Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 16

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

I think I've already stated my views above, but just to summarise them all in one place, I believe the infobox should not contain (a) audio samples (should be included in the article body), (b) the extra track listing template (pointless), (c) certifications (should be included in the article body). You *might* make a case for an extra cover in certain circumstances, for example, including the covers of both the original 1984 version of "Take On Me" and the re-recorded 1985 worldwide hit version as almost nobody outside of Norway will ever recognise the original cover picture, but there will be very few of these cases.

And with reference to Template talk:Infobox album#Studio parameter, take #2, I do think it would be a good idea to include separate date, studio and venue parameters in this infobox as well.

As an aside, all and more of this applies equally to

WP:ALBUMS. Richard3120 (talk

) 15:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• An additional chronology parameter works when a single is a split release. And sometimes audio samples have no better place in an article than the infobox.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Removing audio samples from the infobox would be a major overhaul - for instance, the featured article "Like a Rolling Stone" uses one in the infobox. I don't see how additional covers are not useful. The point of debate is what is useful and what isn't. In a case such as "Round of Applause", the article is dealing with two different variants of the song, so it's difficult to determine which cover is more "important" or "useful" to include in the infobox.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do we even have separate templates for singles and songs anyway? It's like having different templates for compilations and LPs. If the infobox were to note variants of a song, such as remixes or rerecordings, maybe something like {{Extra song variants}} would be appropriate. But when distinguishing whether the song was originally released as a single — why not just use |type=single? A "variant" module could also note when a song would be later released as a single.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Genre will probably remain, but it is subject to so much BS, that it is practically useless. The rest can go in the body of the article: certifications in a "Reception" or "Charts" section; different covers in a "Releases" section; a music sample in a "Composition" or "Recording" section; music video in a "Video" section; etc. Arguments about "major change" or "overhaul" should not be a determining factor – this streamlining would be in keeping with basic

3family6 does have a point though that you have to tread carefully when proposing changes to FAs, I hadn't thought of that.

Regarding singles chronology, I don't have a problem with including it in the infobox, but it can be awkward when the chronology differs from country to country: the singles from Little Earthquakes were released in a different order in the US and the UK, for example, and I think the same applies to the singles from Nightclubbing, so you would have to specify which country's chronology you are using. Of course, both the singles and albums chronologies for the Beatles differ completely between the UK and the US, so it's necessary to include both, or neither. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

1) Maybe BU Rob13 could tell us if infobox fields, such as Audiosample, Certification, etc., can be relocated out of the infoboxes by an automated process without causing disruption (I don't recall FAs were an issue when this was done for album infoboxes).

2) Point taken. At some point all this extra information becomes counter productive (clutter). If a second country's chronology is added, what about a third, fourth, etc.? For re-releases? I've seen extra track listings for compilations. It's interesting that this is not usually included in the body of the article (an infobox should not have info that is not in the text). An artist's navbox at the bottom of the article provides links to other singles and albums and sometimes provides as much as a mini-discography. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You can also argue to take out the months and days from infoboxes since most articles only ever cite the year of release, not the specific date. This is contrived. Of course a song's placement in an artist's discography is a useful, key fact. So are track list sequences.

a type of navbox

.

As with navigation templates, the purpose of the infobox is for its utility (

MOS:INFOBOX).--Ilovetopaint (talk

) 16:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk about removing useless, miscellaneous parameters, they should be the ones on {{

Infobox standard}}--Ilovetopaint (talk

) 16:22,20 July 2016 (UTC)

This was brought up at the time of the merger,[1] but no action was taken. Perhaps this is a good time to address it. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that track sequences are even less useful with regards to concept albums, because the point of a concept album is that there is some kind of narrative that flows through the album, and simply seeing that "Track 4 Name" follows "Track 3 Name" tells me nothing about the storyline, or that it segues into the following track – for that you need a section of text... indeed, in the Pink Floyd example that you cite, that is exactly what the "Concept" section does.

