Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox single/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Cover image width

Recently, {{Infobox album}} has changed to make the cover image the full width of the infobox. {{Extra album cover}} has appeared to have made this change too, but why hasn't this template? It looks very odd when this infobox transcludes {{Extra album cover}} and the extra cover is much wider and larger than the regular image. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is inconsistent and that it would make sense to make the same change here. I guess the answer to your question is: Nobody thought about this when the implementation was done over at {{Infobox album}}. For info, the related discussion is here. – IbLeo(talk) 07:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have contacted Thumperward (talk · contribs), the admin who implemented the changes on {{Infobox album}} and {{Extra album cover}}; hopefully he will assist us. – IbLeo(talk) 05:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully he can also update {{Infobox song}}. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've updated both {{infobox single}} and {{infobox song}} to use the updated syntax. Thanks for letting me know. If there are any problems with the new code please ping me. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick intervention Chris, you are a champ! Cheers. – IbLeo(talk) 19:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Template:External music video into Template:Infobox single

{{External music video}} is currently used on over 1000 articles to add a link to an official video for a single. As almost all new singles now have a music video which is posted on the Internet officially by the artist or their record company, I was thinking it would be worthwhile to have a music video parameter with the link to the external website, rather than having an additional template to do this? Mhiji (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See also the previous discussion on merging this. Kaldari (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

Extended content
Please add <noinclude>{{mergefrom|Template:External music video|discuss=Template Talk:Infobox single#Proposed merge from Template:External music video into Template:Infobox single|date=November 2010}}</noinclude> to the top of the template. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Will do. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Is a music video really such an important key fact of a single that it needs to go into the infobox? I am personally not convinced, and I feel that it should rather go into the 'External links' section as per WP:EL. Furthermore, I am concerned about WP:LINKVIO and especially WP:YOUTUBE; knowing that there are a lot of illegal content on Youtube, incl. lots and lots of music videos, I am afraid that putting this field directly in the infobox will encourage editors with little awareness for these issues to add such links to infoboxes all over the place, which is not to the advantage of Wikipedia. To see more in detail what we are dealing with I had a look at the first 10 articles that currently transcludes {{External music video}}. Out of these, 2 where not visible in my country (France) for copyright reasons (Mamma Mia (song), Dancing Queen), one didn't show for an unknown reason (Control (Janet Jackson song)) and one site simply didn't work (Crazy (Willie Nelson song)). The 6 others played well and looked official and licensed. However, 4 out of 10 I couldn't see; honestly I am not impressed. – IbLeo(talk) 06:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IbLeo. Music videos aren't so important that they should go in the infobox and there could (and probably will) be an increase in copvios. I don't really see the point of{{external music video}} anyway. Per the previous discussion, the good thing about it and the misc is that it is flexible. Adding too many parameters (and unnecessary ones) will just increase the size of the template code, which we don't need. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of parameter 'Cover size'

The |Cover size= parameter is proposed for deletion. Editors are kindly invited to leave their opinion over here – IbLeo(talk) 19:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Format" parameter?

Can somebody please add documentation for the "format" parameter? A list of standardized choices would be nice. I've no clue what to put for a 10-inch 78.—Chowbok ☠ 20:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good question. I have often wondered myself what to put in this field, and current practices are highly inconsistent. Thoughts? – IbLeo(talk) 18:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe format refers to the medium of release thus the only formats we actively use at GA/FA are:

-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Usage

Should there be a section that indicates if the song is being used in any media such as television/movie opening song? Thanks. --120.127.93.192 (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheet music

Opinions would be appreciated at a proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Using sheet music sources. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Key

Can we please add a label for song key, thank you.Powerofrussia2 (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency in writer vs producer

When a song has multiple producers (for example, Born This Way (song) or I Gotta Feeling), the infobox uses the singular "producer". This is inconsistent with the parenthetical plural used in the "Writer(s)" field. I suggest this format be made consistent, either by using the singular "Writer" or the parenthetical plural "Producer(s)". Enigmocracy (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Please participate in discussion to resolve the reporting of Radio dates.

