Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox single/Archive 8

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

Template-protected edit request on 2 July 2016

The background color (#F0E68C) does not meet Wikipedia's AAA color restrictions (WP:COLOR) with the blue text of the links (#0645AD). [1] I suggest we change the color from #F0E68C to #F3EBA5. [2] Its the closest match that meets Wikipedia's standards, and its not drastically different. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Why do I need to start a discussion? I proved point blank that the current colors violate Wikipedia's policy. What's there to even discuss? Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Changes that require at least some discussion, or at least several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal ... Visual layout changes that are minor but still noticeable, e.g. swapping the order of a few parameters in an infobox, or slightly tweaking something's color.WP:TPE WP:COLOR is not policy, it is part of a guideline. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree. A discussion should happen first.
We should be going for WCAG 2 AAA Compliance and the new contrast does support that, but where is that shade of blue coming from? Is that the universal link colour or is it browser-specific? I know that I can change the colour of unvisited links in Firefox and Chrome. I'm assuming that's the case with other browsers. In short, we can't control the link colour and it may be set to this for people who have difficultly seeing, and so there's no need to change. And visited links, #551a8b, seem to be OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
While WP:ACCESSIBILITY is only a manual of style, to say that we should not attempt to follow it is a bit like saying "I don't care about other readers". Let's discuss this further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: I got the link color by taking a screen shot and using the eye drop tool in Gimp to extract the link color and get the exact hex triplet. I used Google Chrome the first time, and I tried it again and got the same color in Internet Explorer. The idea of making the links black could work. I've done that to solve a similar issue before, but I'm not exactly thrilled about it because its a lot harder to differentiate between links and normal text. Grapesoda22 (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Miscellaneous fields

There is a discussion about infobox fields at WT:SONGS#Should the infoboxes for singles and songs contain miscellaneous information? Interested parties are invited to participate. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:54, 15 July 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) 17:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC To get more input, an RfC has been opened at WT:SONG#RfC: Should "Cover versions"/"alt Artists" be removed from Infobox songs? Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

The request is to invoke Module:InfoboxImage:

Currently the template has:
| image       = {{#if:{{{Cover|}}}|[[File:{{{Cover}}}|frameless|upright=1|alt={{{Alt|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{|}}}|yes|border}}]]}}
| caption     = {{{Caption|}}}
I would ask that these two lines be changed to:
| image     = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{Cover|{{{cover|{{{image|}}}}}}}}}|size={{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}|alt={{{alt|}}}|suppressplaceholder=yes}} 
| caption   = {{{Caption|{{{caption|}}}}}}

Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. You are proposing some changes in functionality here. One change is that the existing "Border" parameter has been lost. A bigger change, I think, is that the long-established standard size of an record cover image can now be overridden - is this really needed? Also, "Alt" has been renamed to "alt", though that's easily remedied. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@John of Reading: thanks for pointing out a couple of mistakes in my request. Most of the Infoboxes use the module so I was trying to help standardize things, but you are correct that I dropped a few things. How does the following code look? It should replicate the exact behavior while using the module. Note that the default for the module is frameless and upright=1.
| image     = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{Cover|{{{cover|{{{image|}}}}}}}}}|alt={{{alt|{{{Alt|}}}}}}|border={{{border|{{{Border|}}}}}}}}
@Zackmann08: That looks better. I've updated Template:Infobox single/sandbox with this proposed edit - though I've switched "border" and "Border" around, just in case an existing article uses both. I've also edited the sandbox to extend the list of known parameters in the "Check for unknown parameters". I'm not going to install this version myself, though, since I'd like a second opinion on whether the addition of aliases needs any discussion. Would it break any tools? Would it break any articles that are using them by mistake at present? -- John of Reading (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@John of Reading and Zackmann08: A sync is probably okay. I think introducing aliasing (without temporary tracking categories) is low risk personally... probably more likely that the infoboxes will start to respond to these params and display in the way editors are expecting. Though I also observe that this template's convention seems to be uppercase params. Are the ones related to the InfoboxImage a special case? — Andy W. (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I would do it as: 

| image     = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|{{{cover|{{{Cover}}}}}}}}}|alt={{{alt|{{{Alt|}}}}}}|border={{{border|{{{Border|}}}}}}}}