The argument about

Template:Infobox single and Template:Infobox song has been made before... I'd have to dig in the archives to find it. Richard3120 (talk

) 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A concept album is not necessarily a narrative, it's loosely defined as a collection of tracks that belong together like chapters of a book or episodes of a television series. Many song articles provide track placement info in the lead, usually in the first or second sentence. It's crucial, rudimentary information. You don't know whether certain tracks segue, but you know where they lead, which is enough.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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

@Ojorojo: Could you show me an example edit of what you would want such a bot to do? Are you talking about creating a whole certifications section in the article automatically? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: this explains what was done for albums. Moves out of Infobox singles and songs would probably be similar. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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

As a practical matter for layout, infographics/images (number of extra covers, infoboxes, etc.) should not exceed the article section for which they are intended.

WP:LAYIM

provides guidance which is relevant to infoboxes:

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

Too many can overwhelm an article and give it an unbalanced, amateurish look: a) alternate covers of Triptych should go in a section which discusses the artwork, not the infobox; b) the alternate cover for "Take On Me" should go in a section which discusses the subsequent release (also, an infobox is not intended for listing all the B-sides and lengths); c) the "Round of Applause" article is too short for two infoboxes (there is no separate section which discusses the remix). Many details about a song/single belong in the body of the article. There is no reason why all this extra material be added to the infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point about Triptych, though in this case, how would we determine which is "alternate?" (Although that is a problem regardless of whether the "alternate" covers are given in the infobox or not. "Take on Me" - I also concede that point. With "Round of Applause," that is exactly my point - the article is two short to have separate infoboxes, so the information is combined. The alternate cover section is needed in this case to supply the cover for the other version of the song.

Regarding B-sides and lengths: I can totally see your point about B-sides, since those would be given in the tracklisting. However, how are the song lengths NOT important? Or do you mean giving multiple, different lengths, as opposed to only the earliest released version?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

For ROA, are the single covers that well known? My guess is that people are more familiar with the album cover. Since the single covers are very similar, I don't think including both in the infobox is necessary; a caption may be added that identifies which cover is used. Length was an oversight on the previous list[2] – yes, it is important. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

To clarify some of my points:

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

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

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

I don't see a clear consensus regarding audio samples. The extra track listing and external music video templates seem to have garnered more support for their removal. I would put it to a vote, though, because far too few editors have commented so far.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to respond to the above, moving out certifications, etc. probably can't be automated because an editor has to check if they're already discussed in the article body, etc. It requires editor discretion. Moves of things like {{External music video}} are more likely to be possible for automation. I'd need to see the exact instructions written up for this conversion before being able to say for sure. I'd go for consensus at an RfC first, write up the instructions, let project members comment on the instructions and make changes as necessary, and then follow up with me. I'll take a look to see what, if anything, can be automated. (Also, in response to the edit conflict above, the RfC should be structured with separate sections for each proposed change to make things easy.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Been meaning to join the discussion for a while – this seems as good a place as any to jump in … Although I appreciate the concerns raised about disruption to past FAs (and disruption to GAs, solid Bs, also), I don't think the infobox is any place at all for audio samples and sales certifications.

I see a good argument for retaining alt covers, as long as they really are important for visually identifying the work. The thing with your suggestion, Ojorojo, about moving alternative covers to a section in main text, is that then the fair-use rationale would need to address an image's usefulness in the article – there needs to be critical commentary on the image, whereas if it's in the infobox, any image is there simply to provide visual identification of the subject.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the release chronologies. But if we lose them from Infobox Single, then we should do so in Infobox Album also (which, for some reason, I find unthinkable).

I disagree with a lot of the comments here about track listings, though. I think they're very useful, because an album track is defined by its place on the album, particularly in the case of songs first released during what's considered to be rock/pop's classic era, mid 1960s through to the early '70s. I hasten to add: I'm most certainly not talking about those before-and-after, partial track lists (trivial stuff); I mean the full track listings that I see used quite a bit – for solo Beatle song articles, along with the Stones and Dylan (e.g. here and here). The same template was used in all Beatles song articles until quite recently, when they were picked off at TfD or whatever it's called. Richard3120, I think the full track listings might avoid the pointlessness you referred to, re the situation with songs that are part of a concept album. And both the full and partial listings (that is, either of the two) are still permitted, according to Infobox Song. I realise that the basis of this discussion is to determine what should or should not be retained, but if we're talking about usefulness and what details are really pertinent to a song, I can't help thinking its sequencing on an album is vital. Perhaps that's partly because I pretty much only work on songs from the '60s and '70s, I don't know … JG66 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong keep for |misc= – for several reasons I've already stated

1. Some extra chronologies are necessary for collaborative releases. Plus for singles, there is no way to append an album track list chronology without it.
2. The infobox is sometimes the only appropriate spot for a sample to be located, particularly for stub articles.
3. Video fields are also useful, they're similar to |website= on other infoboxes.

