's OR. A solution may be to quote some of the lyrics themselves (with an appropriate lead in) to show what the writer is saying. This is acceptable as long as fair use guidelines are followed (see WP:LYRICS). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
AJD has a point: SIX paragraphs is hardly a "synopsis" of the music video, and it contains a lot of OR, like "he discovers that she's been abused by someone (judging by the red lipstick smeared across her face and other signs of physical abuse)" and "the story and song is about how he tried leaving the mother before but he couldn't do it as in the lyrics 'I tried so hard to say goodbye'". Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I think quoting some of the lyrics within the bounds of fair use makes a reasonable middle ground; at least it would communicate something about what the actual content of the song is. (I also think that, in the case of songs whose lyrics contain a straightforward narrative like that of a novel, movie, or short story, a brief synopsis is in order and not OR: cf. Rocky Raccoon's "The lyrics describe a conflict over a love triangle.") I also agree that six paragraphs of detailed shot-by-shot breakdown and interpretation of a music video is overkill, possibly OR, and at the very leasyt makes an absurd contrast with the lack of information about the song. AJD (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments requested on how to properly summarize reviews

The RfC has expired, but the conversation was really only between me and one other editor. We're at an impasse, and additional input would be appreciated at Talk:Into You (Ariana Grande song)#Request for comment. Thanks, Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Alyssa Milano

I have nominated List of songs recorded by Alyssa Milano for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if any of you could take a look and leave your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Cover versions"/"alt Artists" be removed from Infobox songs?

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.

It is unclear how the addition of "cover versions" and "alt Artist" fields is supposed to benefit song articles. There are now 15 new fields for "covers": 5 for "alt Artist", 5 for "Recorded by", and 5 for "Performed by". No guidance was provided and "alt Artist" seems to duplicate the "Recorded by" or "Performed by" fields. Besides these overlaps, "cover songs" (even the use of the term) is a problem area in song articles. WP:SONGCOVER, which provides guidelines for the addition of song renditions to articles, is routinely ignored. Large numbers of "covers", regardless of suitability and lacking sources, are added to articles. Providing fields for cover versions in the infobox would compound the problem.

Except regarding the merger of Infobox standard with Infobox song,[5] the addition of cover versions was not discussed. On March 16, 2015, "Cover versions" and "alt Artist" were added, along with the infobox standard parameters "Recorded by" and "Performed by".[6][7] On July 18, 2016, these were expanded to include "alt Artist2–5", "Recorded by2–5", and "Performed by2–5", with the edit note "Support up to 5 cover versions".[8] Since this is a relatively new addition, it may have seen little or no use, so removing these parameters should not be disruptive and may be cleaned up easily. Please indicate Support to remove or Oppose to retain "Cover versions"/"alt Artists" from {{infobox song}}. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. Cover versions do not belong in infoboxes. If a song rendition meets WP:SONGCOVER, the article section in which it is discussed will often have its own infobox. Adding items from a list of "Covers" (with little or no discussion or sources) is at odds with the purpose of an infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment In both those articles, the "alt Artist =" field is used to link to a cover song, with no link to the artist. WP:SONGCOVER advises that renditions should be discussed in one song article and "never in a separate article". —Ojorojo (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Remove because the addition of these parameters will make it that much easier for people to bypass the very high bar set by WP:SONGCOVER. The high bar is appropriate because the wiki is supposed to summarize important information rather than serve as an exhaustive list of everything that exists. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. As discussed recently at Template talk:Infobox song [link added], I can't see any good reason for these parameters. Just on the subject of WP:SONGCOVER, though (regardless of the infobox): the guideline does allow for mention of a cover version if "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song". Seems to me a few editors are somewhat overzealous in policing this guideline, even to the extent that the cover has to have been a hit recording. In fact, sources might highlight a particular cover because, say, it reinterprets the song in a completely different style or genre – that alone is often notable enough to merit inclusion, because it adds to the legacy of the original work. JG66 (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove per binksternet. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support remove. Completely new to this subject, but it looks like WP:SONGCOVER helps explain this best as others have mentioned. If the song is indeed covered and that cover is mentioned by a reliable source and notable, that warrants inclusion in the text. There shouldn't be a need to include it in parameters though, and text accomplishes the litmus test and presentability much better I think. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2016 (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.

Nambucca Boy

I'm thinking about making an article about Urthboy's song Nambucca Boy, but I'm not familiar with the notability requirements of songs. I've looked over the related guidelines, but just to be safe I want to ask here. I'm also not sure about the reliability of some of the refs. Here are the sources: Junkee, Music Feeds, The Australian, Rolling Stone (AUS), Fox Sports, Sydney Morning Herald and The Brag. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

GAr

Like I'm Gonna Lose You, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  — Calvin999 07:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Table of Olympic athletes in Hava Nagila

Hava Nagila § Olympic sports consists only of a table listing some Olympic athletes with their

  • year(s)
  • national flag thumbnail (but not name of nation)
  • sport
  • and event

but no explanation of why they should be listed in this article. See the talk page there. Please discuss the issue there, except for points specific to this WikiProject, if any.
-- Thnidu (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it as uncited and unexplained. Until it is cited, it should not be in the article. If some of the athletes used it in their performances, that is citable, but it wouldn't explain "all season long" which most of the entries were listed as. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In Old England Town

"In Old England Town" is a song by Jeff Lynne, first recorded by Electric Light Orchestra. We have two links for that song: In Old England Town (Boogie No. 2) (with full stop) redirects to ELO 2 whereas In Old England Town (Boogie No 2) (without full stop) redirects to Showdown (Electric Light Orchestra song)#In Old England Town. There are two versions of the track: the vocal one appears on the album ELO 2, whereas the instrumental one (which sounds as if it has the same backing track but the vocal replaced by a part played on the Moog synthesiser) appears on the B-side of the "Showdown" single. I feel that it's confusing to have such subtly different titles redirect in very different ways. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought it would be better to redirect both to ELO 2 because if anybody is going to use the song title as a search term, they're more likely to be looking for the album version than the B-side of a single... and if any information is added specifically about the song, it's likely to be to the album article. But we'll see what other editors think. Richard3120 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Aint No Use

Searching for the old jazz standard 'Ain't No Use' redirects to the album Moby Grape, as it's been covered by that band on their eponymous album. However, as an old jazz standard, I'd say it meets the notability criteria to have it's own page, and at least should redirect to somewhere else. The most famous version is probably Nina Simone's but I think Count Basie recorded it first, I could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebobs (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but to meet WP:NSONG there needs to be enough independently-published, reliable (not blogs) source material to be able to demonstrate having its own article. Richard3120 (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Adiemus /ædiˈeɪməs/ is a series of vocalise-style albums by Welsh composer Karl Jenkins. It is also the title of the opening track called "Adiemus" on the first album in the series, Songs of Sanctuary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.119.234.127 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding "Studio" and "Venue" parameters to Infobox Single and Song

There is a current discussion regarding the addition of |Studio = and |Venue = parameters to Template:Infobox single and Template:Infobox song. This would bring them into line with the current Template:Infobox album usage. Please add your comments at Template talk:Infobox single#"Studio" addition. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Personnel" . "Credits and Personnel" - which is it?