PROPOSAL to add a parameter "Radio:" above the "Released:" field.
Radio date is NOT a 'Release' (industry terminology). We are attempting to resolve the reporting of Radio date in infobox HERE. Also feel free to review the considerable material prior to the subsection given in the link. Please contribute and thank you.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC) If consensus is reached for this proposal, I anticipate that we will seek the following changes

ADD field, just above "Released"

 | Radio  =

to render Radio: and add the instructional comments as shown below


{{Infobox single <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs -->
| Name           = 
| Cover          = <!-- just the file name -->
| Border         = 
| Alt            = 
| Caption        = 
| Artist         = 
| Album          = 
| A-side         = 
| B-side         = 
| Radio          = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --><!-- ONLY USE when there is ONLY an OFFICIAL Radio date [(no release (Sales) date at all], or the OFFICIAL Radio date is prior to the Release date. -->
| Released       = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --><!-- ALWAYS USE when there is a 'Release' (sales) date, even if later than an OFFICIAL Radio date. -->
| Format         = 
| Recorded       = 
| Genre          = 
| Length         = <!-- {{Duration|m=MM|s=SS}} -->
| Label          = 
| Writer         = 
| Producer       = 
| Certification  = 
| Chronology     = 
| Last single    = 
| This single    = 
| Next single    = 
| Misc           = 
}}


—Iknow23 (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox parameters and B-sides

In the infobox, some parameters may have different values for each song on a single (double A-sides or B-sides). I can't find any information on whether to include these for B-sides, or if there is a standard way of formatting them. There is a dispute at Resistance (song) on whether to include the B-sides in the genres (maybe they should be removed as no sources are cited for them, but my question is not specific to that article). Peter E. James (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is about the single itself. If the B-side is notable enough, create an article for it. If not, mention it in one sentence in the album's article. Articles about singles should only include info about B-side in terms of its release (ie "AAA" was released via CD single by PQR label on date, with "BBB" as its B-side.) —Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the genre?

In the parameters' section says nothing about the genres. why? Carnotaurus044 (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a description. Feel free to play around with it. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Length clarification

Does the "Length" parameter refer to the length of the song or of the single? Meaning if the 'song' is 2:54 but the two b-sides are 2:00 each, should the "Length" area read "2:54" or "8:54"? -Gohst (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Another length clarification

I've seen that an editor is adding the Rock Band duration in the length parameter (e.g. |Length=3:28<br>3:35 (Rock Band)). Is this an appropriate use of the template? GoingBatty (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go with no, that info should be added to the main body of the article, especially if the version differs in some way from the original that is worth noting (ie, that there's not just added silence to the end for whatever reason). -Gohst (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

The merge discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_single/Archive_6#Proposed_merge_from_Template:External_music_video_into_Template:Infobox_single was an oppose, so could any admin please remove the merge template. Debresser (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Anomie⚔ 01:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Granularity

Instances io this infobox have enteries like:

  • |Last single="[[Here She Comes Now/Venus in Furs|Here She Comes Now"/"Venus in Furs]]"<br />(1991)
  • |This single="Smells Like Teen Spirit" <br /> (1991)
  • |"[[Come as You Are (Nirvana song)|Come as You Are]]"<br />(1992)=

The first and last of those have two data values (the single name and year); I think it would be better to have, for example, |Last single name= and |Last single date=, displayed together as at present, to facilitate machine parsing. The quote marks could also be auto-generated, removing the need for editors to enter them.

It should also be possible to auto-generate the |This single= data, removing the need or editors to duplicate information they have entered elsewhere, and again the emboldening could be created automatically. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting typo fix

The template documentation contains the phrase: 'Only one the fields "A-side" or "B-side" should be used.' Obviously this is a typo and should be changed to 'Only one of the fields "A-side" or "B-side" should be used.'--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. Please note that although many templates are protected, the documentation is usually editable by all users. GoingBatty (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I hadn't noticed that little "edit" link on the documentation, but I'll keep that in mind from now on.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Image width and/or infobox width adjustment?