Also, I don't understand this logic:

1. "[X] might not be stated in the article, thus it doesn't need to be in the infobox."
2. "[X] could be stated in the article, thus it doesn't need to be in the infobox."

Why have an infobox at all? This could apply to every field except the title, artist, and year of release. Why is it so difficult to consider that there are some things you can't adapt to prose? Why would anyone want to read

"'Daddy's Car' is a split single by Brian Eno and Karl Hyde. The last Brian Eno single before 'Daddy's Car' was 'Strange Overtones' (2008) and the one after is 'The Ship' (2016). The last Karl Hyde single before 'Daddy's Car' was 'The Boy With The Jigsaw Puzzle Fingers' (2008) and the one after is 'DBF' (2014)."

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Using infoboxes as repositories for miscellaneous details that don't work well in prose goes against their intended purpose. As any summary, infoboxes are not supposed to introduce information that is not in the body of the article (

MOS:INFOBOX uses "not supplant"). To take your point to the next step, why have prose at all? Song "articles" can be one big template where editors can fill in the blanks and add links to everything. Encyclopedia articles are based on prose and not collections of graphs, images, and charts. —Ojorojo (talk

) 15:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You are sorta right, but that's not "next step" of my point - that's the "next step" of a totally different point. My point is that infoboxes impart key facts better than the body ever could. It's impossible to reasonably summarize "chronologies" in prose (

WP:BECONCISE).--Ilovetopaint (talk

) 01:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep |certification= – it is the closest equivalent to |gross= from {{Infobox film}} --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 3family6, it probably needs a vote to be able to make a clear decision on each extra template, because clearly opinion is more split on some of them than on others. I do think the extra chronology should probably stay though, for the reasons Ilovetopaint states: sometimes you do need it for collaborations (duets or split singles) where it's not clear that there is a primary artist, like the 1991 version of "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me".

Ilovetopaint: if we kept the certification parameter, would you limit the number of regions listed in the infobox, to stop it becoming too long? For example, how would we choose what certifications to list from "7 Years"? Richard3120 (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a Danish band, so I'd think the only organization it should list is

IFPI Denmark. If not that, then perhaps whichever lists the most units sold.--Ilovetopaint (talk

) 00:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyoncetan – this is why many song articles don't include a release history any more... with digital releases it's too complicated. The answer to your first question is probably "Worldwide except US". But really, it probably isn't worth bothering with a release history table at all. Richard3120 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Thank you so much for acknowledging my questions. But still do you have any ideas about my question 4? :(... I do have lots of problems about listing the tracklist section, do we have any WikiHelp page about this section though? Thank you so much! Beyoncetan (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Beyoncetan: no, I would just leave it at one, and I see you've picked iTunes which is a safe choice. But I'm not sure whether you need to "prove" a track listing anyway.

There is some help given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Article content about laying out a song article. But the problem with this and the equivalent album article style guide is that they were probably written ten years ago in the early days of Wikipedia, and the changes that have occurred since then with regards to the switch from physical copies to digital downloads and streaming means that the guides are somewhat out of date, and unfortunately like most WikiProjects these days you struggle to find enough editors willing to discuss the issue and form a consensus and update the guides to reflect the new reality. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I know right? That's very sad... But thank you so much for spending times to answer my questions. :) Your help is truly precious to me! Thank you! Beyoncetan (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I requested for comments at

The thing is, those ARE the names of the single albums, so the article titles are correct, although perhaps the articles should be retitled "Square One (Black Pink single album)" or "Square One (Black Pink EP)". I guess the UK/US equivalents are EPs which also don't include the name of any of the songs on them, such as