I don't see this in the style guide and would like clarification. I've been using the album guide when it comes to single songs. I see "Credits and personnel" most on single songs... However I feel like "Personnel" is sufficient on its own but since I don't see it in any of the guides, I'm wondering what's the right term. Thanks and don't forget to ping me :) --Jennica✿ Talk 03:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Separate articles for covers

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Separate articles for covers. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Say I'm Your Number One

Hi, I would like to put the correct Target to this redirect but I was unable to figure out what category(ies) the redirect will fall in. --DanSy (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

FLC for Latin Grammy Hall of Fame

I nominated the article for Latin Grammy Hall of Fame for FLC. I'd appreciate thee feedback! Erick (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"Cover" parameter in infoboxes

Seems to me that "cover" should not be limited to cover arts. Instead, cover parameter shall be changed to "image". Therefore, there's more room for readers to understand which product identifies a song the most, especially for older songs. --George Ho (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Infobox single

A request for comments has been opened at Template talk:Infobox single#RfC: Should the "Certification" field be removed from Infobox single? Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Songs/Archive 16 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Alyssa Milano discography - Featured list candidate

I have nominated Alyssa Milano discography for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if any of you could take a look and leave your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Cover arts of She's Got a Way

The images, File:Shes Got a Way 1972 single cover.jpg and File:ShesGotAWay.jpg, are discussed at FFD. I invite you to the ongoing discussion. --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Werewolves of London

I'd like to hear some thoughts from editors in this Wikiproject regarding an argument currently ongoing over at the "Werewolves of London" talkpage. I recently removed a list of cover versions of this song that were included in the article, making the argument that there weren't sources provided that showed that these versions were notable in and of themselves. The references provided showed only that the songs existed, but said nothing about notability. Another editor objected on the talk page, and we keep going back and forth. As I say, I would really like to hear some thoughts from editors involved in this project, as this is a bit out of my bailiwick. Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "single" and usage of infoboxes

What is a single? Does a single need a commercially released medium to be a "single"? If so, the usage of template:infobox single would be affected, and template:infobox song shall be used at default. However, if not, can the definition of a "single" extend to anything? I tried to change the infobox of No Me Ames to "infobox song", but it was reverted. The song never received a commercial medium, yet someone considers it a "single". I changed the infoboxes of You Raise Me Up, I Stay Away, Wicked Garden, and Don't Follow to "Infobox song" and inserted "Promotional material" for the "type" parameter. In case of absence of a commercial medium, I thought "Infobox song" is more appropriate. However, why use "Infobox single" if a release is promotional, not commercial? --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call it? In a previous discussion, I proposed "Singles are those songs that have appeared on a recognized singles chart (such as Billboard's Hot 100) or have been promoted as potential hits (artist announcements, press packages, advertising, etc.)". It's not perfect, but it removes the medium, which now is nearly meaningless. Since the line has become blurred, maintaining a separate Infobox single and Infobox song is not practical. A merged infobox could easily contain a field to indicate how it was originally released (the Type= field is normally used to distinguish between "Song" and "Instrumental", etc., not how it was released). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no real definition of a single anymore. Whatever reliable sources call a single, that is one. Which means that the distinction between "song" and "single" is very blurred.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

What is "single"?

This question was raised before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 10#Single or song infobox, and the definition of a single was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 14#B-sides. There is no consensus for any simple definition, so editors should first check to see what reliable source say, and if that fails should use their best judgment, seeking consensus on any difficult cases. I suggest referring to BLZ's extremely thorough comments as well. Some editors suggest merging the two infoboxes, but that would require a separate RfC. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2017 (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.

We have {{infobox single}} and {{infobox song}} distinguishing "single" and "song" from each other. Although the article single (music) define "single" as typically a two-track medium, recent technologies would challenge the traditional definition of "single". Also, even some would consider promotional recording an example of "single". How shall Wikipedians define and exemplify a "single"? How would this affect the templates that we are using now? --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I think we need to make the distinction between promotional material and traditional singles that appear in a physical format. As the latter are historically quite significant. Karst (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
A promotional material can be released in a physical medium, Karst. It has been done in the old days for radio stations and DJs. "No Me Ames" was never released as a commercial single, yet someone else thinks it exemplifies a single. George Ho (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The definition that I favored when I did an RfC on this topic was defining a single as "a song released, either commercially or for free, in a physical or digital form," and defining a promo single as "a physical release given to radio stations and other media organizations for promotional purposes only, or a song released digitally for streaming only. This would include songs that are immediately available for streaming or download upon purchase of an album or EP."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
BLZ's comment

I think the distinction between a single and song is useful, but how it breaks down is going to be case by case, dependent on era, genre, how it was marketed/promoted, and other factors. On the issue of promo singles, I would say that the closer a song's release is to the present date, the less likely that there can be a meaningful distinction between a "merely" promotional single and a "genuinely" commercial single. But that could still be determined case by case. In the vinyl/CD era, a single would have to be released on vinyl/CD to be a commercial single at all, because otherwise the consumer would just have to buy the whole album to access it—"Stairway to Heaven" is the quintessential example of an extraordinarily popular song that was not a commercial "single". Nowadays, typically any song an artist releases can be downloaded or streamed in its own individual right, and major artists may not necessarily have their singles released on physical media at all. So in the current music economy, what makes a song a "single" or not is purely how it is promoted by a label or the artist. To list a few examples of factors that I think would tend to make a new song a single (the more factors combined, the more likely to be a single, although one of these alone could make something a single):

  • It can be downloaded from a distinct page on a pulled up separately on a streaming service like Spotify, where it may have cover art distinct from its album.
  • It has its own page on Bandcamp
  • It has a physical release of any kind as a single, even a very limited run (i.e., a promotional release of a 7" vinyl single, limited to 100 copies, could be a single for an indie artist)
  • But! If this physical release is a reissue of an older song, that may not necessarily make it a single. If "Stairway to Heaven" is released on a commercial 7" for the first time as some kind of special-edition anniversary reissue, that probably would not count as making the song a "single" after all these years.
  • It is released on SoundCloud and then charts
  • It is released to radio by a major label
  • It has its own music video. This one's a maybe; you can see just having a video could be a bit of a stretch and requires inferences from the other ways the song was marketed. For example, every song on Lemonade is not a single.
  • Probably the best indicator, honestly, is going to be whether there is some way that the song has its own distinct "cover art." Again, this is a bit challenging and not a black-and-white rule, but just a very helpful indicator. For some counter-examples, every song on SoundCloud typically has cover art attached but may not be a single, and there are probably some singles that don't have any cover art.

Basically, any clues that would make it clear to a consumer that this song is intended either to promote a larger work or stand in its own right. The characteristics that would have made a song merely a "promotional" single in the vinyl or CD eras would probably make it a "commercial" single now. As a random example of how things are changing and how the bar to what qualifies as a single are lower, I think it's at least arguable that Bobby Shmurda's "Hot Nigga" was a single, even before it was clearly released as such by Epic Records, because the video and its ensuing radio success made it clear that that song was promotionally "singled out" from the GS9 mixtape it first appeared on.

As for the particular cases above, the CD era is different and it will often be useful to preserve the distinction between a mere promo and a commercial single, but there will still be context-specific analysis. For instance, I think it still makes sense that, even if "Stairway to Heaven" might be "a single" by 2010s standards if it were released for the first time the same way today as it was then, the history of how that song and its album were marketed would be better explained in terms of the fact that it was not a single by 1970s standards in rock music. Similarly, if it had its own Wikipedia page, "Let Down" by Radiohead would be "merely" a promo single since it was released but not on a widespread commercial basis, making it a "secondary" promo single compared to the "main" promo singles from the album, and so it makes sense to not call it "a single". Kid A is famous for the fact that it had no (commercial) singles, although "How to Disappear Completely", "Optimistic", and "Idioteque" were physically released as promos to radio. It wouldn't make sense to call those singles, either, because doing so would seem to contradict the widespread narrative throughout reliable sources saying Kid A had no singles — it is true that it had, no singles judging historical standards and commercial expectations placed on that band at that time, and treating those songs as singles would confuse the issue. This reasoning tracks closely with the rationale for leaving the Alice in Chains and STP songs you referenced with the song infobox rather than the single infobox.

Erick brings up an excellent point about "No Me Ames" from that article's talk page discussion: "If No Me Ames can't be considered to be a single because it was released only to radio stations, then how can we be sure the other songs I mentioned are? To rephrase what I'm saying, many of the songs that were ranked on the Hot Latin Songs prior to 2012 (especially the '80s and '90s) were also only released as promo singles and weren't commercially released" (emphasis added). It may be that within some genres or markets, like Latin pop in the 90s, the distinction between a promo single and commercial single was less useful, or that a promo single would just be a single because it would not have been seen as meaningfully "secondary" to a commercial single. In other words, if there were no commercial singles from an album but three were sent to radio and charted, how is it useful to say those three songs aren't the album's "singles"? It makes sense that Billboard, as a primary source catering primarily to members of the music industry (i.e. business "insiders"), would clarify was just released for radio play — but to a fan, that song likely would have been seen as "a Jennifer Lopez single," because after all it was marketed that way. There are situations where the distinction between a "merely" promo single and a "fully" commercial single is not as useful. If the distinction is more useful, a promo single can be "rounded down" to being a song, but if it is more useful than we might "round it up" to being a single. This might seem like splitting hairs or making arbitrary judgments, but since we don't have a distinct infobox for promo singles, we have little choice but to decide whether something is a "promo single" or a "promo single" case-by-case, which is a matter of assessment of what emphasis makes sense in a given context, not scientific precision. (Even if all of that is not the case, I think there's a solid argument that "No Me Ames" could be considered a "double A-side" with "If You Had My Love".) —BLZ · talk 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The definition provided does not distinguish between a promotional release (non-charting single) and a radio single. The project (Wikipedia music project that is) has usually made a distinction between the two. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2016 (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 talk:Infobox single#A-side, B-side, flipside, other side... what else is it?