So I'm reading Suspicious Minds and this infobox is used three times for three versions of the song. The Elvis version looks fine to me. The Fine Young Canibals version has a smaller image, and looks like the box should be slightly widened to match that of the Elvis version. The Gareth Gates version is using a larger image than the first two. It looks like the image should be reduced. Any ideas about how to adjust the formatting so that the three infoboxes have the same width? NYCRuss ☎ 17:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Music video directors

Could we add a "Video director" field to this infobox? It currently contains no information whatsoever about corresponding music videos, but the name of the director is probably the most relevant and applicable – every music video has a director, and they play a significant role in how the song is presented and perceived. For example, Mark Romanek's video for "Hurt" is probably as well-known as the song itself, so shouldn't he be listed along with the writer and producer in the infobox? —Flax5 13:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Should this be done on {{Infobox song}} as well? GoingBatty (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that infobox, but if the field is added to one, I suppose it should also be added to the other. —Flax5 15:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Quotation Marks?

this is probably old but why do singles have quotation marks and all other albums dont?Lucia Black (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Track number

I would like to propose the addition of a "Number" variable, so that this will be possible (unless I'm missing something). Thanks in advance. 69.155.139.90 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Songs from more than an album.

In some cases, featured singles are released in both artists' studio albums, just like with Good Time (Owl City and Carly Rae Jepsen song), so I propose that the word "album" in the description "Single by artist from the album" could have an "(s)" added to denote that the single is included in more than an album. So, I was wondering what other editors think about this idea because it doesn't seem nice to read something like "Single by [first artist] and [second artist] from the album [x] and [y]" because of the plural. Regards, Lucas RdS (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Musical parameters in infobox

I'm not sure of the best place to ask this, but I've started a discussion over at Template_talk:Infobox_song, which essentially asks whether tempo and key should have their own parameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Am I the only one here who's a music fan and can see the value?

Proposal for color extension to include Promotional singles

I would like to make a proposal to extend Infobox single to have a color scheme similar to that of Template: Infobox album/color and Template: Infobox song/color. I would like infobox single to take care of Promotional singles, since they are technically singles, not just ordinary album songs. I will admit to the mistake of creating Template: Infobox promotional single without consulting this talk page first. I would just like to ask for edits of this kind to allow Promotional Singles to contain single infoboxes instead of song infoboxes, with a coded background color that does not match the infobox single color, but something similar or exactly #FFFFC9.

The extensions I propose are-


  • the creation of Template:Infobox single/color and a documentation, similar or exactly this:
<includeonly>{{#switch: {{lc:{{{1|}}}}}
  |single|[[single]]|singles|[[singles]]=khaki
  |promotional single|[[promotional single]]|promotional singles|[[promotional singles]]=<nowiki>#FFFFC9</nowiki>
  |{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|peachpuff}}
}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{template doc}}</noinclude>


  • An edit in line 4 (abovestyle),

from 

''abovestyle = background-color:#F0E68C''

to 

''abovestyle = background-color: {{Infobox single/color}}''


  • An edit in line 8 (headerstyle),

from 

''headerstyle = background-color:#F0E68C''

to 

''headerstyle = background-color:{{Infobox single/color}}''


  • An edit in line 11 (header 1),

from 

''header1 = [[Single (music)|Single]]&nbsp;by {{{Artist}}}''

to 

''header1 ={{#if: {{{Type|}}} | {{{Type}}} | [[Single (music)|Single]]}}&nbsp;by {{{Artist}}}''


  • After changes, correct any mistakes I may have made and update the documentation of Infobox:Template Single.


If these proposals are accepted, promotional singles can finally be recognised on wikipedia. So I ask the moderators of this page, please make an infobox shade for Promotional singles on Infobox single! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RazorEyeEdits (talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)‎

Not done: Sorry, but you need to show that there is a consensus to implement the above change before I can update the template. To show you that there is a consensus, I recommend you follow the following procedure:
  1. Add your proposed change to the template sandbox
  2. Set up some test cases on the test cases page eper WP:TESTCASES.
  3. Notify people at WT:SONGS and WT:ALBUMS of this discussion and point them to the test cases you have made.
  4. Wait for a while. (Usually seven days is enough, but I suggest ten days as it is Christmas now.)
  5. If the rough consensus from the discussion is to implement the change, reactivate the {{edit protected}} template.
If the admin who patrols your edit request agrees that a consensus has been reached, they will perform the edit. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Even if the above things are trialled first there is an on-going discussion about the deletion of {{Infobox promotional single}} at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_16#Template:Infobox_promotional_single which needs to be addressed first. There's already some opposition to the idea of a new color for promotional singles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - "promotional single" is most definitely not the same thing as a single in the normal sense. In fact, the term is essentially meaningless, especially these days. A "promo" just means a song is played on the radio, and can be downloaded. There's nothing special about that. We can't just go putting an infobox up whenever Amazon lists a price for an MP3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.160.108 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Published and Language parameters