The Roussos Phenomenon. Richard3120 (talk

) 21:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I know the article titles are correct. I was asking about the infoboxes, because when the single infobox is used the title is in quotes like a song title, but "Square One" is not a song. Myst3ry uses the album infobox, which looks better to me, but I wanted other opinions on that. Random86 (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. Well, the examples I mentioned use Template:Infobox album, which makes sense as the formatting for an EP title (italics, no quotation marks) is the same as that for an album. So I think I would use the album infobox. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Tbhotch, since you changed all three examples to EPs, is that what you think they should be called on Wikipedia? I think this approach makes the most sense. Random86 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

But unless you have quotes from the song's writer that state directly what the song is about, you are adding original research. Richard3120 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't have any quotes from the writer of the music video (the director? the... storyboarder? I don't know who does these things), and yet we seem to be able to say what it's about in some detail. AJD (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, we can say what happens in the video because we can see it – we can't say what it's about or what its meaning is because we don't know, and I would certainly remove that sentence saying it gets compared to The Graduate unless somebody adds a reliable source that explicitly states that. Richard3120 (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I've always thought that the plot descriptions in WP articles were a weak spot – they are essentially OR. Yes, it's too bad that most song articles read like sessionographies or discographies, but without RSs to quote or paraphrase, it's OR. A solution may be to quote some of the lyrics themselves (with an appropriate lead in) to show what the writer is saying. This is acceptable as long as

WP:LYRICS). —Ojorojo (talk

) 16:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

AJD has a point: SIX paragraphs is hardly a "synopsis" of the music video, and it contains a lot of OR, like "he discovers that she's been abused by someone (judging by the red lipstick smeared across her face and other signs of physical abuse)" and "the story and song is about how he tried leaving the mother before but he couldn't do it as in the lyrics 'I tried so hard to say goodbye'". Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think quoting some of the lyrics within the bounds of fair use makes a reasonable middle ground; at least it would communicate something about what the actual content of the song is. (I also think that, in the case of songs whose lyrics contain a straightforward narrative like that of a novel, movie, or short story, a brief synopsis is in order and not OR: cf. Rocky Raccoon's "The lyrics describe a conflict over a love triangle.") I also agree that six paragraphs of detailed shot-by-shot breakdown and interpretation of a music video is overkill, possibly OR, and at the very leasyt makes an absurd contrast with the lack of information about the song. AJD (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

I have nominated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe, but to meet

WP:NSONG there needs to be enough independently-published, reliable (not blogs) source material to be able to demonstrate having its own article. Richard3120 (talk

) 15:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

There is a

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

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

Hi, I would like to put

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

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

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

Greetings WikiProject Songs/Archive 16 Members!

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

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

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

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

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

Best regards,

I have nominated

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

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

What is a

What do reliable sources call it? In a previous discussion, I proposed "Singles are those songs that have appeared on a recognized singles chart (such as Billboard's Hot 100) or have been promoted as potential hits (artist announcements, press packages, advertising, etc.)". It's not perfect, but it removes the medium, which now is nearly meaningless. Since the line has become blurred, maintaining a separate Infobox single and Infobox song is not practical. A merged infobox could easily contain a field to indicate how it was originally released (the Type= field is normally used to distinguish between "Song" and "Instrumental", etc., not how it was released). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no real definition of a single anymore. Whatever reliable sources call a single, that is one. Which means that the distinction between "song" and "single" is very blurred.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

What is "single"?

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

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

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

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

The article about Michael Jackson's 1997 double A-side single

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

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

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

Hey everyone, I closed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 16#What is "single"? per a request at

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

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

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

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

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

Many thanks and best wishes,

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

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

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

Greetings. I would appreciate it if an editor from this Wikiproject could assess

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

Per

WP:NSONGS, "songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." A song simply charting with no other independent sources fails that criteria. Charting in and of itself does not make a song notable, and the song should not have an article unless the required multiple, non-trivial sources are found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me}

22:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Resolved

I have been doing lots of work on adding to and improving the individual top 10 list articles (see

In addition to this I have now created

List of artists with the most UK top 10 singles to accompany this, I would appreciate people working on this article to make it a complete record. 03md

20:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

{{Infobox song/single <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs -->
| Name          = 
| Cover         = <!-- just the file name -->
| Border        =
| Alt           = 
| Caption       = 
| Type [as per X201 this should be renamed] = <!-- Song, Single, Promo release, Instrumental, Hymn, etc. This would set the color. -->
| Artist        = 
| Album         = 
| EP            = 
| A-side        = 
| B-side        = 
| English_title = 
| Written       = 
| Published     = 
| Released      = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} -->
| Format        = 
| Recorded      = 
| Studio        =
| Venue         =
| Genre         = 
| Length        = <!-- {{Duration|m=MM|s=SS}} -->
| Label         = 
| Writer        =  
| Composer      = 
| Lyricist      = 
| Language      = 
| Producer      = 
| ISWC          = 
| Chronology    = 
| Last single   = 
| This single   = 
| Next single   = 
| Tracks        = <!-- Alternatively, this field may include a collapsible album track template -->
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
| prev          = 
| prev_no       = 
| track_no      = 
| next          = 
| next_no       =
| Misc          = <!-- Allows use of {{Extra chronology}}, {{Extra track listing}}, {{Extra album cover}}, {{Audiosample}} -->
}}

Merger proceedings at Template talk:Infobox song

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

New merged song/single infobox

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

Discussion

Name

Resolved

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

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

• Infobox song works well enough. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Name is fine. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 05:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• "Infobox song" is fine in this case Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• If we want to be technically correct, the template should be titled "Infobox musical track", as there are many instances where the infobox is used for instrumentals, not songs.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• If we do rename the template to "Infobox musical track", I could maybe support redirecting {{Infobox song}} to {{Infobox musical composition}} and revamping that template slightly so that it's compatible with this one, per @Anne Delong:'s suggestions.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

That's right.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think "Infobox song" is fine as is. Any other names are lengthy, like "musical track". --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• "Infobox song" is good. JG66 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Inbox song is good. A song is a song before a single.  — Calvin999 16:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Color

Resolved

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

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

• Keep it for now (easy to change later if more options are needed). —Ojorojo (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep the colour scheme. I would change promo singles and demos (currently khaki) to blue, but other than those most pages shouldn't be affected. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 05:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not exactly familiar with the infoboxes described below, but if I had a choice, I think it would be better to keep the existing yellow colors at least for singles. Why? Maybe I'm just used to it, but maybe because I don't really see anything wrong with the status quo.
  csdnew
  14:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• No preference on which color to use as long as all song articles have the same color (regardless of whether they were released as singles) Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'd prefer blue because we're following the logic that all single sides/songs are songs – we're not approaching it from the other direction. I guess it's down to familiarity as well. I'm not overly bothered, though – whatever colour is chosen, it'll become familiar (and seem "right") before too long. JG66 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it may be time to get adventurous! Different colors can be assigned to different |type=, like Template:Infobox album#Type. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If we're approaching from that direction, then we shouldn't have a "single" type at all. Singles don't have composers or lyricists, songs do. Again, if we want to be technically correct, then I can see two options:

• |Type= only controls the background color, "Song by ..." does not change to "Single by ..."
• |Single= is introduced to display "Song by X from the single Y"

I also considered correcting "Song by Artist" to "Song recorded by Artist", but that might be overly anal. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is to implement the merger of the existing infoboxes as they are currently used, not to continue the song vs. single debate. That is a different issue and needs to be discussed separately. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I was confused by what you meant, since we're already talking about changing the colors, but I guess that has nothing to do with how the template is used. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think the colors should change until we've finalized whether the infobox is meant to represent single articles as a single or a song. In other words, whether Strawberry Fields Forever is an article about the song "Strawberry Fields" or the single "Strawberry Fields" that contains "Penny Lane" on its flip side. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Parameter order

Resolved

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

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

• I think the release information should be next to |published=, since the only difference is that one is for sheet music and the others are for recordings. Also, maybe |producer= could be after composer/lyricist. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 05:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• I added an additional header for "Recording details" (which I'm not sure about after looking at the real-life examples). I think that the "recording information" should take precedence over the "compositional information".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Done - still not sure about the extra header, but I'm in favor of putting recording info before song info.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: I don't think the additional header works – most articles would probably only use one or two of the "Compositional details" fields, so there wouldn't be enough there to justify another header. I'll remove this from the sandbox. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC):

