Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 28 September 2013

Template:Infobox single is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Songs Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Next and previous singles and data granularity

Mentioning data granularity, above, reminds me that this template has

• |Last single=
• |This single=
• |Next single=

parameters, with values like:

• |Last single="]"<br />(1994)
• |This single=""Country House""<br />(1995)
• |Next single="]"<br />(1995)

We should convert those to:

• |Last single title=
• |Last single date=
• |This single date=
• |Next single title=
• |Next single date=

with values like:

• |Last single title=])
• |Last single date=1994
• |This single date=1995
• |Next single title=]
• |Next single date=1995

That way things like the parentheses and quote marks can be applied automatically, and the data will become easier to enter and to parse.

We don't need |This single title=, as we have that in |Name=.

A bot could handle conversion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've unarchived the above. Unless there are objections, I'll make this change in the sandbox and put in an edit request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Video director

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Thanks Kww. Adabow (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

No!

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Music video director parameter

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

I don't feel very strongly either way about this at the moment. However, if it is implemented I would strongly recommend that it be plain (not automatically wikified), like other parameters in the template are. Adabow (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. However, why should this be so? Hyacinth (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Various reasons: (1) Other fields in the template do not automatically wikilink. Including one which does would confuse some editors and create broken and/or underlinked infoboxes. (2) Some directors may have disambiguation in their article name (require piping). (3) Some directors may not be notable enough to mandate Misplaced Pages articles. Adabow (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It currently is not wikified. Hyacinth (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Excuse me for coming off a little harsh... but I am just truly dumbfounded and sort of offended at the nerve. Irregardless, please stay to discussing at ANI instead of here until the ANI thread is closed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been removed pending a consensus to add it.—Kww(talk) 04:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I was asked to propose that the parameter be created. I forgot to undo its creation or assumed it had be done by another admin involved. Hyacinth (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

So you were "asked to propose it", then added it to hundreds of articles and then changed the template, and then finally went to the talk page after multiple editors went up in arms about it? On the topic, I oppose with the parameters addition as it is intricate detail not appropriate for the infobox, that is not always made public (sometimes singles do not even have music videos released "Missing You", "Magic Stick" and many others). STATic message me! 05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I support the use of the 'Director' field. Of course it should be adjusted to look better and in the right way . And I don't think the reason some songs don't have music videos should determine not to use it for all of them. Most of the singles have videos and I find it an easy way for people to check the director of the video. — Tomíca 18:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• At one point, Hyacinth had it so that the director field was mandatory. So I think that is a response to that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose; the infobox is meant to be an overview of the single, and the director of the music video is far too intricate a detail to include in a summary of the single. It belongs in Template:Infobox music video (which probably should exist given We Found Love and Michael Jackson's Thriller!), not here, and frankly what has occurred here I consider borderline vandalism.--Launchballer 20:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Some music video articles use Template:Infobox film. Hyacinth (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Doesn't really matter to me, to be honest. I think the parameter could be helpful to some degree. I do agree somewhat with Hyacinth that music video directors are notable in their own right and many are sought after to move into films ie: Michael Bay, David Fincher, F. Gary Gray, McG, etc. One little thing I do disagree with is with the addition of the parameter, a category is automatically added to the article, even when the particular director doesn't have a category for their their music video directing work (Category:Music videos directed by so and so). QuasyBoy (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Oppose (I swear I left this before). As Lucia echos above me, the music video does not relate to the release of a single. Not all singles even have music videos. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course the video relates to the single. At Learning to Fly (Pink Floyd song), for example, there is an entire section on the video. Most music videos, at least from the pre-digital era, only existed because of the single's release. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I suggest we look at the relevant parameters from template:infobox film: director, producer, writer, screenplay, story, cinematography, editing, studio, released, runtime, country, language and budget. We either need to add all of them (prefaced with "video_"), which would just open the template up to abuse, or we add none of them. Nothing more special about the director than the other items. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You present a false dichotomy; we do not heed to add all or nothing from that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, a single is not an album, That's ridiculous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That is the thing, a music video director is just as much intricate detail as would be adding any of those to the infobox about a musical recording. A music video is not always necessary, or a defining characteristic or point of a single. It is just a pretty unnecessary parameter. If it is backed by a reliable source, it can always be one of the first things mentioned in the "Music video" section of the article. STATic message me! 21:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy, a single is an album. That's why tracklist are there, despite most of them based on just 1 or 2 songs, it still has multiple tracks and most of the reception will be based off that release. And if the reasoning is based on music video director being notabl, that doesn't exactly mean its necessary to present them in the infobox.Lucia Black (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Redux