Terminology of song tracks in singles is discussed. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox single#A-side, B-side, flipside, other side... what else is it?. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh Yeah (Yello song)

Oh yeah! This article would be a whole lot better with a short sound excerpt. Could somebody do that? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done {{Listen||pos = right|filename=Yello - Oh Yeah excerpt.ogg|title=Yello - Oh Yeah excerpt|description=An excerpt from "Oh Yeah"}} 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed split of Michael Jackson double A-side article

The article about Michael Jackson's 1997 double A-side single HIStory/Ghosts has been proposed to be split into two separate articles, one for each song. Interested editors may discuss here. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Help needed at Template talk:Single chart

Please see Template_talk:Single_chart#Template-protected_edit_request_on_14_January_2017. Improvements to the template have been proposed for the Irish singles chart, and they need some review and coding work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Infobox song

A request for comments has been opened at Template talk:Infobox song#RfC: Should "Form" be removed from Infobox song? Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sober (Selena Gomez song)

Project members are welcome to help determine the appropriateness of the article Sober (Selena Gomez song) at Talk:Sober (Selena Gomez song). Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion closed

Hey everyone, I closed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 16#What is "single"? per a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Just wanted to let you know as I felt a little sketchy about editing the archives ;) --Cerebellum (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move notices

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:She's Not Me (song)#Requested move 9 February 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, SkyWarrior 01:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Señorita (Farhan Akhtar, Hrithik Roshan, Abhay Deol and Maria del Mar Fernández song)#Requested move 9 February 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, SkyWarrior 01:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus/third opinions needed at Talk:It Ain't Me

Third opinions at Talk:It Ain't Me#Consensus would be appreciated regarding the song's genre. Thanks. Abi-Maria (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sachsen Hymne

The article Sachsen Hymne has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The information is inaccurate and unsourced. There is no official anthem for Saxony. Such a thing does not exist (http://www.sachsenlied.de/). There seem to have indeed been proposals for one but there's not much more (http://www.lvz.de/Mitteldeutschland/News/Hoeren-und-Abstimmen-Fuenf-neue-Vorschlaege-fuer-eine-Sachsen-Hymne). The content of the page is already covered in the page on the composition by Bach, which, to my knowledge, is not referred to with the title "Sachsenhymne", nor is it seen as an anthem to Saxony, it was written as a congratulatory piece for the anniversary of the election of August III, Elector of Saxony.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice about adminship to participants at this project

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup request on Pearl Jam discography

I started the discussion at Talk:Pearl Jam discography#Trimming down the list about the Featured List, Pearl Jam discography. Trimming was suggested in the merge discussion. Therefore, I invite you potential volunteers for cleanup. --George Ho (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Infobox single

A request for comments has been opened at Template talk:Infobox single#RfC: Should "English title" and "Language" be added to Infobox single? Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn Ojorojo (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)

Greetings. I would appreciate it if an editor from this Wikiproject could assess The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song), an article that has been expanded. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ed Sheeran album tracks

The recent unprecedented success of Ed Sheeran's album (all 16 tracks in the top 20) has created a strange situation. I had thought that a top 40 entry at least (and many singles that reach the top 100 also get an entry) was a big factor behind a song being notable. I created articles for the non official singles that reached the top 20 (Shape of You, Castle on the Hill, How Would You Feel and Galway Girl already existed) with references and chart positions but they have been redirected back to Divide. Is the issue that they were not official singles that makes them lack notability? Perfect, for example, reached number 4 and pretty much every song in history that reached this position has an article. Surely all the songs are independently notable. Nancy Mulligan, for example, has articles on its influences and backstory that could be added.

What are people's thoughts. 03md 22:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NSONGS, "songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." A song simply charting with no other independent sources fails that criteria. Charting in and of itself does not make a song notable, and the song should not have an article unless the required multiple, non-trivial sources are found. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Partial track lists in Infobox song

A discussion is underway at Template talk:Infobox song#… and a bugbear: partial track listing. All editors are welcome to join. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Bon Appétit (song)

Resolved
Extended content

I'm tired of battling one user who seems determined to keep the "Bon Appétit (song)" article out of the main space any longer, so can someone please move Draft:Bon Appétit (song) into the main space when appropriate? The single is being released in a few hours. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

For a soon-to-be-released song, it seems to have good references. @SNUGGUMS: what are your objections to moving to main space? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Thanks. I'm not sure why SNUGGUMS is so determined to keep this totally appropriate stub (with appropriate tags, BTW) from the main space. I'm seeking an admin who will move the page into main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The article has been moved back into the main space, so I am marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Walter, my issue is that not most (if not all) of the quality publications discussing it (without basing things off of speculation) don't go beyond simple announcements of release, and thus lack real substance. They don't really have much to work off of at the moment when it hasn't even been included on a released album, and is this very unlikely to grow beyond a stub before its premiere. Songs don't warrant articles when unlikely to become longer than stubs. Another Believer, you're being overly impatient with creation and are trying too hard to have a premature article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not commenting on this any further. Let's move on and continue improving Wikipedia. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS raises an interesting point, one that Another Believer has missed in the past. We don't create articles for all subjects, we create them for notable ones. I suspect in this case, with a single being released by a performer at the top of her career, it will go to No. 1, or will at least chart well, and will receive a great deal more coverage. I would not hold out the same hope for a less popular band, like Twenty One Pilots. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Structure for top 10 lists

I have been doing lots of work on adding to and improving the individual top 10 list articles (see Lists of UK top 10 singles and have come up with a template structure. It is in my sandbox here. Obviously you will need to add references, images etc. but the look of the page really works in my opinion and having a consistent structure is what is needed. I am hoping to nominate some for featured list once complete. 03md 22:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition to this I have now created List of artists with the most UK top 10 singles to accompany this, I would appreciate people working on this article to make it a complete record. 03md 20:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Losing My Religion

Losing My Religion, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should Infobox single and Infobox song be merged?

Merge. As with all template mergers, during the course of merging it should be backwards-compatible with existing parameters.

There were two suggestions that I feel are relevant to mention:

  • add some form of |type= parameter to change the infobox colours to match the existing colour scheme - I see no reason why this can't be implemented.
  • rename the final product - there was no strong support for this, but there is no reason to not have a discussion regarding the final destination of this merged template after the merge is complete.
I will list both templates at the Holding Cell. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (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.

Currently, song articles usually one of two infoboxes:

  • {{Infobox single}} – for use when the song has been released as a "single"
  • {{Infobox song}} – for songs not released as singles, for example, those that predate music recording, released as album tracks only, "radio-only/promo" releases, etc.

Both infoboxes share most parameters: Name, Cover, Caption, Artist, Album, Released, Format, Recorded, Studio, Venue, Genre, Length, Label, Writer, Producer, and ISWC. The main differences are:

  • Infobox single – includes a Chronology for Last and Next Single
  • Infobox song – includes extra fields for Composer, Lyricist, English title, Language, Written, Published, and an Album track listing (partial or full)