• The more I think about it, the original order was basically perfect. The topmost important details of a single are 1) Title 2) Artist 3) Album 4) A/B-side 5) Release date. There wasn't any need to mess with that order.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This template isn't just for singles. The original order you are referring to is for infobox single (although you have changed format, producer, etc. in the examples). The original order for Infobox song is not taken into account. A merged infobox should reflect both. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The order applies to tracks too, just without "A/B-side".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn't reflect the "original order" used for infobox song. Why should English title, written, published, etc. be moved just to preserve the infobox single order? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. I was only using singles as an example. As far as I can see, the sequence of parameters in {{

Infobox single}} are identical. While I appreciate that maybe a different order could be considered, I think that it's a separate issue.--Ilovetopaint (talk

) 17:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I tried a test with the parameters closer to the original sequences. In your example, the order from infobox song was not followed (and some fields from infobox single were moved) – most were just tacked onto the end of infobox single. It makes no sense to place written after released and recorded; composer and lyricist should follow songwriter, not added later. Part of the confusion may be that I'm looking at the full set of parameters, while you are focusing on the use in existing boxes. Anyway, this latest test preserves the order in "Strawberry Fields" and "Here Today". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, thanks for catching that. I'm not sure if it looks perfect or if it's just what I'm used to.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

My first attempt was to order the infobox more chronologically – first, a song is written by somebody, then recorded somewhere, and finally released in some manner by a record company. Currently, it's the other way around. But if consensus is to keep things close to the existing infoboxes, fine. Do you see any problems with the current test/example? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No problems with the current (original) layout. I'm not a fan of ordering by chronology - it's like moving |death_date= to the bottom of {{Infobox musical artist}}. I think the logic behind the original sequencing was something like "Background/packaging and release => Background/music and recording => Personnel => Miscellaneous", which sits right with me. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint and Ojorojo: Would it be better if "English title" and "Original language" were adjacent? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Yes, it makes more sense if the two were together, as in earlier examples. The existing infobox song places it near the end, but, in this case, a change from the "original order" should be acceptable. Perhaps change it and see. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Misc

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

Subtemplates with {{

Extra tracklisting}}, {{Extra chronology

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

Hope so. In my experience they are responsible for more template errors than anything else. Personally, I'd love to see the the Misc field eliminated and the templates incorporated into the infobox. - X201 (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@X201: This could probably be done quite easily for {{Singles}}, since all the substantial content is pulled from the Lua module. The others might be more difficult, since there are a lot of different variations to account for (such as different header colour, different order, etc.) and I don't think it's totally necessary. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

ISWC

Resolved

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

Would anybody miss this if it was removed?

• Remove – seldom used, it never caught on. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep (even if seldom used), as it's useful and Wikidata could potentially get an import of those. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 05:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Remove not often useful (if at all) and rarely implemented. I'd also deprecate chronology in song/album infoboxes entirely since what was released immediately after/before a certain song isn't really relevant to the song itself, it detracts focus from the article subject, and in certain cases violates WP:CIRCULAR when solely depending on what other Wikipedia articles give as release dates. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• I didn't even know that existed. I don't care. Oppose removing the chronology section - as a Wikipedia reader, I find it very useful.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing ISWC as part of the merger is OK, because it is used so infrequently. However, chronologies, track listings, etc., are found in many, many articles and should have a new RfC. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't notice ISWC until almost an hour ago. Hmm... if book articles, like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, use ISBN in their infoboxes, why not ISWC? Also, why not use International Standard Music Number (ISMN)? There should be consistency with using or removing code numbers from infoboxes, like "infobox book" and "infobox song". ...Of course, there's no need to use ISWC? --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC); amended. 19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Most books include ISBN along with the publishing info and it is often used by retailers, etc. Singles and albums don't include ISWC or ISMN for songs (ISMN appears to be limited to sheet music)[11]. The only place I've seen ISWC is WP and the ISWC website, which is probably why so few people even know it exists. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Then I'll vote remove. --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• ISWC has 88 uses in Infobox single and 79 in infobox song - X201 (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Remove. Apart from the fact that it's so rarely used, it could create problems if the vast majority of sources (including composer and publishing credits on a release and subsequent compilations, in sheet music and songbooks, not to mention biographies and other reference works) consistently give songwriters in one particular order, yet the ISWC entry presents them in another. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'd remove this this. I've never seen it used and I've never used it in the 80 or articles I've made GA.  — Calvin999 16:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Longtype