Please add Published, Composer, and Language parameters to Infobox single similar to the parameters in template:Infobox song. Thanks. Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: For heavily used templates such as this you need to establish consensus even for small changes before asking for an edit. I would support adding Composer, and Language, but the purpose of the Published parameter is still unclear at "Infobox song", so I don't think this should be introduced here. De728631 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a |lang= for songs whose lyrics are not in English. We should also, separately, have a {{title_lang}} for songs whose titles are not in English (even if their lyrics are), so that we can mark them up with the relevant ISO code (c/f |native_name_lang= in {{Infobox settlement}}); and a |title_translation=, for the English equivalent of such titles. This applies to both of these sibling infoboxes (which should be merged). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Catalogue number

Why is catalogue number not a named parameter? (applies equally to Infobox album. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Because different versions of an album have different catalogue numbers and the catalogue numbers are also different for each territory. Additionally digitial editions of an album don't usually have a catalogue number so their relevance is fading quickly. What would be gained by having a catalogue number in the infobox? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 13:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It would save having to put the number in the text. Singles and albums which got to number one, went platinum, got banned by radio stations, etc., etc. used to be physical entities, made of vinyl, with a label, and with a catalogue number. Just because you suggest they are "no longer relevant" does not mean they are not still very relevant to collectors who might be searching for them. A catalogue number is also useful for distinguishing between re-issues of the same record and between records with the same title. I've had this discussion a number of times before, so I am not going to labour the point. But there seen to be enough unused parameters in the single and album infoboxes, that adding one that might be used just seemed sensible to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Where there is scope for significant differences i.e. catalogue numbers vary by region, release, format etc the release history is the best place for them because it just gets too complicated. In some cases Catalogue numbers can be cleverly woven into the article itself e.g. Glassheart#Track listing, but generally I would think it is more suited to a release history section e.g. Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel#Release history. In fact the latter is an excellent example as to why they shouldn't appear in the infobox. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
So, you seem to be strongly suggesting that it's ok to include a Catalogue number in the infoxox when there is only one release, or at the most two. Would this be best placed after the label, or in a separate field? If there are more than two releases, you seem to be strongly suggesting that a table is best, which included country of release, date, label and format. Is that correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the catalogue numbers for every edition of, say, 'Dark Side of the Moon' would fill a book. On the other, they do serve a useful purpose, and we seem to manage with ISBNs for books, which are analogous; we usually only give one in an infobox, and it tends to be for the first release in the home country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think one in the infobox, after the label, or as a separate parameter, would be an improvement on none. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
If we do include a catalogue number, it should definitely be a separate parameter, no matter how it is displayed, to preserve data granularity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The only "spare" parameter currently seems to be Misc, which makes no mention of Catalogue Number. Should a new paramater be added? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition of "lyrics" and "music" fields

"Infobox single/Archive 6"
Song

I could have sworn I brought this up before... but I looked around and I guess I haven't. Often times, the writers of a song are listed just as "written by", or "writers", however, in some cases, they are separated into "lyrics by" and "music by" (the "writer(s)" of a song generally include both those who wrote the lyrics and those who wrote the music). I purpose that we add a field for this. It can get quite messy otherwise; for example, on "Feelin' So Good" it reads: "Writer(s): Cory Rooney, Jennifer Lopez (lyrics); Sean "Puffy" Combs, Steven Standard, George Logios (music)", when it could just read "Lyrics: Cory Rooney, Jennifer Lopez" and "Music: Sean "Puffy" Combs, Steven Standard, George Logios". I don't see what harm such addition could do.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition, this would too be added to Infobox song.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I've marked this edit request as answered. Feel free to reactivate it when you have worked out exactly how this parameter should work, and have a consensus to change it. Also, it would be best if you could add your proposed change to the template sandbox and set up some test cases to test its functionality at the test cases page. If you want more info, there's some at WP:TESTCASES, or feel free to ask on my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you; I have attached a sample of the proposed change to the side.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Since "Music", I don't think, necessarily works perfectly in the context, "Composer" could be used instead; meaning the same thing.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For backwards compatibility, we should retain the |writer= parameter. We should then code the template so that if that parameter is present, the |lyrics= and |music= (or whatever we call it) do not display. That would also serve cases where both are by one person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Anybody else got anything to say about this?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