Is there enough difference to retain two templates or should they be merged? —Ojorojo (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Originally: 17:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge A quick review of Featured song articles[9] shows no appreciable difference in scope, content, layout, etc., between articles using one template or the other, except that those with Infobox single include sales charts and promotional info in the body of the article. This difference is not reflected in the Infobox single itself, so there is nothing to gain by using it (a "Singles chronology" may be added to Infobox song using {{Extra chronology}}). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep them separate and fix them. A single is a 'release' with usually more than one song, release date, cover art, record label, etc. A song is a composition, that may not even have been released, or may have been recorded a thousand times, across multiple genres, and the key details of each are quite different, although the infoboxes are currently a bit of a jumble. --Michig (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    Doesn't that make a single basically an album and which it should thus be merged with {{infobox album}}? --Izno (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    It doesn't make a single an album, as they are distinctly different entities, but it's possible we could have one infobox for all 'musical releases'. --Michig (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge as someone who suggested this RfC. While I agree with Michig that there were differences between the two mediums, in today's market distinguishing a single from a song is mostly arbitrary, considering that two RFCs on the definition of a single arrived at no consensus. If the templates are merged, there would be parameters that apply mostly or entirely to singles, and others to songs. Template:Infobox musical artist is somewhat like this, with some different parameters depending on whether the subject is a person or a band.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, I'd be fine with Michig's suggestion that all musical releases be covered in a unified infobox.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. There's been too much merging of these infoboxes by the infobox warriors already: The infobox for Hymns was eliminated, the Songs infobox was bolloxed up, resulting in a suboptimal and unwieldy and unhelpful hybrid. Please don't do it yet another time. Let people choose which infobox they want to use. Softlavender (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The usage of either infobox was discussed, Softlavender, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 16#Definition of "single" and usage of infoboxes. BTW, I started the previous central discussion, which resulted in "no consensus" but recommending case-by-case basis. Somehow, it led to this RfC one month after closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge As long as it's done well, and unique parameters for singles are enabled when the the type is single and the use for hymns is not problematic, I see no reason for having two separate infoboxes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep separate. They are two different things, one is a piece of music and the other is a marketing term. Just because we have all used the word "single" to mean a song does not make it so. This is not to say that the components of each box should not re-evaluated (possibly used in tandem when appropriate?). Anyway, how many 'singles' are actually released now? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    Encyclopedia entries address various aspects of a song, including the music and marketing. To separate the two, because one was released as a single and one wasn't, is an artificial distinction. WP articles (at least FAs and most GAs) take the more encompassing encyclopedic approach. Additionally, there are no parameters in Infobox single that focus on the marketing aspect – in this respect, it is the same as Infobox song. To retain Infobox single so it can be "fixed" when we finally agree what a single is ignors that this is best left for the body of an article, not an infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    I have long seen a problem on WP with articles muddling songs (i.e. the compositions), individual recordings of songs, and singles - three very different things. If we were to have an article on a 'song', I would expect the (main) infobox to focus on the key aspects of the composition (writer, year written, publisher, etc.), and if there are particularly notable recordings of that song that we want to cover in the same article (and I don't believe thay always should be), they would go in subsections, possibly with infoboxes appropriate to those separate versions. If we have an article primarily about one recording of a particular song (e.g. an album track) then key facts are recording artist, genre, studio, recording dates, producer, what it was originally released on, etc. If we have an article about a single, and by that I mean primarily a physical release (history hasn't disappeared), then the key facts are things like record label, release date, cover art and artist, tracklist, duration, catalogue number, as well as some of the things about the recording(s). If we can cover all of those in one infobox, all well and good, but 'compositions' don't have record sleeves, duration, producer, recording studio, etc., and I don't really see giving all of these different things the same 'song' infobox to be the answer. --Michig (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Totally agree with Michig. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Again, I see it as an artificial construction. Separating the song (composition) from a notable recording of it from a single release or releases is counterintuitive and doesn't reflect current good practices. "Hey Jude" is an example. Although it was a single, a large portion of the article is devoted to writing, composition, production/release as well as marketing/sales and covers. This is an encyclopedic approach that has been largely adopted by WP. Trying to decide (using your interpretations) if it's a song, one particular recording, or a single can lead to endless debates that would not result in better articles (currently promotional singles use Infobox song because they are not "true" singles). There are enough problems getting editors to follow basic guidelines – enforcing a minority interpretation of songs is unworkable. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    I don't see what is artificial about it. "Hey Jude" is a song, obviously best known for the original Beatles version, but also recorded by several other artists. The article appears from the lede to be about the song, but has a single infobox. The article is quite badly arranged as it doesn't separate the song from the original recording from it - e.g. the 'Personnel' and charts sections have level 2 headings, when they should sit within the section about the original recording, not directly after a section about other versions of the song (which clearly have no relation to the personnel or charts listed). And this is a featured article! If the focus is the song it should start with all the content about the *song*, the composition, the lyrics, etc., then have a section on the Beatles recording and the single, which has subsections on the personnel and charts, since they relate directly to that particular recording/release, not the song itself, and then a section on other versions afterwards. It illustrates the problem somewhat, I see this over and over again, and I feel that the 'encyclopedic approach largely adopted by WP' is simply a minority interpretation enforced on everyone else by a small number of determined editors. Sometimes the song will be the primary focus, with different recordings and releases included in the article, sometimes the single (the release) is the primary focus, and any details about the songs on it are secondary. --Michig (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    I completely disagree with your last point "sometimes the single (the release) is the primary focus, and any details about the songs on it are secondary". It's like writing an article about a book and discussing the cover, printing, editions, appearance on best seller lists, awards, etc., but little attention to the story and the circumstances around it. Featured article criteria include that the article be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Most FAs about songs that were released as singles place a good deal of emphasis on the song itself (writing, composition, lyrics, etc.). If the song is not discussed in the article about the single, where should it be? For a large majority of articles, there probably aren't enough RS about the "release" itself to develop a reasonably interesting article. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    I disagree completely, and who said an article about a single shouldn't mention the songs? I certainly didn't. Take a look at Five Minutes with Arctic Monkeys or James II (record) - clearly both about the singles (despite some nonsense about them being EPs (again because of flawed WP convention), not about individual songs. And we have loads of articles about [artist x]'s [nth] single, articles about double A-side singles, that obviously won't have 'a song' as the primary focus, etc. To my mind you either start with a song, include all the content about the song, then have all of the details about a related single in a subsection, or you start with a single and cover the songs on it in a subsection, whichever makes more sense. --Michig (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    What do the featured and good articles do? You just pointed to a pair of very-low quality articles, which typically are a bad indicator of best practices.... (and don't cherrypick). --Izno (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Those are stubs (and probably WP:PERMASTUBs) and don't represent developed potential GA or FA material. If an article begins and focuses mostly on the song, but was released as a single (for example "Hoochie Coochie Man"), which infobox would you use? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To answer the first question, GA/FAs are likely to do whatever guidelines state they should, not necessarily what would be best. Re. "Hoochie Coochie Man", personally I would write it as an article on the song (given that he recorded several different versions, and the song itself has far more lasting significance than the originally released single, that particular recording having subsequently been released on numerous album releases) with an infobox giving key facts about the song itself, and cover the single in a subsection. But maybe my approach is too logical for this project. --Michig (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you're saying you'd use Infobox song (correct me if I'm wrong) for HCM. Infobox song doesn't contain any additional fields that would be useful (Written and Published are usually used for dates, when the song pre-dates music recording – otherwise they would just repeat the Released date). It seems odd not to use Infobox single (with an image of the single) when it was clearly released as a single. The only guidance (WP:SONG#Infobox) says "you can use {{Infobox single}} for singles (A- or B-sides) and use {{Infobox song}} for album tracks", without any further qualification. This seems to be how they are used. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 16"
Song
  • Just so we don't stray too far from the subject of the RfC, here's the existing Infobox song used for a single. Comparing it to the Infobox single used in the article shows that Infobox single doesn't provide any additional information, except B-side and color (which can easily be fixed).
Using the Type=, "Single by X" could read "Promotional single by X", "Radio-only single by X", "Digital download-only song by X", etc. It would allow for more options, whereas being limited to "Single by X" has a narrow application for some people. —Ojorojo (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The idea is OK, but I would caution against using Type= in the new template. Its already used in the auxiliary templates, Extra Chronology, extra album cover, etc to do a different function, and it's being used erroneously in Infobox Single in a vast number of ways at present. A different field name would be a better choice. - X201 (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is more of a demonstration that one infobox can handle a variety of situations, rather than how a merged infobox would be coded. That would require more input from the experts. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. If we're going to merge songs with singles (which are often a collection of two or more songs), the next logical step would be to merge albums and songs, since they share most of the same parameters and uses.
  2. The distinction between {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox musical composition}} is totally arbitrary. "Songs" are musical compositions with lyrics, and the two templates seem to exist only to act as a division between pre- and post-19th-century music. And I don't mean "classical" vs. "non-classical", I mean before and after the advent of music commerce. See Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) and Ode to Joy - no infobox there. {{Infobox song}} and {{musical composition}} may as well be interchangeable (and they are, see "Our Prayer", "O My Father", "Kumbaya").
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I support that option.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment/question. Ojorojo: I'm interested in the possibilities raised by this, especially after seeing the Cream "Crossroads" example above. I've long thought we have too many infoboxes in some articles – for example, at "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'", where there are several cover versions apparently in need of one. Can't be helped there, I guess, but I wonder how a combined song–single infobox might apply in, say, "A Day in the Life", where the same artist's recording currently gets two infoboxes – as a 1967 album track, and as a 1978 single B-side. Do you think the single release could be incorporated into the song infobox as a second entry in the "Released" field, and the singles chronology then set inside the same box? A bit off-topic, but I'm just trying to imagine how this idea could pan out. JG66 (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You've raised several good points that should be discussed sooner or later. I think WP:LAYIM is useful:

Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in ... When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section; if the images in a section spill over into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution, that may mean that the section is too short or there are too many images in that section.