and change the documentation to refer (only) to the standardized parameter names |image=, |alt=, and |border=, none of the aliases. We can then use a bot to systemically remove the aliases from "production" and later eliminate them from the code bloat. Other than that, I can't see any reason not to proceed with the (revised) change, since it improves consistency and maintainability to have these things meta-templated as much as possible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: There are no existing aliases as far as I can tell. If you're suggesting changing the params to lowercasing over time, note this template's convention seems to be fully uppercase. — Andy W. (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
That aberrant, though. Probably at least 99% of templates expect LC (except in case of a proper name). We should just provide LC equivalents to the UC parameters, use bots to replace the latter with the former in situ, then eliminate the UC parameters.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
First comes the edit req, but no objections from me — Andy W. (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
If there are no objections, we can sync to the sandbox (with SMcCandlish's suggestion). The bot task is longer-term compared to this TPER. (effective diff) — Andy W. (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: please and thank you! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Immediate edit request is  done — Andy W. (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: thank you both for you making this happen and for helping me learn along the way. Much appreciate!!! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: That broke the template. You can see it on the template's page (Template:Infobox single) and Awake and Alive. If there's no image, you see [[File:{{{Cover}}}|frameless]]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang and Walter Görlitz: yup there is a typo. A `|` is missing. It should be {{{image|{{{cover|{{{Cover|}}}}}}}}} --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Argh... thanks for the ping — Andy W. (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang and Zackmann08: Check the article I linked. It's not working right. I suspect that it needs some ifs Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Really? I'm honestly not seeing any issue at Awake and Alive. Try purging here ? — Andy W. (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You're right. When I forced a refresh on my cache, it was working correctly. I think it's all good now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang and Walter Görlitz: Walter good catch and Andy thanks for the quick fix! Typos happen. :-p --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "Certification" field be removed from Infobox single?

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

In recent discussions, some editors felt that the "Certification" field was not needed in Infobox single. The RIAA in the US, the BPI in the UK, and others award "Gold", "Platinum", etc., status to singles they certify as having sold above certain thresholds. One comment noted:

Literally no one uses the Certification parameter anymore, it's completely redundant. A table is used at the end of the article for each country which has certified it, the certification and the sales (with an index as to whether it is based on sales, shipments or streams). Also, no one uses the parameter because adding 10 to 15 countries would make the info box very long, and then there's also question of which country to include if not all can be included, then people will say 'what about this country'. I've been improving articles for about 7 years now and I've never used it, never seen my friends/other editors use it and out of the 250 or so reviews I've conducted, never seen the nominator use it either. — Calvin999

Another felt though:

[Certification] is the closest equivalent to |gross= from {{Infobox film}} -- Ilovetopaint

For simplicity, please indicate Remove or Keep below followed by your reason(s). —Ojorojo (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Remove it would likely get overfilled otherwise, and any certifications can easily be discussed within prose as well as tables. It also doesn't tend to be a key trait compared to things like songwriters or producers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove Agreed with Calvin999 and SNUGGUMs. It's an outdated parameter that's hardly used and would make the infobox unnecessarily long. Erick (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove Unnecessary and can lead to clutter. Also, removing this field would not result in the loss of information, since Certifications are included in the body of the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove – agree with all the comments above … Honestly, a no-brainer. (Do we really want to see infoboxes extending halfway down the page, which would be the case for songs that have been exceptionally popular around the world? I have enough of a problem with infoboxes for specific cover versions, because of the amount of space they take when an image appears inside the box.) I'd also add that there's no Certifications field in Infobox Album, so its inclusion is inconsistent with that. JG66 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove - Literally no one ever uses it.  — Calvin999 18:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove: I have never seen it used actually, but I agree with the above comments. It clutters the infobox, and the prose of the article and tables are more appropriate places to discuss certifications rather than the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 9 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.

Change "cover" parameter to "image"?

Why not change the "cover" parameter to "image"? While cover arts are mostly preferred, many older releases lacked picture sleeves. Instead, they used generic sleeves. --George Ho (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