List formatting

My recent addition of a note about the use of {{Plainlist}} and {{Flatlist}} was reverted due to a claim of "no consensus". Without a discussion here, that cannot be determined, and WP:DNRNC applies. The use of those templates accords with WP:LIST and WP:HLIST, and both offers accessibility improvements and makes sure that we confirm to international web standards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You might as well have been trying to edit the contents of the template yourself. It's the same thing. None of the pages you have linked to discuss anything about use in infoboxes the way writers, producers, etc. are. Are you linking to the right page, or will something about that show up there too soon?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
As I've just told you in response to your message on my talk page: You should read WP:UBLIST, which is a subsection of WP:LIST, and part of WP:MOS. It says "For lists of... items, without bullets (for example in infobox fields, or to replace lists separated with <br />), {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}} should be used. This emits the correct HTML markup...". That's not a recent change, so you can drop you insinuations. Now, would you like to say why the you think the two list templates, and their accessibility and web standards improvements, are good enough for almost all of our infoboxes, but not this one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This is involving (as an example) the writers of a song, which are separated by commas and have been for many years. Changing such to a mid dot without a discussion is not the way to be. I would be interested in you providing a similar type of situation with another type of infobox. And please, keep all discussions in one place. What is the point of discussing the same thing on two talk pages, one for a specific song, and one in general? General is the issue, not the song. And stop acting as if I were involved in such original dispute on April 4; I had no knowledge of the message on the talk page.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
"A similar type of situation with another type of infobox"? See, for example, the documentation of {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox play}}, every navnbox, and over a thousand more. Infoboxes which do not yet use these two templates are the exception, not the norm. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly the same. Those use line breaks, while this and similar infoboxes, such as Infobox album uses commas.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The documentation change under discussion uses both. The "over a thousand more" link refers to {{Flatlist}}, and my comment refers also to both. The principles of improving accessibility end meeting web standards applies equally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of good reasons for preferring to use {{flatlist}} and {{plainlist}} for lists of items in infoboxes and neither of them are related to the visual appearance. It is important to realise that whether list items are separated by commas or mid-dots is purely and simply a piece of personal preference and should carry no weight, unless we think we can decide on what the entire readership of Wikipedia would prefer to see.

The first reason for preferring a structured list in an infobox is on the grounds of accessibility. If we mark up a list with commas, as in running prose, then a screen-reader will simply read the items (along with punctuation if enabled). This isn't bad, because screen-reader users are accustomed to it, but we can do better. A real list, using on of the templates, can give the screen-reader user expanded information like "List of 3 items: first item, 7-inch single; second item, CD single; third item, digital download; end of list" if they want to get full information.

It's worse with vertical lists. Using <br /> leads a screen-reader reading Golden Brown to announce something like "... Producer, The Stranglers; new line; Steve Churchyard; new line; The Stranglers singles chronology ..." instead of something like "... Producer: List of two items: first item, The Stranglers; second item, Steve Churchyard; end of list; new line; The Stranglers singles chronology ...". We should not be using <br /> to separate list items ever. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists is utterly unambiguous about that: "Do not separate list items with line breaks (<br />). Use one of the following methods." - the "following methods" are {{flatlist}} and {{plainlist}}.

The important point here is that marking up a list as a list gives visually-impaired readers more choice and flexibility. We should not be denying them that opportunity just because we like commas and don't like mid-dots.