The inboxes in "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" all fit within their respective sections, but the last two or three don't appear "spread out" – they're too close together and (along with the chart boxes) give the article a fragmented, jumbled look. (Hopefully, "Train Kept A-Rollin'" is a better example of multiple infoboxes.) "A Day in the Life" is an example of infobox misuse (the GA reviewed version[10] only had one infobox). Two are stacked in the lead, giving it a busy, unbalanced look. Since the single is not discussed in the article (only mentioned as "issued as a B-side"), the second infobox is not warranted. Likewise, Gibbs' version only receives three sentences in the Covers section – not enough to support an additional infobox (plus it is placed in the Legacy section, which has no mention of it).
The current practice is basically "one occurrence" per infobox. Consensus during a recent RfC was that Cover versions/alt Artists should not be included in infobox song. The tendency to include too many "covers", regardless of their importance or discussion in the article, was a main reason. If a second recording/release or artist version is discussed in enough detail, additional infoboxes may be used (but consistent with WP:LAYIM). I don't see adding it to the primary infobox as useful and there is too much potential for misuse.
—Ojorojo (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I agree that WP:LAYIM needs to be kept in mind. "Train Kept A-Rollin'" looks excellent, most obviously because the highlighted versions of the song carry plenty of discussion and description, as one would expect. In the case of "Lovin' Feelin'", most of the infobox placement only works because the various lists and tables appear with the (short) discussion of each cover version, padding out the sections. There seems to be at least two schools of thought on this: one, as someone mentioned above re "Hey Jude", that personnel, chart boxes etc should sit with the text; another (which is the way I've been guided by reviewers), that all list, table and box elements should appear together after the final section of prose.
I'd not checked the listed version of "A Day in the Life". (That explains a few other problems I've noticed there.) But you're saying that, unlike in the GA listing, the single's release date should not be included? I'm trying to get my head around that, because it might be useful to present a second date along with a second "length" (for a single edit) when an artist's album track is subsequently issued on a single, perhaps a decade or more later. That would seem to be a tidy, comprehensive way to ensure we do away with all these two-boxes-per-artist examples, which is what interests me about the proposal. Perhaps I'm focusing too much on the way things are currently in some articles, even when, as you say, there's a case of infobox misuse. JG66 (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Using an infobox single in the lead & mentioning both the LP and later single may seem convenient, but I see a couple of problems: 1) the infobox single guideline for "Released" specifies "This field should refer to the earliest known commercial release date, using a single occurrence" (emphasis in the original – this is incorporated by reference in infobox song); 2) more importantly, the single is not (or barely) mentioned in the article. An infobox should only contain key facts as discussed in the article. If the single were important (it was a B-side), it should be discussed in a "Releases" section, with dates, edit info, promotion, charts, etc. If the section has enough material, an infobox single could be added there. I think the "single occurrence" guideline should be maintained – the song's appearance as the last song on Sgt. Pepper is far more important than the belated (11 yrs.) single release and the lead infobox should reflect this. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. I can't help but get my head lost in the wider implications (applications?) of infoboxes, such as wanting to avoid a second infobox when an artist's recording was reissued as a single – so I'm hoping we can refine things somewhere down the line. For now, though, I think this proposal is a good start. JG66 (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Might as well. I'm surprised that the digital download/promo/radio-only, etc. releases perspective hasn't been addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Listed in the template. --George Ho (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the simple reason that not all songs were released as singles. If you to be practical, you could instead merge both into {{Infobox musical work}}, but as it stands, the two infoboxes don't exactly serve the same purpose. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Missing the point – merging the two infoboxes would essentially combine the elements of both. Since they are already so similar, there would be little difference – both would continue to appear identical to the existing infoboxes, but with added flexibility (see the above "Crossroads" example). Creating an "Infobox musical work" with a merge with {{Infobox musical composition}} would be problematic. That infobox has ~50 (!) parameters versus ~25 for Infobox song & single. Many of the fields could be misinterpreted and misused ("Occasion", "Based on", "Dedication", "Performed", "Solo", "Vocal", "Instrumental", etc.). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge for all the reosans given at pevious TfM proposals, and because we have articles about songs, not about singles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge - per nomination and 3Family6. It's redundant to have both when they're essentially the same thing, especially in this era of blurred lines between singles, "digital singles" and songs. If the infobox is the same, it'll be one less thing to argue or edit war over when it's unclear which to label a song. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge it's needlessly repetitive to have separate infoboxes when they're quite similar already, and the only real distinction is whether a song is commercially released (which would make it a single). It could be titled either "Infobox song" (or "Infobox musical work" if album template also gets merged). Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge the song and single infoboxes; mostly identical. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     09:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we also need to have a discussion about limiting the use of the Extra chronology template within the main template. Both of the efforts on this article (Welcome to My Hood) are beyond a joke. - X201 (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, they overwhelm that article so completely, they make actual song/single seem irrelevant. Unfortunately, once a particular infobox field starts to be used (or overused!), it comes to be seen as essential and expected. Many don't seem to get that infoboxes are for key facts and not "information for information's sake" (How important is the nth artist's next single important to understanding this article? At least there are no album track listings). It should be discussed, but this RfC has probably meandered enough and should try to focus on the merge question. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. I don't see how we couldn't add those parameters to a "Infobox musical composition" template, though.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I just think that if non-recording-related fields were added to Infobox songs (and some recording-related fields removed, or would that not be feasible?), then the "they're both identical so they should be merged" argument wouldn't apply. Scolaire (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I've just realised you're talking about a different infobox altogether: Template:Infobox musical composition. Using that instead of Infobox song for a song article would be counterintuitive. Scolaire (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
That template includes a section that shows its use for songs (Template:Infobox musical composition#Example 3 - Songs). The same template is also used for hymns (Example 2 - Hymns). Some of the fields you mentioned were in the former Infobox standard, which were frequently misunderstood and/or misused (long lists of unimportant covers/alternative versions, etc.). —Ojorojo (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
That's just what I'm talking about. It starts with "songs are the same thing as singles", then it's "songs are the same thing as singles which are more or less the same thing as albums", now it's "just use the Infobox musical composition which has all those fields you don't understand." If we're going that way, why not just have an "artistic works" infobox which includes painting, literature, drama and film as well as music? Or merge the artistic works one with people, places, politics and everything else in one big "Infobox everything"? What I'm arguing for is an infobox that has fields relating to songs that can be used on articles about songs (as opposed to recordings). What is wrong with infoboxes being specific? I though that was the point of infoboxes. Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
What is the literature, visual art, or cinematic equivalent to a "single track album"? If you want an infobox that contrasts "songs" with "recordings", then we should be thinking about a {{Infobox musical recording}} template, and perhaps some embedding function. It makes no sense why we should have 3 different templates with virtually identical uses: |Title=, |cover=, |type=, |artist=, |recorded=, |released=, |genre=, |length=, |writer=, |producer=, |chronology=... and then there are 2 or 3 more parameters specific to albums and/or singles.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