What difference would it make? Unlike Released =, Format =, etc. "Cover" (the term) is not generated when the parameter is used ( Caption = is needed for a description). The parameter guideline could be clarified with examples of other suitable images, such as sheet music. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
If we can't change the parameter, maybe we should change the instructions in Template:Infobox single and change how "Cover" parameter is used. Shall we? However, sheet music isn't a good suitor unless no single releases were made, commercial or not. --George Ho (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
In the early days of music recording, sheet music publishing was as important as or more important than the single release. Sheet music covers functioned as later picture sleeves (see "Downhearted Blues", "Trouble in Mind", etc.). They are often better at identifying the subject (MOS:LEADIMAGE) than a generic record label. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Completely agree with Ojorojo – and I believe some chart compilers in the 1950s and '60s (perhaps beyond) factored in sales of sheet music for each song. It's ridiculous to say that a sheet music image is insufficient for a song released as a single. JG66 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
How were sheet music notes sold to consumers? And how would consumers know how to play notes? This is all about making the image look... picture-y, not encyclopedic. Also, did most consumers have pianos or gramophone records back in their days? --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 02:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Pinging Ojorojo and JG66. George Ho (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
"How would consumers know how to play notes?", etc. Seriously? It appears you need to do some research for a more historical perspective. —Ojorojo (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Idiot's Guide says the sheet music was a popular format in the late 19th century (meaning up to 1900). Also popular in early 20th century, meaning before 1930s or 1920s. Play a piano, sing something, attract customers to buy sheet music, and make a company rich. I can't tell whether this book discusses history of sheet music. This book mentions sheet music in very brief detail, saying that they were useful in taverns. This book says that, around 1930s or 1940s implicity, a song would have become popular "by means of recordings rather than sheet music." It also says that songs of the 19th century were distributed via songsters and broadsides. What do I have here? A passage about a cover art of a sheet music, like a ragtime one. And a passage about 1930s–1960s jazz. This source says that, by 1927 or 1928, recordings replaced sheet music as the most popular format for songs. This source discussing Texas music mentions sheet music. This source says that, in Britain, sheet music sales declined since 1950 (I mean 1950, not the middle of 1950s). I found other books discussing sheet music, but I can't access them. Perhaps we were mainly discussing implicitly the 20th-century music and present music, not centuries-old ones. --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@George Ho:I've just looked at the template code and its already set up to use image, cover or Cover as the field to display an image. So if you want you can stop using Cover and use image (note: all lower-case) instead, it will work just the same, and bring it in line with other templates on WP. The only addition you really need is to add image with a capital letter for consistency with the other field names. - X201 (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh... I guess we can retain "Cover" and "cover". I didn't realize "image". I think "Image" should be added without replacing Cover/cover. George Ho (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I want to change the TemplateData at template:infobox single/doc by adding "cover" and "image", but it's not easy. George Ho (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 December 2016

The consensus at a recent RfC Template talk:Infobox single#RfC: Should the "Certification" field be removed from Infobox single? is to remove the Certification parameter from the infobox. Would someone please remove it (|label15 = [[Music recording sales certification|Certification]] | data15 = {{{Certification|}}})? I can update the documentation. Thanks. Ojorojo (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: You might be interested in this request (regarding deprecated parameters). --Izno (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 In progress @Izno: thanks for the ping! @Ojorojo: I have started this... Not going to remove it just yet. First step is to find the deprecations. See: Category:Pages using Infobox single with deprecated certification parameter. It will take a day or two for transclusions to populate that. In 7 days if that category is empty, I will remove {{{Certification}}} from the template. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: Is there an automated way to empty the category? There are more than expected (1,600 pages and counting). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: the only automated way to do it would be with a bot. I've been working on some deprecations bots at User:ZackBot... But remember there is no deadline here. The only point of the 7 days was that I don't want to do it BEFORE the category has had a chance to propagate. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

A-side, B-side, flipside, other side... what else is it?

At Talk:A-side and B-side#Terminology of the topic, Moscow Connection, Piriczki, and I were discussing the labeling of songs in singles. One could be considered A-side; another, either B-side or flipside. However, we determined Spinout (song) and All That I Am (Elvis Presley song) "other side[s]" respectively. We couldn't label them anymore as B-side or A-side. Also, we are considering the proposal to add "other_side" parameter to this template. If here is not the right venue, I also thought about taking this to WT:WPMUSIC. I'll hear comments first. --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this:
A-side Use this field to display the A-side song title appearing on the opposite side of the single. If it has a Wikipedia article use a link.
B-side Use this field to display the B-side song title appearing on the opposite side of the single. If it has a Wikipedia article use a link.
Flip side Use this field to display the other song title appearing on the opposite side of the single when there is no designated A or B side. If it has a Wikipedia article use a link. Only one of the fields "A-side", "B-side" or "Flip side" should be used.
Piriczki (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I fully support the proposal. (But maybe, since I now see that "flipside" is not a synonym for "B-side", a better name for the property would be "flipside". I don't know.)
    I only see one problem: the readers might not understand what it means if, for example, in the infobox the title will read "Fool" and some property like "Other side" or "Flipside" will read "Steamroller Blues". Should there maybe be two properties listing both flipsides one under another?
    If both sides are equally important, the infobox should visually demonstrate it by listing them together, one after/below another.
    Maybe even like this:
    | Flipsides = "Fool"<br />"Steamroller Blues".
    (Actually, I prefer this version now.)--Moscow Connection (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Inverse side rather than flipside or flip side. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
How about having two options:
1. "A-side" / "B-side". (So that only one or both could be used as it is now. Cause sometimes it is just more visually comprehensible/user-friendy to list both sides once again.)
2. Simply "Sides" to list both if there is no designated A- or B-side?
(I must say that Piriczki's proposal is simpler to implement. I support it too. I just think that the layout with one side in the heading and one side in the middle of the infobox would be less visually intuitive.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

genre "subpages" in mainspace

@Samsara: Subpages are not enabled in mainspace. A "subpage" in mainspace is considered a separate article. If genres need to be on a protectable subpage, it should be Template:Infobox single/page/genre (or similar), not page/genre. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

So why revert me, if you could have made that edit instead? Samsara (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done as Template:Infobox single/genre/page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"Studio" addition