The second reason for preferring a structured list in an infobox is that third-party re-users of our content (like Google) use automated tools to scrape information from our content, and structured content works best for them. Those tools can recognise an infobox and can recognise a list within it. This makes it much more likely that they can recognise the producers of Golden Brown as two distinct entities: 'The Stranglers' and 'Steve Churchyard', rather than a single entity 'The Stranglers Steve Churchyard'. It's not crucial to try to make it more likely that Google gets it right when reading our content, but it's helpful.

So there are good reasons why we should prefer {{flatlist}} and {{plainlist}}, and the consensus documented at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists is not to be ignored lightly - certainly not with a reason like "I don't like mid-dots", which doesn't even apply to {{plainlist}}! Unless there are good reasons why we shouldn't be asking users of this template to comply with WP:ACCESS, I'll restore the documentation to a more accessibility-friendly state. Please feel free to explain any objections, but I'd be grateful if such objections were based on policy, rather than personal preference. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am quite happy to adopt the use of them (as good practise) and as an example in all my GA articles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Lil', it's good to bump into you again, and I know that your endorsement will help spread the good practice faster than anything I could do. I'll leave it a few more days in the hope that some others will come up with important points that I might have missed. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi RexxS, I've adopted the {{flatlist}} at Glassheart and particularly found a useful use within the {{track listing}} template as seen at Glassheart track listing which prevents the scenario as seen at #willpower. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright RexxS, you've convinced me (you should run in politics!). I'm with Unique above.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
This is very nice looking, actually. I've applied it to Love?.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you - the folks using screen readers will appreciate it. I've tentatively updated the documentation as it looks like we have reached a consensus here, but I won't object if I've misjudged that. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing visual appearance

Can we change the guidance for the 'Label' and 'Producer' fields to read {{flatlist}} instead of {{plainlist}}? In which case the infobox example needs to be updated too as it presently uses a comma to separate the labels. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

People have generally separated such items with <br />, in which case the appropriate replacement is {{Plainlist}}; whereas {{Flatlist}} is the replacement for comma-separated lists. Such a significant change to visual presentation should be agreed through wider discussion, rather than being brought about by a change to template documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
If you take a look at the majority of song articles, the two labels are listed alongside each other e.g. in the infobox example it even says Food, EMI, suggesting that the standard format is to list them alongside each other. so per the guidance above that should change to Food  · EMI. Additionally, if we're listing writers using {{flatlist}} surely producers should be listed using this too? In fact its standard practise, if you look at good article nominations for songs, virtually all list all elements of the infobox in a traditional list format i.e. SUBJECT 1, SUBJECT 2, SUBJECT 3 etc. So actually when it is standard practise I don't see why it is a "significant change to visual presentation", particularly when the very example we give is a horizontal format anyway and doesn't match the written guidance we provide. That's all I am trying to correct. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
[ec]That's not been my observation, but if so, go ahead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I've disabled the {{edit protected}} template; any changes need to be made in the template documentation, which is not protected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Asking editors to use {{plainlist}} for producers and labels would be considered a radical change in itself because if you view the template the examples we've always given and guidance prior to the recent update was a horizontal list, separated by commas. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd happily recommend using {{plainlist}} instead of <br /> everywhere that we list items one-per-line - and in infoboxes that tends to be where each item is long enough to justify that. It is always a gain in accessibility to do so. If the items are short enough for multiple values to fit on one line of an infobox, then it makes sense to use a horizontal list (and I see that {{Flatlist}} is preferred to {{hlist}} here). I wouldn't complain about using commas if there are only ever going to be a couple of items in a list, but otherwise upgrading to {{Flatlist}} will improve accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The advantage of lists over comma-separated items even for short lists is machine readability; it's far easier for a parser (or, for that matter, a human) to understand that, say: 

