Template talk:Infobox Single

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Infobox Single has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Infobox Single page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Archives Archive 1

[edit] Syntax

{{Infobox Single 
| Name           = Smells Like Teen Spirit
| Cover          =
| Artist         = [[Nirvana (band)|Nirvana]]
| from Album     = [[Nevermind]]
| Released       = [[September 10]], [[1991]]
| Format         = [[CD single|CD]], [[Gramophone record|7"]], [[12-inch single|12"]]
| Recorded       = Sound City, [[Van Nuys]]<br />May–June, 1991
| Genre          = [[Grunge music|Grunge]]
| Length         = 5:01
| Label          = [[Geffen Records|DGC]]<br /><small>DGCCS7 ([[United States|US]], 7")<br />DGCS (US, 12")<br />DGCDS-21673 (US, CD)<br />DGC ([[United Kingdom|UK]], 7")<br />DGCT5 (UK, 12")<br />DGCTP5 (UK, 12", picture disc)<br />DGCCD5 (UK, CD)
| Producer       = [[Butch Vig]]
| Chart position = 
* #6 <small>(US [[Billboard Hot 100]])</small>
| Last single    = "[[Here She Comes Now/Venus in Furs]]"<br />(1991)
| This single    = "'''Smells Like Teen Spirit'''"<br />(1991)
| Next single    = "[[Come As You Are]]"<br />(1992)
}}

or the empty version:

{{Infobox Single 
| Name           = 
| Cover          = 
| Artist         = 
| from Album     = 
| B-side         = 
| Released       = 
| Format         = 
| Recorded       = 
| Genre          = 
| Length         = mm:ss
| Label          = 
| Writer         = 
| Producer       = 
| Certification  = 
| Chart position = 
| Last single    = 
| This single    = 
| Next single    = 
}}

-Revised copy & paste syntax. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:32, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

All fields except Name and Artist are optional.

This is how it would look like:

"Smells Like Teen Spirit"

Single by Nirvana
from the album Nevermind
Released	September 10, 1991
Format	CD, 7", 12"
Recorded	Sound City, Van Nuys May–June, 1991
Genre	Grunge
Length	5:01
Label	DGC DGCCS7 (US, 7") DGCS (US, 12") DGCDS-21673 (US, CD) DGC (UK, 7") DGCT5 (UK, 12") DGCTP5 (UK, 12", picture disc) DGCCD5 (UK, CD)
Producer(s)	Butch Vig
Chart positions
#6 (US Billboard Hot 100)
Nirvana singles chronology
"Here She Comes Now/Venus in Furs" (1991)	"Smells Like Teen Spirit" (1991)	"Come As You Are" (1992)

[edit] Articles using syntax instead of the infobox

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

[edit] Reviews sections

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

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

The Review bug is fixed without boolnot now. I still can't see an easy alternative to test whether Reviews is empty because of the HTML in the parameter. Every time you use the parameter it is evalutated and will get printed. I think that a version with Review as no HTML parameter will make it a lot easier (also for the user) and doesn't require any bug work around like boolnot or the horrible expression I had to put in as a replacement. KittenKlub 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't throw it out before there is some consensus about this. I am not happy with the Review section either, since it is mainly blank. There are nevertheless many pages with reviews, so don't delete a valid option until the creators had their say. I mean they haven't even had the change to say their piece. KittenKlub 01:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We can live with it for a short while, but ideally not too long. Is there a way to put in the URL? - David Gerard 10:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, because it's an HTML parameter, so you can't use any expression on the parameter because it'll break the pages where it is referenced. And that is one more reason why it's not a great parameter. I think we'll soon reach some sort of consensus. But I like to hear the reasoning behind the singles review. KittenKlub 10:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AllMusic ratings

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

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

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

The proliferation of AMG links has been bothering me a bit, too—the reviews section also appears in {{Album infobox}}, which my bot has been converting old cut-and-pasted tables into. Some statistics that may or may not be useful, culled from its logs:

468 total articles with 307 total reviews
239 articles with no reviews
177 articles with 1 review
33 articles with 2 reviews
14 articles with 3 reviews
4 articles with 4 reviews
1 article with 6 reviews

Number of reviews by source:

194 - All Music Guide
33 - Rolling Stone
14 - Robert Christgau
11 - Q
8 - Billboard Magazine
5 each - Jim Gordon, NME
4 - Progressiveworld.net
2 each - Alternative Press, Entertainment Weekly, Melody Maker, NOW, Spin magazine, The Guardian, Toph Morris
1 each - Amazon.com, Clay Marshall, Crewzine, Dprp.net, Jesus Freak Hideout, Kiran Dass, metroweekly.com, Montreal Mirror, musicOMH.com, Muzik, New Internationalist, Paste Magazine, Punknews, Rate Your Music, Rootnode.org, Smash Hits, The Dartmouth, The Independent, The Washington Post