Can we add "Studio" the single infobox? --Jennica✿ Talk 08:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean Recording studio?  — Calvin999 10:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Template:Infobox album uses |Studio = for the recording studio. For consistency, may as well add |Venue = for live recordings. Both should also be added to Template:Infobox song. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Calvin999: @Ojorojo: - yes recording studio or live venue, both would be great. I've been seeing grouping in the "recording" section in single songs where people put when it was recorded and the studio. Having a Studio code put in there would be better in my opinion, just like its album counterpart. --Jennica✿ Talk 22:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
But we tend to including the year, studio and city in the Recorded parameter?  — Calvin999 22:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
In the infbox album template it has correctly been split into separate parameters. Recorded is used only for the year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Added note at WT:SONGS, WT:ALBUMS, Template talk:Infobox song for more input. Since this is minor and non-controversial, I think it can be handled without opening a formal RfC. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
We should use separate parameters, for improved data granularity. That we're once again discussing changes to both {{Infobox single}} and {{Infobox song}} is further evidence that the two templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: it doesn't look like anybody is against this proposed change so far. It makes sense to me to keep it the same as {{Infobox album}}, and as there is usually information available for the recording location of the song/single, but not usually for the year/date, unless you extract it from recording information from the parent album. Richard3120 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't really see the point, as we tend to include the studio and year recorded in the Recorded parameter and that works well and doesn't cause any technical issues, but if you think it's really necessary then I'll support it, although a live recording is usually an album so I'd have thought it would be better placed there, not for a song as they are recorded in studios. But I think another discussion is needed on parameters which are never, ever used which could be removed.  — Calvin999 11:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Trimming certain infobox parameters was recently discussed. What do you have in mind? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Certification and ISWC. No one ever uses them. I'm wondering if A-side and B-side are strictly relevant now but I know many singles have been released as such in the past. Ojorojo  — Calvin999 09:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I started adding ISWC to Led Zeppelin songs, because of the constant disputes/vandalism. But it is probably not much value and can be removed. In the linked discussion, an editor was in favor of keeping certification because "it is the closest equivalent to |gross= from {{Infobox film}}" (WP:Other stuff exists). A-side/B-side is likely to remain as long as inbox single is distinct from infobox song. The emphasis should be on key facts. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Literally no one uses the Certification parameter anymore, it's completely redundant. A table is used at the end of the article for each country which has certified it, the certification and the sales (with an index as to whether it is based on sales, shipments or streams). Also, no one uses the parameter because adding 10 to 15 countries would make the info box very long, and then there's also question of which country to include if not all can be included, then people will say 'what about this country'. I've been improving articles for about 7 years now and I've never used it, never seen my friends/other editors use it and out of the 250 or so reviews I've conducted, never seen the nominator use it either.  — Calvin999 16:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement about the Certification parameter: it's completely ineffective and should go. Earlier in the year, 'Rojo, you did an admirable job in trying to narrow down what params should remain and what shouldn't – I thought this was one that was deemed unnecessary back then, no? JG66 (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Ilovetopaint was the sole holdout. These lesser used fields will probably have to be picked off one-by-one. Does someone want to put it up for a vote? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
To distinguish between a studio recording and a live one. (Andy pointed out "improved data granularity" above.) See the guidelines at Template:Infobox album#Details §§ Venue & Studio. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: - will this still happen? :)--Jennica✿ / talk 02:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Frietjes: would you handle this? {{Infobox album}} uses | label4 = Venue | data4 = {{{Venue|}}} | label5 = Studio | data5 = {{{Studio|}}}. The numbering would be different for {{Infobox single}} and {{Infobox song}}. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Ojorojo, added, please update the doc pages. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, Ojorojo - Or whoever is watching this page. I just wanted to let you know that even though this works, it says, Warning: Page using Template:Infobox single with unknown parameter "Studio" (this message is shown only in preview). when I preview it. --Jennica✿ / talk 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Use |studio= (lower case "s") not |Studio=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, would you please add Studio and Venue to param check (TpER), similar to your edit to {{Infobox song}}[3]? The same problem exists here. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done Primefac (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove 'Clip requested?' field

Hello, the Clip requested? field is used to add an article to Category:Song articles missing an audio sample. I think its a hang over from pre-2009 when audio samples used to be handled by the infobox itself. This field is only in use on five articles (and only one of them is using it correctly). The field isn't even mentioned in the documentation for the template. Are there any objections to removing it? - X201 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Remove Apparently, it's not currently used. I don't see why "clip requested" needs to be in the infobox; an audio sample may be placed anywhere within an article. I've added {{audio requested}} to the talk page instead (maybe that template can be improved). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:29, 27 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) 20:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding Lyricist and Composer like on Infobox Songs