[R to Scolaire] All singles are songs, but all songs are not singles – put another way, singles are a subset of songs, i.e., those which have been released in a particular medium. Ignoring the "song" or musical aspects of a single produces very dull, two-dimensional articles – ones which would not satisfy the featured article criterion "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Likewise, a fully-developed non-single song article should discuss its public presence: important performances, popularity as sheet music or piano rolls, notable recordings, popular releases, etc., otherwise the reader would not see the whole picture. In practice, many WP articles about traditional or historical songs (including several you noted above) have long sections about "Notable recordings", "In popular culture", etc. If the subject is being dealt with comprehensively, the line between the song and recording(s) will often be blurred. That is why the infobox parameters are so similar. Infobox song has been around for over 10 years – "if they're so similar, don't merge them, make them different" hasn't seemed to have caught on. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Err, no. A single is generally a release with at least 2 recordings of songs. A song is not the same as a recording of a song, and neither is the same as a single. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
What? A single is a single song. It could have b-sides or alternate mixes. It could be a 45 or seven-inch vinyl recording (I've seen some with the same version on both sides of such thing) or could be a 12-inch with the same recording on both sides as well, or be just short of an EP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
No. A single is not a song and a song is not a single. A single was (historic) a delivery medium for recordings (songs, instrumentals, speeches and who knows what else), and called that from the advent of the long player (to differentiate) to (probably) the digital age. The concept of a "single" is redundant now. which is why all this talk of merging is a little silly. 20 years time the kids won't know what a "single is" but, hopefully, they will still know what a song is. Would be no harm to have to boxes which work together, song and single rather than as alternatives. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
No. A single is one single song but not all releases of single songs are singles. I agree with the rest of your commentary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The most common use of "single" is the A-side – that's what is promoted, played on the radio, reviewed in the press, appears in the charts, etc. If a B-side receive any attention, then it becomes a "double A-side". Again, check out some FAs. Other than listing the name(s), tracks other than the A-side receive no or little discussion in WP articles (probably because they receive no or little coverage in reliable sources). Now, with music downloading, the focus on the primary song is even stronger. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
That simply isn't true. Throughout the history of recorded music, the vast majority of singles are vinyl records, cassettes or CDs with 2 or more tracks on them. The concept of a single being the same as one song is peculiar to Wikipedia. The A-side of a single is exactly that - one of the sides of a single. --Michig (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Physically, yes. But the attention (unless you're Elvis or the Beatles) is squarely on one song. How many reviews, charts, etc., even mention more than the primary song? Treating singles as multi-song releases similar to an EP is not a typical approach and WP reflects this. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia should reflect verified fact. Just because a song on the A-side of a single usually gets the most attention, we shouldn't be pretending that a single is the same as a song. --Michig (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The Music Industries: From Conception to Consumption:

"As of [2011] a single has become defined as 'a Record containing not more than 4 tracks' where a 'track' is defined as 'a Recording which reproduces 1 Title whose playing time is not less than 2½ minutes when played at its correct speed'"

It appears increasingly evident that singles are typically regarded as (potentially) multi-track releases - not literally a "single track".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
That seems a better solution, per some of the objections in the discussion above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Untitled
Here's the above "Crossroads" example using the existing infobox album. Again, they're very similar, except for color, etc. Maybe infobox musical composition would be better for those who wish to deal with songs more abstractly, without recordings and releases. —Ojorojo (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. Singles are songs; if I understand rightly, the singles infobox has parameters applicable to singles and songs that aren't singles, so {{infobox single}} could be used on songs that aren't singles. We could simply rename the templates if {{infobox song}} were the preferred title. If there are elements in {{Infobox song}} not applicable to singles, e.g. stuff relevant to hymns and folk songs, those elements could simply be merged into {{Infobox single}}. I'm neutral on the proposal of merging these with the album infobox; albums being distinct, I'm uncomfortable with the idea, but since I'm much more familiar with compositions that don't come in albums (operas, symphonies, concerti, etc.), I don't want to make an argument against merging. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional merge but it should probably be done with some sort of a parameter added to distinguish between the two (i.e. single=y/n) so that the text in the intro box reads correctly (i.e. you don't want it to read 'single' from X album on a song that isn't a single and visa versa). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It's coming up on 30 days for this RfC. Would it be useful to extend it or list it at the Requests for closure noticeboard? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I already did so, Ojorojo. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Ojorojo, though closure is requested, and it's listed in the CENT template, why not relist it for some while until the closer comes? --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, please correct relisting if needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Fixed the relisting for the bot. Looks fine? --George Ho (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. There are sufficiently many common parameters shared between the two templates "song" and "single". "Album" I haven't analyzed, but per the above a "single" in the sense espoused by many above (whether this is the common understanding I will not comment on here) also shares many of its parameters with that of the "album" and so there may be an opportunity for one musical composition infobox. (Which I haven't decided would be a good idea either way.) --Izno (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Why?. A single (music) really is two recordings on a piece of vinyl; a song might have been sung for a thousand years before anyone invented records or copyrights or any of that stuff, and could be written after those things have gone the way of the dodo. Two different things are reasonably entitled to two different kinds of boxes. If you want, you can carefully work the innards of the two templates into a single template or Lua module that handles both (without loss or change of functionality), perhaps in a broader class of musical compositions. But don't break the front end, don't mess with what a hundred articles link to for no obvious reason. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 16"
Song
English title"The Croppy Boy"
Again, a merger effectively combines the two, not with one supplanting the other. Merging the two infoboxes, which already have mostly similar parameters, does not change their current appearance or use. Here's a current use of infobox song; with a merger it would appear identical.
The reason for a merger is for increased flexibility (see these discussions: Adding Lyricist and Composer & Adding "English title" and "Language"). Infobox song allows for more description, e.g., instrumental, EP, promotional single, etc. (and English title, language, composer, and lyricist, which some editors have expressed an interest in) than infobox single. Rather than limiting or reducing infobox song, the merger would expand the possibilities of infobox single.
—Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you can "merge" these templates in such a way that the articles containing them don't change, or need to be changed, that doesn't even seem like something an RFC is needed for. The technical details of a template are just plain editing, including if you push off some subroutines to a file used by other templates. I only think an RFC (and Opposes in that RFC) are needed if you propose to get rid of one template call or reduce its functionality, so that the users have to go back and do something that doesn't make as much sense. Wnt (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I see below that people talk about "using a bot" and "deleting the old template". I oppose doing that. Conceptually, there is no reason not to keep "infobox song" and "infobox single" as things editors can type. Bear in mind that some editors have learned to type these things, and you can't just update the way they remember to do things with a bot. It also conflicts with my intuitive sense that a single and a song are two different things worthy of two different boxes. You can (and should) merge up everything inside the templates, and you can even feel free to allow new parameters in each template that are present in the other that might not strictly make sense. But don't change the "editor interface" and don't mass-edit the articles to get rid of the user-friendly front end. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Wnt: when you read @Walter Görlitz: and myself talk about getting a bot to do it. What do you envisage when your read that? because your message is leaving me a little puzzled. Also what do you mean by "get rid of the user-friendly front end"? - X201 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@X201: I mean, if people are writing {{infobox song}} (or single) in an article now, they should be able to do the same thing later, and if the infobox song/single templates have specific documentation, you can leave that, and if they default to certain default color schemes etc. you can leave that. The user doesn't need to know if you merged the innards of the two templates so that they both take the parameters they're given and go to some generalized infobox musical composition thing. I don't want a bot going through all the wikipedia articles changing every "infobox song" to "infobox musical composition", because that's basically spamming the history only so that editors who used to use infobox song might be presented with a redlink or a message telling them they should do something differently. There's no reason to do that. Wnt (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
At some point, one (or both) of the templates will cease to exist and if an editor tries to add it, it would fail to display anything other than an error stating that the template has been deprecated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly merge - I have long thought that infoboxes would treat "song" and "single" well as separate entities. However, I'm convinced by supporters of the proposal that the "infobox single" is becoming more redundant to "infobox song". The merger may not help the "single" vs. "song" distinction, but at least we can use the "|Type=" parameter... Or we can still use "infobox single" as a redirect template... if coded to retain the background colour (i.e. yellow)? Also, we can still use {{extra album cover}} as part of the merged infobox if necessary... but an extra image is generally unnecessary often. How to treat individual older releases may vary, but newer releases shrank the distinction between "single" and "song". Downloadable format is popular, while physical format is... I don't know what words to put it, but it's not as thriving as it was in pre-digital age.