<li>Pye</li>
<li>London</li>

are two items and not one, than for "Pye, London" where the latter might be the location of the former. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Which screen readers are better at presenting lists than comma separated lists and for which does it not matter? Please be specific and cite your sources. It seems we've accepted opinion here and an editor is pushing said opinion on another template's discussion (Template talk:Infobox album. We won't stand for lack of references is articles and shouldn't stand for it in template documentation either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, CSV management is standard in every modern programming language (Perl, Ruby, Python similarly with C#, C++, etc.) so I don't believe that creating list items makes it any easier to parse for machine-readability. Has Google complained that we use commas? Have they suggested that we move to lists? Predictability is more important here so we should parse whatever list we have into the same output. If you look at the way it was done for the band members at Template:Infobox musical artist, comma separated lists and manually created lists are presented the same way. That should be done here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I plan to revert the permission to allow lists shortly since no one has actually come forward to offer proof. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
As noted above, WP:UBLIST refers. Comparisons with programming languages are irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
UBLIST is relevant for lists and does not say lists are preferred over comma separated values.
Programming languages are at the heart of this discussion. Part of the argument is that companies will parse the items for machine interpretation. That is how these collections will be parsed. That makes them imminently relevant.
I will be removing this addition shortly since no logical reason has been supplied for the change and it has started to creep into the discussion of other lists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Try WP:HLIST. Each does indeed refer to lists; and the comma-separated values used for for the 'Label' and 'Producer' fields are lists. This has nothing to do with programming languages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Allow me tom explain one more time what this has to do with programming languages.
You wrote above that "The advantage of lists over comma-separated items even for short lists is machine readability".
Machines, here refers to computers. Bots in this case. They will look at changes to articles and parse the contents.
You then claim "it's far easier for a parser (or, for that matter, a human) to understand that" and then present list code.
However, that is patently false. The code required for parsing a list, whether using HTML mark-up or comma separated values is trivial because modules or classes exist for reading both. Since parsers, most notably from both Google and Microsoft's Bing, are currently reading and parsing the lists we have, it's clear that a bullet list is no more preferable to a parser than a comma separated list.
I'm sorry that you 1) put that incorrect argument forward and 2) don't understand the fundamentals of computer development sufficiently well to understand how the two are related.
In short, that argument is utter rubbish. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
tl;dr. Is "Pye, London" one record label with its location, or two record labels? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this your way of saying that programming languages are a consideration in this discussion or not?
This could possibly be a good argument against using commas. To answer your question, Pye Records is the label. It should be listed as [[Pye Records|Pye]] and not [[Pye Records|Pye, London]]. However, the question is, does any record label have a comma in its name? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Video director

Hyacinth (talk · contribs) added a "v. director" field to the template with no discussion here on as to whether or not it should be added. Looking at the archives, it was brought up twice previously: in September 2006 and May 2012 (two people involved in each discussion, both ending in no consensus).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Can this please be reverted and consensus reached before it is implemented? Thanks. Adabow (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Kww. Adabow (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is no opposition, hasn't consensus been reached? Hyacinth (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be sure you update the documentation too - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No!

Please change | label13= [[Music video director|Video director]] | data13 = [[{{{Director|}}}]] to | label13= [[Music video director|Video director]] | data13 = {{{Director|}}}. The addition of [[]] is beyond a joke and needs to be removed immediately.--Launchballer 22:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Music video director parameter