290 of the review lines have external links, leading to:

185 - allmusic.com/www.allmusic.com
32 - rollingstone.com/www.rollingstone.com
14 - www.robertchristgau.com
12 - www.buy.com (!)
8 each - www.q4music.com, www.savatage.com
4 each - www.nme.com, progressiveworld.net/www.progressiveworld.net
2 each - www.nowtoronto.com, www.phisharchive.com
1 each - enjoyment.independent.co.uk, jesusfreakhideout.com, pastemagazine.com, rateyourmusic.com, shopping.guardian.co.uk, www.amazon.com, www.dprp.net, www.findarticles.com, www.guardian.co.uk, www.mazontheweb.5u.com, www.metroweekly.com, www.montrealmirror.com, www.mp3.com, www.musicomh.com, www.nme.co.uk, www.punknews.org, www.rootnode.org, www.stuff.co.nz, www.xmtp.de

—Cryptic (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, those stats are in fact very useful. -- Netoholic @ 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The problem I see is that these allmusic ratings (and others) "have no face". They are just numbers with no information on how they were derived or in what context. I don't think there's anything wrong including a summary of a review that the song/album received in the form of "So-and-So, a noted expert in slam-dancing, calls this song "wicked"" in the main article body, but I dislike reducing things down to the numbers just to cram it in a will-be-outdated infobox. -- Netoholic @ 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a hard time seeing that as very useful. Of course, others presumably consider it an improvement on nothing - David Gerard 14:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Reviews belong in the article, surely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed the Reviews from the template. The review links are still on the articles, but not being displayed. They can be moved as needed as future editors work on them. -- Netoholic @ 09:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an optional field. If you don't feel the need ot use it, disinclude it. We've had album reviews in the infobox for quite some time, and I personally feel that single reviews in the infobox don't cause any problems, especially since they can easily be left out at will. --FuriousFreddy 14:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should actively discontinue use of it. This isn't about "personal" feelings - I think that the infobox is not the right place for Reviews and that the presentation of them in the infobox leaves a lot to be desired. I ask again... why should Wikipedia have to keep in sync with another website's rating is? What if they change their rating? To properly WP:CITE that review, one needs to document the source/author, and date. Putting this in the References section, or separate Review section in the article is the more preferable method. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Certification field

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

I agree with a portion of your reasoning; while it is true that chart positions indicate a song's popularity, there are a handful that receive a certification from the RIAA, OCC, CRIA, etc. I do disagree with the part of your comment concerning the template being "long enough". Adding one additional field is not going to inflict any harm. If you do not find "certification" notable enough to include in the single information box, is it possible to display it in limited articles about a music-single? For example, if one has the knowledge of its certification and would like to place it in the information box, then they should be allowed to follow through. I propose that the "certification" field become optional. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For now, I have replaced "certification" in the information box as optional; it can be omitted if desired. Since certification plays a moderately important role in a song's success, I think it appropriate to include it in the box. If a song was not certified, then the field can be removed. Does anyone oppose this action? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The infoboxes are supposed to provide basic summaries about a song. Having one field dedicated to certifications and another to chart positions is, in my opinion, unnecessary. Surely we do not need to have two fields providing information on essentially the same thing, it just takes up space. The template is bigger than the display as it is (see, for example, Check on It), and we need to condense it as much as we can. I won't remove the field again for now, but I do believe that the template is now somewhat unwieldy for no good reason, and I'd like other users to weigh in on the matter as well. Extraordinary Machine 18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name field now optional

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

Had I not already made it optional as noted above? Well, perhaps not. Thanks for the clarification. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. You made the "name" field optional, which I did not catch prior to this post. All right, I understand now. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Code update from Album infobox?

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

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

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

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

{{{name}}} and {{{artist}}} fields should be mandatory. They should be filled in if omitted. Jogers (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for new features

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Composer and Lyricist

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

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

[edit] Thoughts

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

[edit] Massive update

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

Hmm, I think we broke Without You by going against the earlier decision to make {{{Name}}} optional (see Name field now optional, above). I completely missed that and just went by what Jogers said later (in Code update from Album infobox?). I was going to consult the people who made the change, but then I read that they're both leaving, so... Honestly, I could see just leaving it as mandatory.

However, I'm changing the link to RIAA single certification to Music recording sales certification, for globalization purposes. –Unint 07:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave it mandatory. There should not be pages with multiple instances of this template on them (with rare exceptions anyways). If there's enough info at Without You, I'd suggest splitting them off into their own articles (each with their own infobox), if not, I'd remove the boxes which clearly do not belong (very little actual content about them) and fill in the name fields for the ones that remain (if any). Agree with your other change, seems reasonable. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, is that wise? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#ONE article per composition. We don't need to create loads of duplicate articles for the sake of an infobox. Flower party☀ 14:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So I tried something new at Without You. Please pass judgment on how insane it may or may not be. –Unint 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Insane. =) I think the only way to keep it from looking like a mess would be to split them off into their own separate stubs. If there's some commonality between them, you could have the main Without You article be some special form of disambiguation page (where it talks about the song itself in relation to the various artists who have performed it). IMO of course, if it looks good to you I have no objections. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's.. different. Flower party☀ 01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the bottom line is that not all cover versions (even those released as singles) have enough information available regarding them to be feasible as a proper article, and in the case where some versions are article-worthy and others aren't, it's just going to be a mess trying to decide which ones are.