Can we add these please? It's handy for sampling credits where people are credited for lyrics but not music etc.  — Calvin999 00:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment If both were added, wouldn't that make the Writer field pointless? - X201 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Often with multiple writers, a separate composer and lyricist are not identified by a RS. Not knowing who did what, it would be incorrect to list them under "Composer" and "Lyricist". Listing them all under "Writer(s)" is a better option when it is unknown. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Not really, because if the writers and composers are the same, you'd use Writer. I want Lyricist and Composer to be added to Infobox single, like on Infobox song, for when there's a sample credit in the track for example (which is quite common now), meaning that the lyricists are separate from the composers. I was able to do this on Meteorite (Mariah Carey song) but I can't do it for You Don't Know What to Do because it was a single. Also, sometimes one person did the lyrics, and then that person composed the music with a collaborator, yet as it currently is, the composer who didn't write the lyrics gets listed as a writer.  — Calvin999 18:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The documentation for Template:Infobox song#Parameters explains the use of Writer=, Composer=, and Lyricist=. Briefly, Composer=music (instrumentation, melody, etc.), Lyricist=lyrics (words), Writer=both music and lyrics, or for multiple contributors when a separate lyricist and composer are not identified. If a composer(s) and lyricist(s) have been identified, then writer should not be used. I don't see that this conflicts with your usage. For a situation when two composers also wrote the lyrics along with two lyricists, using Composer and Lyricist (and not Writer) is the best solution. However, infobox parameters should try to address many situations, not just for those involving sampling. When the roles of multiple individuals is not known, writer should be used. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you're understanding. Those two parameters are not in the template for Infobox single, so when I tried adding them as I said above to a single, they didn't show up. They only show up for Infobox song, as that template includes them.  — Calvin999 19:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they're not currently used in infobox singles and I agreed that they should be added, similar to Infobox song. I was unsure of your "Not really" comment about Writer still having a use if Composer and Lyricist are added. Is this what you are saying or? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh I don't know lol. I thought Writer overrode one of them in some cases. I thought you'd only use writer if the lyricists and composers were the same.  — Calvin999 20:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Think of Writer as a default or catch-all. If a Composer and/or Lyricist has been identified, then those fields should be used instead of Writer (none overrides the other in Infobox songs). However, If one person is responsible for both, it is easier to use Writer than adding the name twice under Composer and Lyricist. The use of these parameters should be consistent for both Infobox song and Infobox single.—Ojorojo (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I mean. But this template doesn't have them, that's what I was saying originally, and I think it should.  — Calvin999 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least with the proposed wording. I'm OK with "lyricist", but the person who writes the music is not the composer. Bach was a composer. Beethoven was a composer. Schubert wrote songs, and he was a composer. The musicians who write the music to these pop tunes are songwriters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • v Not always, Mariah Carey's early albums list her as the sole lyricist, and co-composer with one other composer on most tracks. So the co-composer whom she worked with it's not a lyricist. Same with a lot of Elton John songs, he would do the lyrics and Benrie Taupin the music.  — Calvin999 12:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary defines composer as "a person who writes music, especially as a professional occupation" without any further qualification. Their Thesaurus gives the example "Berlin was one of the most prolific composers in the history of American music". Irving Berlin wrote popular songs, musicals, show tunes, etc., not classical or "serious" works. It appears you are applying your own interpretation of composer (OR), rather than what is commonly accepted. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Songwriters are not composers and I oppose. We are an encyclopaedia and should use the most technical use of the term, not the lowest common understanding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course songwriters can be composers.  — Calvin999 23:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
But 99.999% of current songwriters are not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
How do you know that?  — Calvin999 10:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It obvious? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not. You're assumption doesn't make it obvious in the slightest and carries no factual weight. Clearly you don't read the liner notes of albums. You keep contradicting yourself: you said songwriters categorically cannot be composers, I said they can, and then you said well yes but 99% aren't. Then you claim that they can't be because it's "obvious" without providing any evidence or even anything to back up your massive percentage claim. Mariah Carey wrote all of the lyrics for her albums Emotions, Music Box and most on Daydream by herself (making her the sole lyricist) and co-composed the music with usually just one other person, and solely wrote the lyrics to Butterly for 8 out of 12 tracks, as well as co-compsing the music to all of the tracks. Even her Rainbow album has a few tracks written solely by herself. Yes, this is just Mariah I'm giving an example of, that's a lot of songs she wrote the lyrics to by herself, as well as co-composing the music, but at least I'm backing up what I'm saying. I can think of lots of other artists where the music and lyrics have been written and composed by different people involved on the songs, as well as artists doing it themselves.  — Calvin999 09:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful to make the infoboxes consistent:

Side issue - Do you want a clean start?