I hereby propose that a parameter be added to this template for music video directors. This has been brought up previously (September 2006 and May 2012). The first time there was support and the second time the participating users where split 50/50: one for and one against. At both times no reason was given for or against. The parameter will be of interest to users, the parameter is relevant to most or near all singles and is thus not likely to be empty, and even MTV credits video directors now. Directors are valid artists and are one of the most important factors in a single's promotion, perception, and popularity. Hyacinth (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly either way about this at the moment. However, if it is implemented I would strongly recommend that it be plain (not automatically wikified), like other parameters in the template are. Adabow (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. However, why should this be so? Hyacinth (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Various reasons: (1) Other fields in the template do not automatically wikilink. Including one which does would confuse some editors and create broken and/or underlinked infoboxes. (2) Some directors may have disambiguation in their article name (require piping). (3) Some directors may not be notable enough to mandate Wikipedia articles. Adabow (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It currently is not wikified. Hyacinth (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it outrageous how you "hereby propose" a parameter that a) already exists and b) already exists only because you added it. And I can't quite wrap my head around the absolute nerve you have to continue to have the parameter in the template when it should be removed and then discussed. You abused your admin privileges to add a parameter that met with your own opinion and dissatisfaction from others, but you persisted in adding the parameter on hundreds of articles and ignoring any discussion that was set forth about the matter. It took an ANI thread and a block for you to finally begin conversations, but again, as you did on your talk page, in a very poor way. Once the parameter is removed, its addition can be discussed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me for coming off a little harsh... but I am just truly dumbfounded and sort of offended at the nerve. Irregardless, please stay to discussing at ANI instead of here until the ANI thread is closed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's been removed pending a consensus to add it.—Kww(talk) 04:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I was asked to propose that the parameter be created. I forgot to undo its creation or assumed it had be done by another admin involved. Hyacinth (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
So you were "asked to propose it", then added it to hundreds of articles and then changed the template, and then finally went to the talk page after multiple editors went up in arms about it? On the topic, I oppose with the parameters addition as it is intricate detail not appropriate for the infobox, that is not always made public (sometimes singles do not even have music videos released "Missing You", "Magic Stick" and many others). STATic message me! 05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I support the use of the 'Director' field. Of course it should be adjusted to look better and in the right way [not like it was in the short period of time that existed]. And I don't think the reason some songs don't have music videos should determine not to use it for all of them. Most of the singles have videos and I find it an easy way for people to check the director of the video. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose; the infobox is meant to be an overview of the single, and the director of the music video is far too intricate a detail to include in a summary of the single. It belongs in Template:Infobox music video (which probably should exist given We Found Love and Michael Jackson's Thriller!), not here, and frankly what has occurred here I consider borderline vandalism.--Launchballer 20:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Some music video articles use Template:Infobox film. Hyacinth (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Doesn't really matter to me, to be honest. I think the parameter could be helpful to some degree. I do agree somewhat with Hyacinth that music video directors are notable in their own right and many are sought after to move into films ie: Michael Bay, David Fincher, F. Gary Gray, McG, etc. One little thing I do disagree with is with the addition of the parameter, a category is automatically added to the article, even when the particular director doesn't have a category for their their music video directing work (Category:Music videos directed by so and so). QuasyBoy (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The manner in which an addition is proposed doesn't change that addition, and shouldn't affect one's opinion of that addition. Hyacinth (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Support the proposed parameter. This is often a significant person, but no separate article on the video exists. Spurious accusations of vandalism are unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose as mentioned, a "single" is an album. We should only add information to whatever is relevant to the "Single" album. A music video director is more realted to the music video, not the single in which is an album. We shouldn't be adding unnecessary parameters.Lucia Black (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose (I swear I left this before). As Lucia echos above me, the music video does not relate to the release of a single. Not all singles even have music videos. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course the video relates to the single. At Learning to Fly (Pink Floyd song), for example, there is an entire section on the video. Most music videos, at least from the pre-digital era, only existed because of the single's release. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I suggest we look at the relevant parameters from template:infobox film: director, producer, writer, screenplay, story, cinematography, editing, studio, released, runtime, country, language and budget. We either need to add all of them (prefaced with "video_"), which would just open the template up to abuse, or we add none of them. Nothing more special about the director than the other items. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You present a false dichotomy; we do not heed to add all or nothing from that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, a single is not an album, That's ridiculous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
That is the thing, a music video director is just as much intricate detail as would be adding any of those to the infobox about a musical recording. A music video is not always necessary, or a defining characteristic or point of a single. It is just a pretty unnecessary parameter. If it is backed by a reliable source, it can always be one of the first things mentioned in the "Music video" section of the article. STATic message me! 21:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy, a single is an album. That's why tracklist are there, despite most of them based on just 1 or 2 songs, it still has multiple tracks and most of the reception will be based off that release. And if the reasoning is based on music video director being notabl, that doesn't exactly mean its necessary to present them in the infobox.Lucia Black (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Redux

There seems to be consensus here, with only one person opposing (rather than just asking for consensus to be demonstrated). Please revert to this version, with the parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiple editors are opposing it for valid reasons, just because they do not put Oppose does not mean their comments should not be taken into account. If anything the clear consensus seems to be not to include the parameter. Remember this is not a vote. STATic message me! 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Whom do you think I have overlooked, and what reason did they give? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
As we have some new "oppose" comments (to which I'll reply above), I've disabled this request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_single/Archive_6&oldid=1179467420"