    Another flaw about the "infobox single" is its treatment toward some single releases that lack the "Side (A/One/1)"/"Side (B/Two/2)" labeling. An example is "Spinout"/"All That I Am" release by Elvis Presley, but both the articles treat both tracks like "opposite sides" respectively. They are not treated as A-side/B-side. The matter was discussed at Talk:A-side and B-side#Terminology of the topic and then Template talk:Infobox single/Archive 8#A-side, B-side, flipside, other side... what else is it? Somehow, "infobox song" currently lacks "A-side"/"B-side" parameters. The "other side" labeling will be discussed sometime in the future, especially when the merger discussion is over. --George Ho (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC); edited. 08:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking: what would happen to a single release Scream/Childhood if the templates merge? --George Ho (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
You would use the infobox song template and set the type to Single. And to answer an earlier question, I suspect that we would commission a bot to make the appropriate changes and leave the old infobox in-place until it completes its work. I would suggest not leaving a redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
A bot run would be the best way and then delete the old template location and any redirects, but before then some serious work need to be put into the fields, their names and their function. Type is one of the ones on my hit list. I've been cleaning up infobox single and its obvious that the name of Type does not convey its purpose to users, as they have stuck all kinds of rubbish in it. But that's a discussion for after the merge is agreed. - X201 (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
[R to George] The merged song/single infobox would include fields for both A-side and B-side (infobox song currently only has A-side). The merger would not effect how the infoboxes currently appear in articles, including your examples. As you note, how articles should treat "two sides vs. one side" is for future discussion and not the subject of this RfC on the merger. The combined code might look like this, although experienced coders should be consulted: —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
{{Infobox song/single <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs -->
| Name          = 
| Cover         = <!-- just the file name -->
| Border        =
| Alt           = 
| Caption       = 
| Type [as per X201 this should be renamed] = <!-- Song, Single, Promo release, Instrumental, Hymn, etc. This would set the color. -->
| Artist        = 
| Album         = 
| EP            = 
| A-side        = 
| B-side        = 
| English_title = 
| Written       = 
| Published     = 
| Released      = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} -->
| Format        = 
| Recorded      = 
| Studio        =
| Venue         =
| Genre         = 
| Length        = <!-- {{Duration|m=MM|s=SS}} -->
| Label         = 
| Writer        =  
| Composer      = 
| Lyricist      = 
| Language      = 
| Producer      = 
| ISWC          = 
| Chronology    = 
| Last single   = 
| This single   = 
| Next single   = 
| Tracks        = <!-- Alternatively, this field may include a collapsible album track template -->
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
| prev          = 
| prev_no       = 
| track_no      = 
| next          = 
| next_no       =
| Misc          = <!-- Allows use of {{Extra chronology}}, {{Extra track listing}}, {{Extra album cover}}, {{Audiosample}} -->
}}
  • Merge - The infoboxes share most of the same parameters. It doesn't make sense to keep them separate just for the sake of semantics. Kaldari (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the two concepts separate by creating a "sound recording" infobox. The "song" infobox is being used inappropriately for sound recordings of songs which aren't singles, because there is no better choice. The solution is to create a general infobox, "sound recording", with spots for the names of musicians and other people and companies who helped make the recording, release dates and places, compositions included in the recording, length and formats of the recording. "Single" and "album" could be subsets of this. Articles currently sporting the "song" infobox that are really about specific recordings could be migrated to this new "sound recording" infobox. Then the "song" infobox (a subset of the existing Template:Infobox musical composition) would only be only in articles actually about vocal compositions. It would need elements such as composer(s), composition date, language, genre, date and format of first release, publication or performance, notable singers, etc. Items such as "Cover" and "Producer" and "track listings", "label" and "length" could be removed, since these are not about a song.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I like "sound recording" better than "musical recording" (because audiobooks and spoken word albums) but I'm puzzled by the second and last sentences. Song/album/single articles aren't about the plastic they're recorded on, they're about the music contained within. And why would we remove "Producer" and "Length"? Are you suggesting that all song/album/single articles use two templates to display one infobox? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that sound recordings aren't about the recording media, but they are about the specific rendition/production that is being recorded. The musicians, instruments and electronic techniques used, tempo, production, release and promotion details are quite relevant. The resulting recording has a specific length, and record label and is the same each time played. Songs, on the other hand, are a combination of lyrics and melody. Take, for example the song The Water Is Wide. There are dozens and likely hundreds of recordings of this song. They are all different lengths, and have different musicians and production details. Most are not notable and wouldn't have a separate article. The infobox in the article about the song doesn't need "producer" and "label", etc. If specific recordings are notable enough to have individual articles (such as may happen with the well-known versions by Peter, Paul and Mary, Joan Baez or James Taylor), those articles would have the "single" or "sound recording" infobox. If it's the song itself that is notable, it should have a "song" infobox. If it's the specific recording that's famous, for example Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown), then it should have a "single" or "sound recording" infobox.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
As you pointed out above, {{Musical composition}} is available for more composition-focused song articles. It has most of the fields you mentioned (composer(s), composition date, language, genre, date of first release, publication or performance, etc.). This is a recent example using a subset of that infobox. Infobox song/single is typically used when the focus is more on specific renditions or recordings. Why change the existing format(s) when another is already better suited? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2017 (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.

Merger proceedings at Template talk:Infobox song

I began the discussion about beginning the merger of "Infobox song" and "Infobox singer" at Template talk:Infobox song#Beginning merger proceedings with "infobox single". --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


New merged song/single infobox

With the merged infobox, a name is needed and there is the opportunity to specify new colors and parameter order. Please add your comments below each point.

Discussion

Name

Resolved
 – Use the name Infobox song. Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retaining the name "infobox song" is possible (single is obviously out) and combinations of musical/sound recording/work are too broad.

The consensus during the RfC was to merge the song and single infoboxes. Redirecting infobox song to musical composition is another issue. As it stands, this template is not exclusively for recorded music; "tracks" has a limited use. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
That's right.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Color

Resolved
 – Keep it the same (khaki for singles, light blue for all else). Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The existing scheme is khaki (yellow) for singles and light blue for all else.

  • Keep it for now (easy to change later if more options are needed). —Ojorojo (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the colour scheme. I would change promo singles and demos (currently khaki) to blue, but other than those most pages shouldn't be affected. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     05:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not exactly familiar with the infoboxes described below, but if I had a choice, I think it would be better to keep the existing yellow colors at least for singles. Why? Maybe I'm just used to it, but maybe because I don't really see anything wrong with the status quo. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No preference on which color to use as long as all song articles have the same color (regardless of whether they were released as singles) Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer blue because we're following the logic that all single sides/songs are songs – we're not approaching it from the other direction. I guess it's down to familiarity as well. I'm not overly bothered, though – whatever colour is chosen, it'll become familiar (and seem "right") before too long. JG66 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, it may be time to get adventurous! Different colors can be assigned to different |type=, like Template:Infobox album#Type. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
If we're approaching from that direction, then we shouldn't have a "single" type at all. Singles don't have composers or lyricists, songs do. Again, if we want to be technically correct, then I can see two options:
  • |Type= only controls the background color, "Song by ..." does not change to "Single by ..."
  • |Single= is introduced to display "Song by X from the single Y"
I also considered correcting "Song by Artist" to "Song recorded by Artist", but that might be overly anal. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is to implement the merger of the existing infoboxes as they are currently used, not to continue the song vs. single debate. That is a different issue and needs to be discussed separately. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I was confused by what you meant, since we're already talking about changing the colors, but I guess that has nothing to do with how the template is used. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the colors should change until we've finalized whether the infobox is meant to represent single articles as a single or a song. In other words, whether Strawberry Fields Forever is an article about the song "Strawberry Fields" or the single "Strawberry Fields" that contains "Penny Lane" on its flip side. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Parameter order

Resolved
 – Try to maintain the orders from both of the existing infoboxes. Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The existing song/single parameter orders are a bit different, but the merged infobox will display the same order for both. One possibility is to first list the songwriting info, then recording and release info. The examples below (using the current sandbox version, which changes) show almost all of the parameters for demonstration only (actual use would not include songwriter and composer and lyricist; studio and venue; A-side and B-side, etc.).