Its worth deciding this beforehand. If Composer and Lyricist are added to the infobox, on some articles they will start displaying info immediately, due to people adding the field to the article infobox regardless of it not actually being a field. In total it affects around 70 articles. I'm currently cleaning up the 4,500 uses of Infobox single that have faulty field info, so my question is, do you want me to clean out the old Composer/Lyricist fields (some is good, some is wrong, all of it is unsourced) so that there's a clean start? - X201 (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I just think Infobox song and Infobox single should match, and also because there are more Infobox singles than Infobox songs.  — Calvin999 15:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That's for the discussion above, this sub-discussion is to allow people to say what to do with the info (of varying quality) that is already in about 70 articles. Do you want it removed or left? - X201 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If they match, why are the two needed? Just have one infobox with a parameter to determine whether it's a song or a single. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
But they don't match currently.  — Calvin999 17:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
But you want them to match. So assuming that you want them to match, why have two? Which parameters would be different and which the same? Would my suggestion above be reasonable (merging the two)? The traditional reason for the singles template was to recording charting and distribution. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This should be a separate discussion – there have been previous attempts to merge the two. Some editors felt that the promotional aspects (formats, charts, videos, press kits, etc.) somehow made them different than the song (which may be less focused on one release) that led to no consensus. A song is a song, regardless of how it was released. Now, with digital downloading, etc., single is largely meaningless. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That there have been separate discussions is the point I was trying to make. There are reasons why this infobox is different from the other and we're ignoring it. The goal is not to make them match at all. So this discussion is effectively over at this point for that very reason. Singles are about sales, not about publishing. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Why would those 70 need cleaning out if these two parameters are going to be added?  — Calvin999 17:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say they would need cleaning out. I just presented the facts and asked for opinions. - X201 (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Tough one. Retaining the info seems like a good idea, but I've seen several that include writer and composer, that should probably have lyricist and composer. With the misuses and possible lack of refs, I'd say clean start. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a strong argument for keeping the info in the week this sub-thread has been here, I'm in favour of removing it and the only other expression of a preference is to remove it too, so that's what I'm going to do; as the inclusion of the fields looks like its stalled too. - X201 (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should "English title" and "Language" be added to Infobox single?

This RfC was withdrawn so the broader question of merging Infobox song and Infobox single may be discussed separately. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 7 March 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, there are a number of articles about singles sung and/or titled in a language other than English. Would it be useful to include fields in the singles infobox to identify these? Other music infoboxes use the following parameters:

  • {{Infobox song}}: English_title= and Language=
  • {{Infobox musical composition}}: translation= (explained as "title in English"), native_name= ("native title, if the common name is English"), and native_name_lang= ("language of the native title/common title not in English")
  • {{Infobox song contest entry}}: Language= and Languages= (for lyrics in more than one language)

Please indicate Add or Oppose. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This requires a separate discussion. Do you think there's enough interest for a RfC on the matter? —Ojorojo (talk)
I think it's worth a shot.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:37, 7 March 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.

RfC at WikiProject Songs

A request for comments has been opened at WT:WikiProject Songs#RfC: Should Infobox single and Infobox song be merged? Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger proceedings at Template talk:Infobox song

I began the discussion about beginning the merger with "infobox song" at Template talk:Infobox song#Beginning merger proceedings with "infobox single". --George Ho (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Just noting that I added a set of lowercase parameters to the current version of the template earlier today, so their addition should probably be reflected in the sandbox. Thanks. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I made the changes to the sandbox, but am unsure about a few new parameters (|abovestyle=, |image=, |headerstyle=, |header1=, |header2=, |header=52, |data53=, |header54=, |data55=). Would you mind taking a look? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: I think it works now; check if the result is what you wanted and if everything's in the correct order. (The parameters have to be renumbered if their position is to be changed.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: thanks, I've run a couple of tests and it looks good. If you're up to it, making the case consistent on related music temps would be helpful: {{Extra chronology}}, {{Extra track listing}}, {{Extra album cover}}, {{Audiosample}}, {{Infobox album}}, {{Singles}}. Then editors would not have to be switching between upper- and lower-case. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Done, and changed all of them to use {{Infobox}}. Some of their documentation might need to be updated (parameter names, TemplateData). Note that I've also removed the table nesting code from |misc= in this template's sandbox, and it might cause errors with {{extra collapsed text}} until it's replaced with {{hidden}} or its code is fixed (see TfD). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Nice! I'll try to do some updating, but it seems you've already begun. Also I noticed that infobox single has additional options for a single chronology:
| last_single_title = 
| last_single_year = 
| next_single_title = 
| next_single_year =