You know, I think we may be at a turning point as far as single article coverage and chronology use goes. Now that we have the option to exclude the chronology entirely or include multiple ones, I think it's time for some new guidelines as to when to do what. Some questions:

With regard to the creation of the singles chronology in the same way as the albums chronology, I can only imagine that the idea was to have some "complete" singles chronologies, as we're getting all the time these days. (See Erasure discography for a brand-new string of singles articles from just last week.) However, not everyone believes this is the way to go. (See The KLF discography for a non-completionist approach.)
If not a complete chronology — if we exclude non-notable singles, whichever they may be — then is the chronology "broken", as it were? We don't want red links for articles that we never plan to write, so we may replace them with plain black text — but does that undermine the "continuous series of pages connected by links" concept? It would be annoying if just one single were skipped in a series and the one after that couldn't be reached by chronology. In which case, should we create stub articles as bridges?
These "chronology stacks" that I'm advocating — do people start yelling when they get to be three, four rows high? (I suppose I should be implementing them to get actual feedback... Time constraints, etc.) If they are okay, then when should we merge multiple infoboxes on one article into one? Always, so as to avoid debate? And then, where do the other single covers go?

I have plans to start this discussion on multiple fronts. Someone else has already started one at Category talk:The KLF#Singles chronology (Three covers in one infobox? It's one solution...), which prompted me to get thinking... I should probably get over there about now. As for other fronts, stay tuned. –Unint 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brackets in usage

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

"Foo"

Single by Bar

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

"Foo"

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

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

Hmm, in my experience most infoboxes work fine in practice without visual cues for optional fields inserted into the code. (Pick one of many at Cat:Infobox templates.) Certainly the album infobox seems to be working (although usually all of its fields are applicable, unlike b-side and certification here). Anyway, it's not like people are racking their brains to fill out every single field that they think is required; I just ran across Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm today, for example.

I also came up with this, which it turns out some infoboxes already use in their usage examples:

{{Infobox Single |
| Name           = 
| Cover          = <!-- optional -->
| Artist         = 
| from Album     = <!-- optional -->
...

Or, as some people are doing it:

{{Infobox Single |
| Name           = 
| Cover          = <!-- optional -->
| Artist         = 
| from Album     = <!-- optional, remove line if not applicable -->
...

I guess I like my white space. These things can get cluttered enough as it is. –Unint 21:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I find the extra square brackets confusing. And infobox syntax is confusing enough as it is unless you know how it works. Flower party☀ 01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No cover available"?

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

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

[edit] Extra Albums?

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

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

[edit] Questions

On the song table it has a category called B-side, what would this be used for?
I got told that if the song i was putting a table in for was a song from a soundtrack, it had to be the colour purple. How do I change the colour yellow to purple? Or doesn't this need to be used anymore? Lillygirl 16:05, 30 April 2006

For B-sides, see the B-side article; in practice we use it to refer to previously unreleased songs found on a single release, even though CD singles nowadays don't have B sides per se.
There is no way to change the colour of this infobox (that's why I removed the relevant information from WP:SONG). Nobody seems interested in elaborating on this or implementing colour changes, so I think we're leaving it at that. –Unint 18:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] single chronology by country?

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

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

[edit] Length

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

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

[edit] Album chronology

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

I've just made Template:Extra tracklisting to get round this very problem. I've got to sort it so that it's not alway the same colour but it seems to work pretty well. (I was reading OK Computer when I realised that it was a bit irritating that I couldn't do this but now you can through singles as well as album tracks on that one). --Thetriangleguy 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone possibly go over to the {{Extra tracklisting}} template and add a Type field similar to the {{Extra chronology}} and {{Album infobox}} template? To distinguish track listings of EPs, compilations etc.. Thanks. --Reaper X 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More chronology stuff

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

[edit] "from Album" line

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

[edit] Music video director

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

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

[edit] Audio sample

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

This would need to be discussed before adding it. Not certain where I stand on it, could see arguments both ways. --*Spark* 12:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with having such a section and hence have created a prototype which can be found here and in use here--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I kinda liked that template you made but did doesn't have a link to audio sample's information (fair use, summary and the user who uploads it) could anyone add the audio sample pls.--HW-Barnstar PLS 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added {{Audiosample}}--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Chart positions

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

[edit] Composer entry

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

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

[edit] Review

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Template_talk%7EInfobox_Single_348f.html"