  • I think the release information should be next to |published=, since the only difference is that one is for sheet music and the others are for recordings. Also, maybe |producer= could be after composer/lyricist. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     05:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I added an additional header for "Recording details" (which I'm not sure about after looking at the real-life examples). I think that the "recording information" should take precedence over the "compositional information".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ilovetopaint: I don't think the additional header works – most articles would probably only use one or two of the "Compositional details" fields, so there wouldn't be enough there to justify another header. I'll remove this from the sandbox. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC):
  • The more I think about it, the original order was basically perfect. The topmost important details of a single are 1) Title 2) Artist 3) Album 4) A/B-side 5) Release date. There wasn't any need to mess with that order.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This template isn't just for singles. The original order you are referring to is for infobox single (although you have changed format, producer, etc. in the examples). The original order for Infobox song is not taken into account. A merged infobox should reflect both. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The order applies to tracks too, just without "A/B-side".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
But it doesn't reflect the "original order" used for infobox song. Why should English title, written, published, etc. be moved just to preserve the infobox single order? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying. I was only using singles as an example. As far as I can see, the sequence of parameters in {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}} are identical. While I appreciate that maybe a different order could be considered, I think that it's a separate issue.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I tried a test with the parameters closer to the original sequences. In your example, the order from infobox song was not followed (and some fields from infobox single were moved) – most were just tacked onto the end of infobox single. It makes no sense to place written after released and recorded; composer and lyricist should follow songwriter, not added later. Part of the confusion may be that I'm looking at the full set of parameters, while you are focusing on the use in existing boxes. Anyway, this latest test preserves the order in "Strawberry Fields" and "Here Today". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean now, thanks for catching that. I'm not sure if it looks perfect or if it's just what I'm used to.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
My first attempt was to order the infobox more chronologically – first, a song is written by somebody, then recorded somewhere, and finally released in some manner by a record company. Currently, it's the other way around. But if consensus is to keep things close to the existing infoboxes, fine. Do you see any problems with the current test/example? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
No problems with the current (original) layout. I'm not a fan of ordering by chronology - it's like moving |death_date= to the bottom of {{Infobox musical artist}}. I think the logic behind the original sequencing was something like "Background/packaging and release => Background/music and recording => Personnel => Miscellaneous", which sits right with me. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ilovetopaint and Ojorojo: Would it be better if "English title" and "Original language" were adjacent? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Yes, it makes more sense if the two were together, as in earlier examples. The existing infobox song places it near the end, but, in this case, a change from the "original order" should be acceptable. Perhaps change it and see. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: done. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks fine either way.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Misc

information Not an issue here. Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Subtemplates with {{Extra tracklisting}}, {{Extra chronology}}, etc., are often added to the existing infoboxes, so they are included in the examples. Ongoing RfCs may eliminate some, but those issues are not part of this discussion.

Hope so. In my experience they are responsible for more template errors than anything else. Personally, I'd love to see the the Misc field eliminated and the templates incorporated into the infobox. - X201 (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@X201: This could probably be done quite easily for {{Singles}}, since all the substantial content is pulled from the Lua module. The others might be more difficult, since there are a lot of different variations to account for (such as different header colour, different order, etc.) and I don't think it's totally necessary. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

ISWC

Resolved
 – Remove ISWC. Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Would anybody miss this if it was removed?

  • Remove – seldom used, it never caught on. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (even if seldom used), as it's useful and Wikidata could potentially get an import of those. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     05:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove not often useful (if at all) and rarely implemented. I'd also deprecate chronology in song/album infoboxes entirely since what was released immediately after/before a certain song isn't really relevant to the song itself, it detracts focus from the article subject, and in certain cases violates WP:CIRCULAR when solely depending on what other Wikipedia articles give as release dates. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't even know that existed. I don't care. Oppose removing the chronology section - as a Wikipedia reader, I find it very useful.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Removing ISWC as part of the merger is OK, because it is used so infrequently. However, chronologies, track listings, etc., are found in many, many articles and should have a new RfC. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Most books include ISBN along with the publishing info and it is often used by retailers, etc. Singles and albums don't include ISWC or ISMN for songs (ISMN appears to be limited to sheet music)[11]. The only place I've seen ISWC is WP and the ISWC website, which is probably why so few people even know it exists. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Then I'll vote remove. --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ISWC has 88 uses in Infobox single and 79 in infobox song - X201 (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove. Apart from the fact that it's so rarely used, it could create problems if the vast majority of sources (including composer and publishing credits on a release and subsequent compilations, in sheet music and songbooks, not to mention biographies and other reference works) consistently give songwriters in one particular order, yet the ISWC entry presents them in another. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd remove this this. I've never seen it used and I've never used it in the 80 or articles I've made GA.  — Calvin999 16:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Longtype

Resolved
 – Don't add; there isn't additional support for this.

—Ojorojo (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Should a |longtype= parameter be added, similar to that used in Template:Infobox album#Longtype?

It is unnecessary and I fail to see how WP:BALASP would apply – "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject ..." The fact that Peacebone was first a single, then later added to an EP by the same name, does not warrant adding this to a header. It appears that a second header is being proposed to promote a particular view ("Good Vibrations" Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" / "Let's Go Away for Awhile"[12]). Changes like this require consensus in an RfC. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

General

@Ojorojo: Should the participants in the merger RfC be pinged? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Michig:, @Izno:, @3family6:, @Softlavender:, @George Ho:, @Walter Görlitz:, @Richhoncho:, @X201:, @69.165.196.103:, @Ilovetopaint:, @JG66:, @Narutolovehinata5:, @Pigsonthewing:, @Sergecross73:, @SNUGGUMS:, @Scolaire:, @Nyttend:, @TheSandDoctor:, @Wnt:, @Kaldari:, @Anne Delong:, @Primefac: and others who contributed to the merger discussion, please add your comments above. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
After being thank by Ojorojo, I converted bolded words into subheaders then. George Ho (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, this discussion will affect a lot of pages using the infoboxes. Nevertheless, I see consensus agreeing the naming and colors of the template. May I please add this to "{{centralized discussion}}"? --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: seems like a good idea. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done: [13]. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why there is a venue parameter? I don't see how it would be used. There is also studio, which is where songs are recorded. Albums and songs aren't recorded in venues, as such. They are performed in them. I get for when an album is recorded live, like a song, but when are songs ever recorded live and released? I can only think of live albums and live EPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Venues are for live recordings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
<edit conflict>Actually, there are the occasional examples. "No Woman, No Cry", for instance, where the best-known version is from the Lyceum in London. Also, the Stones' cover of "Going to a Go-Go". JG66 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
But was the best-known the original? I don't think I've ever known an original version to be recorded live first before the studio.  — Calvin999 17:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes a live version is the first or only one released by the artist (see "Who Do You Love?", "Crossroads", "Machine Gun", "Playing in the Band"). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, its relatively rare, but it happens. More-so in decades past, when there was less of a difference between studio and live recording, but it still happens in more recent times too. Outside (Staind song) and Coldplay's Moses (song) come to mind for me. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Example templates

Use with single Use with song "Strawberry Fields Forever" "Here Today"
"The Single"
File:Image
Single picture sleeve
Single by The Artist
from the album That Album
LanguageForeign
English title"D'single"
B-side"Other Side"
Written2014
Published2015
ReleasedApril 1, 2016 (2016-04-01)
RecordedJanuary 1–10, 2016
StudioRecord Plant, New York City
VenueMadison Square Garden
GenreContemporary R&B
Length3:01
LabelColumbia
Songwriter(s)The Artist
Composer(s)Another Artist
Lyricist(s)The Artist
Producer(s)The Producer
The Artist singles chronology
"Last Single"
(2015) 		"The Single"
(2016) 		"Next Single"
(2017)
"The Song"
File:Image
Sheet music cover
Song by The Artist
from the EP What EP
LanguageForeign
English title"D'song"
Written2014
Published2015
ReleasedApril 1, 2016 (2016-04-01)
RecordedJanuary 1–10, 2016
StudioRecord Plant, New York City
VenueMadison Square Garden
GenreContemporary R&B
Length3:01
LabelColumbia
Songwriter(s)The Artist
Composer(s)Another Artist
Lyricist(s)The Artist
Producer(s)The Producer
"White Album Fields Forever"
Single by The Beatles
A-side"Penny Lane"
Released13 February 1967
Recorded24 November – 22 December 1966
StudioEMI Studios, London
Genre
Length4:05
LabelParlophone (UK)
Capitol (US)
Songwriter(s)Lennon–McCartney
Producer(s)George Martin
The Beatles singles chronology
"Eleanor Rigby" / "Yellow Submarine"
(1966) 		"Strawberry Fields Forever" / "Penny Lane"
(1967) 		"All You Need Is Love"
(1967)
Audio sample
Placeholder for fair use file
"Here Today"
Song by The Beach Boys
from the album Pet Sounds
ReleasedMay 16, 1966 (1966-05-16)
RecordedMarch 11 and 25, 1966
StudioSunset Sound Recorders and CBS Columbia Square, Hollywood
GenreChamber pop
Length3:07
LabelCapitol
Songwriter(s)
Producer(s)Brian Wilson
Audio sample
Placeholder for fair use file
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_16&oldid=1146802648"