It automatically adds "song quotes", a break, and parentheses for year for last and next, and "this single" in bold with quotes. However, it doesn't add this single year and when I tried to put it in separately, it caused problems with auto function. I'm not sure why this was left out, it's the standard format. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: If |this_single_year= is to be added, I think it might help to try and parse it out of |released= if there's no value for it (maybe with Module:String if the parser function can't handle metadata or citations). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 01:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I can't think why an editor would want to add it to the chronology, but not in released=. Released= should determine the chronology year. —Ojorojo (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: I've added the date-searching, although it's presently a rather cheap hack which just finds the first number in |released= with three or more digits. It's probably good enough. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I tried it on a few infoboxes and it works fine. Sometimes several release dates (for different countries, formats, etc.) are mistakenly added in released= (only the original issue should be included). Your solution uses the first 3+digit number, so this should be OK: the first chronology is for the original issue. However, it doesn't work for other chronologies which use {{Extra chronology}}. Could that template be changed so it's consistent with the infobox? It may also be a good feature for last, this, and next album in {{Infobox album}}. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: I've added some for {{Extra chronology}} (diff), although I haven't updated the documentation. It might help for this infobox to change the parameter names as well (to prev_title, prev_year, etc.), since they could all be changed in the process of substitution, and for brevity/consistency (it helps that they're not used a lot, and that they don't exist in {{Infobox song}}). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: It worked for a singles chronology, except "title" (the current single) should be in bold. For an album chronology, all the titles should be in italics rather than "quotes". (I suppose |title= and |year= can't be pulled out of |name= and |released=.)
| artist = 
| type = 
| prev_title = 
| prev_year = 
| title = 
| year = 
| next_title = 
| next_year =

{{Extra track listing/sandbox | album = Album title | type = album | prev_track = Track one | prev_no = 1 | this_track = Track two | track_no = 2 | next_track = Track three | next_no = 3 }}

@Jc86035: I added "quote" marks for all tracks and bold on |this_track= to {{Extra track listing/sandbox}}. I've run a couple of tests, but |prev_track= doesn't line up right. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: I think you have an extra line break there. Is it necessary to have the parameters with spaces instead of underscores? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 02:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed the styling for {{Extra chronology}} (it should change depending on the value for |type=). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 02:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I ran a couple of tests with single, studio, live, compilation, and EP and they all worked fine. I see you've already updated the documentation, but I may clarify a couple points. The prev_title, prev_year, etc. is great solution and should be used in all music infoboxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Should the Producer field be moved up, if the Writer field is also higher up in the merged infobox? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I tried experimenting with the order. Since songs may not focus on a particular recording (as singles do), fields like recorded, venue, studio, format, released, format, length, producer, label, and ISWC may not be used. However, English title, songwriter(s) (note: songwriter should replace writer), composer(s) lyricist(s), written (date, not person), published (again, date, not person, although some editors add the name of the publishing company), and genre are common to both. So I put these parameters first. Is it too early to get some other opinions? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: I've tried reordering it a bit (using {{Parameter names example}} in the doc might help with this). I think it would be useful to ping active editors in the WikiProject Songs area. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 17:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: In preparation for getting some other opinions, I ran some tests. Which infobox sandbox should I be using, single or song? The song sandbox seems more developed, but I noticed the chronology parameters for singles and a partial album track listing are similar: prev_title vs prev, prev_year vs prev_no, etc. This might be confusing to some? Maybe add prev_track, prev_track_no, etc. Also, would it be possible to add quote marks automatically to |A-side= and |B-side= entries? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Use the song sandbox for further improvements; {{Infobox single/sandbox}} is now a wrapper of it. It makes sense to change the parameter names (although keep the old ones as aliases). Quote marks could be added automatically but there might be references in the parameters, so it might not work properly. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 17:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: References are sometimes included in the infobox singles chronology (for the title or date). Could this cause a problem? (don't remember seeing them used in infobox album chronologies.) —Ojorojo (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I see that both |prev_title= (for singles) and |prev= (for track listings) can be used in the same infobox, but it causes problems with the headers if |chronology= is used. With {{Extra track listing}} and {{Extra chronology}} available, may only of one prev_title or prev_track should be used in the infobox (with Extra, the album type can also be used to set the color and header). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: I assume if there are references something will turn up in Category:Errors reported by Module String and it can be fixed after the bot goes through it (adding a tracking category wouldn't help at this point because it would take a while to fill up). (Actually, A-sides/B-sides could probably have automatic quote marks.) I think the use of both sets should be allowed for infoboxes which can use both without |chronology= (are they supposed to, though?). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: 1) The auto feature for A-side/B-side is very interesting (including the bolding switch). However, a couple of points: If both A-side and B-side are filled in (I've seen this in many articles), it produces two A-sides and the B-side in the chronology (see WT:SONGS#Example templates). Also, if only A-side or B-side are filled in, the two are always produced in the chronology (see Template:Infobox song/testcases#All parameters example). In most cases, editors will not want both to show up in the chronology. 2) Many editors feel that there should not be multiple navigational sequences in infoboxes, but others like to fill up infobxes with tons of details. I think if more than one "sequence" is wanted, it should be with |misc= and {{Extra track listing}} or {{Extra chronology}}. That way the correct color will be used; in the "All parameters example", the track listing is khaki ("Single example") and light blue ("Song example"), when they should be green and orangish. Plus using |chronology= will screw it up. Perhaps for 1) and 2), only allow one use, similar to |album= and |EP= (only album will be shown, even if EP is also filled in). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Since every use of infobox single is being substituted, where both A-side and B-side are specified one could be removed if same as |name= with quotes (and only B-side shown in the post-merge template if both A-side and B-side are filled in). Agree on point 2. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Maybe the documentation would have to explain "for both songs on a double A-side to displayed in the chronology, use |B= for the other side which is not the subject of this article". Or? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Only one parameter should be filled in for a double A-side, I thought (e.g. We Can Work It Out). Or are you referring to singles with three tracks? (maybe A-side and B-side should be both allowed, but one hidden if identical to song title?) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I've tried new tests with Infobox song/sandbox in Template:Infobox song/testcases#All parameters example: including an entry for A or B always produces two songs in the chronology. It should be possible to display the name of the A-side or B-side in their respective fields without producing both in the chronology. Both songs in the chronology should be reserved for double A-side. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Oh. If it should be disabled unless specified then |title1= or |title2= (containing the song titles) could be required for double A-sides and singles where both are displayed in the chronology (and |prev_title1= / |next_title1= could be added as aliases for two-sided prev/next). I don't think automatic display of |A-side= or |B-side= would work here. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: There relatively few articles where two songs should be in the chronology. Maybe allow them to be added manually and keep the auto feature only for prev, this, and next. I think title1, title2, prev2, next2, etc., makes it too complicated. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Okay then. I still think it might be better to keep prev_title2 and next_title2 (but not the others), since they're not problematic and I don't really feel like coding more regular expressions to keep the old parameters. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: That's OK. I don't think it's need in {{Extra chronology}}, but can a second song be added manually? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: I think for {{Extra chronology}} it's also better to keep the title2 parameters (obviously the old ones are still there). For the middle cell the automatic bold could be turned off if |title2= is in use. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Would it look like this? My tests don't show title2 or next_title2. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 