Resolved

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

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

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

• Don't add The header should not be cluttered with miscellaneous details. The extra info should remain in the text. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Add Per
  3rd (The Rasmus EP), and Berlin (EP) (although only Peacebone uses the Single infobox).--Ilovetopaint (talk
  ) 19:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

General

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

 Done @Michig:, @Izno:, @3family6:, @Softlavender:, @George Ho:, @Walter Görlitz:, @Richhoncho:, @X201:, @69.165.196.103:, @Ilovetopaint:, @JG66:, @Narutolovehinata5:, @Pigsonthewing:, @Sergecross73:, @SNUGGUMS:, @Scolaire:, @Nyttend:, @TheSandDoctor:, @Wnt:, @Kaldari:, @Anne Delong:, @Primefac: and others who contributed to the merger discussion, please add your comments above. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• May I convert the bolded words into subheaders, like "Color" and "ISWC"? That way, the editing is easier. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

After being thank by Ojorojo, I converted bolded words into subheaders then. George Ho (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

 Done: [13]. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Venues are for live recordings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Actually, there are the occasional examples. "No Woman, No Cry", for instance, where the best-known version is from the Lyceum in London. Also, the Stones' cover of "Going to a Go-Go". JG66 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

But was the best-known the original? I don't think I've ever known an original version to be recorded live first before the studio.  — Calvin999 17:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes a live version is the first or only one released by the artist (see "Who Do You Love?", "Crossroads", "Machine Gun", "Playing in the Band"). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, its relatively rare, but it happens. More-so in decades past, when there was less of a difference between studio and live recording, but it still happens in more recent times too. Outside (Staind song) and Coldplay's Moses (song) come to mind for me. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Example templates

Use with single	Use with song	"Strawberry Fields Forever"	"Here Today"
"The Single" File:Image Single picture sleeve Single by The Artist from the album That Album Language Foreign English title "D'single" B-side "Other Side" Written 2014 Published 2015 Released April 1, 2016 (2016-04-01) Recorded January 1–10, 2016 Studio Record Plant, New York City Venue Madison Square Garden Genre Contemporary R&B Length 3:01 Label Columbia Songwriter(s) The Artist Composer(s) Another Artist Lyricist(s) The Artist Producer(s) The Producer The Artist singles chronology "Last Single" (2015) "The Single" (2016) "Next Single" (2017)	"The Song" File:Image Sheet music cover Song by The Artist from the EP What EP Language Foreign English title "D'song" Written 2014 Published 2015 Released April 1, 2016 (2016-04-01) Recorded January 1–10, 2016 Studio Record Plant, New York City Venue Madison Square Garden Genre Contemporary R&B Length 3:01 Label Columbia Songwriter(s) The Artist Composer(s) Another Artist Lyricist(s) The Artist Producer(s) The Producer	"White Album Fields Forever" Single by The Beatles A-side "Penny Lane" Released 13 February 1967 Recorded 24 November – 22 December 1966 Studio EMI Studios, London Genre Psychedelic rock art pop psychedelic pop Length 4:05 Label Parlophone (UK) Capitol (US) Songwriter(s) Lennon–McCartney Producer(s) George Martin The Beatles singles chronology "Eleanor Rigby" / "Yellow Submarine" (1966) "Strawberry Fields Forever" / "Penny Lane" (1967) "All You Need Is Love" (1967) Audio sample Placeholder for fair use file file help	"Here Today" Song by The Beach Boys from the album Pet Sounds Released May 16, 1966 (1966-05-16) Recorded March 11 and 25, 1966 Studio Sunset Sound Recorders and CBS Columbia Square, Hollywood Genre Chamber pop Length 3:07 Label Capitol Songwriter(s) Brian Wilson Tony Asher Producer(s) Brian Wilson Audio sample Placeholder for fair use file file help