 | artist      = 
 | type        = 
 | prev_title  = 
 | prev_title2 = 
 | prev_year   = 
 | title       = 
 | title2      = 
 | year        = 
 | next_title  = 
 | next_title2 = 
 | next_year   =
@Ojorojo: I've added |title2=. If either |title= or |title2= is equal to the page name or {{PAGENAMEBASE}}, then bold will be automatically added for the respective parameter. In addition, if the template is substituted, then it will return a copy of itself with the correct parameters. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Also replaced |this_single= in {{Infobox song/sandbox}} with a similar title/title2. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I hate too see so much time being put into something with such limited use. I ran some more tests; with Infobox song, title=[blank] and title2=[other side], it works, but if title=[NAME] and title2=[other side], NAME is not in bold. With extra chronology, title=[NAME] alone works, but adding title2=[other side]], NAME is not in bold. Also next_title2 doesn't appear. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Bolding is dependent on the page title so it won't work except on the actual articles. Can you give an example where next_title2 doesn't appear? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I re-tested on article pages and it seems to work, except for Extra chronology with next_title2. I added an Extra Chronology to Template:Infobox song/testcases#All parameters example and next_title2 also isn't displayed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Should be fixed. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I think you nailed it! Should I update the Extra chronology documentation? I'm working on a new documentation page for the merged infobox. When I finish with the Chronology section, you may want to look it over to make sure it's right. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Sure. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
In addition, should promotional singles and demos be coloured khaki or light blue by {{Infobox song/color/sandbox}}? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 01:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I am trying several different colors, but they should probably follow the existing (pre-sandbox) scheme until a consensus is reached. It seems easy to change. The list of types will probably expand, but should stick to blue for now (only singles currently use yellow). —Ojorojo (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I set demo, promotional single, and remix single back to khaki. I ran a couple of tests with |type= blank or gibberish and no color was displayed. Also, if one of the names from the album colors is used, those colors are used. Everything except single should be light blue (someone could enter "remix" instead of "remix single" and green would be displayed). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Thanks for setting the blank or non-specified types to light blue. I removed the album types and colors – if an editor were to enter "demo" or "remix", the corresponding album colors would be used, instead of light blue. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
That's a good idea, the last and next single years.  — Calvin999 08:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we still need an ISWC parameter? I've never seen an infobox where it's been used.  — Calvin999 07:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

ISWC has 88 uses in Infobox single. Happy hunting. - X201 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Does that reaffirm my point? Lol  — Calvin999 08:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Replacement of parameters

Unless anyone has objections, the uppercase parameters in transclusions of this template will be changed to their lowercase counterparts by a bot per MOS:INFOBOX, which states that parameter names should use lower-case unless they are proper nouns; see WP:BOTREQ#Parameter titles. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_single/Archive_8&oldid=1147403198"