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Multiple editors are opposing it for valid reasons, just because they do not put Oppose does not mean their comments should not be taken into account. If anything the clear consensus seems to be not to include the parameter. Remember this is not a vote. STATic message me! 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Whom do you think I have overlooked, and what reason did they give? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As we have some new "oppose" comments (to which I'll reply above), I've disabled this request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Language field

Given the largish number of songs like Tell Me Goodbye with titles in different languages to the actual lyrics should a "language" field be included as an option for infobox? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an uncontroversial addition, but would welcome comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I support the idea, but we need to be clear: are talking about the language of the title, the lyrics, or both? Do we need two fields? What if the lyrics are in more than one language? And how will we handle lang attributes in the underlying HTML (I'm happy to help with that)? I've disabled the edit request, as it won't be responded to with out sample code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Field: "Main language of lyrics". I think language of title is evident from the title in the most common cases. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the former so long as the label (and documentation) make clear what is meant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be better to mention country of original similar to TV series infobox.Lucia Black (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

While it might also be useful to mention country of origin, that does not make a language parameter redundant. Some countries have more than one official language; and many singles are in a language which is not official, or even not common, in the country of origin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The language of the title may be obvious in "most common cases", but what about the rest? Also, it may be obvious to us as readers, but we still need to mark up non-English titles to indicate the language used. The current method is to use {{lang}}, and I would recommend reading that template's documentation to understand its workings, but we could automate that with a "title language" language parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes country of Origin is fine as well but - say if it is Canada or Switzerland - doesn't say whether the song is in English, French, Romansch or German. It is a particular issue with some songs where the title is a name, say a girl's name Rosalinda (song), that could be in 20 languages, who would know? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Country of origin could end up being a mess, and is not critical information such that it needs to be in the infobox. What if a British artist and an American artist record a song in Australia? What's the country of origin. Too messy, imho. Language sounds good though. Adabow (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about Country of origin. But can we please get on and add the language parameter? User talk:Pigsonthewing User:Adabow? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Release

Is the release for the first known radio play of the song? Or the release date of the single itself? We should make that more clear in the infobox instructions.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A song being played on the radio isn't a release, it's a premiere. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever release as a single came first. That would mean either the date it was released to iTunes/Amazon or the day it was officially released to radio. Note that just because a song plays on the radio does not make it a single. STATic message me! 07:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be the date that it was commercially released as a single, either physically or digitally. Radio stations generally receive pre-release promos and these should not be used for the release date. --Michig (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In the modern day, with digital availability of songs as album tracks, often songs are sent to radio by the label (this is different to simply being played on the radio). Often, after an album is released, labels don't bother with a separate digital release. Adabow (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Length again

This has been raised before but not resolved adequately. The guidance on the Length field is rather vague. Given that we have separate infoboxes for songs and singles, surely the song infobox should use the length of the song, while the single infobox should use the total length of the single (A-side + B-side or total length of all tracks on the release)? A single rarely consists of a single track. This vagueness seems symptomatic of the song/single confusion on Misplaced Pages. --Michig (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've said before that these two infoboxes should be merged; whatever the purist intent, they are in practise used interchangeably; not least because our articles talk about both "songs" and "singles" on the same page. Total length of a single would be less useful, and in most cases is impossible to source reliably. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

How is the combined length of all tracks any more difficult to source than the length of one of the tracks? The fact is singles and songs are not the same thing. A song may be recorded by several artists or even several times by the same artist, with a different length for each version, so a 'length' for song doesn't make sense. Length could apply to a 'track' rather than a song (i.e. an individual recording of the song) or a distinct release of tracks, but for a song is meaningless. My view is that we should try to resolve the confusion between songs, tracks, and singles rather than further muddle them together. --Michig (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The two infoboxes should NOT be merged. A song and a single are two different things. As for the length being for the total single (i.e. A-side + b-side) I disagree. In this modern age and era of digital releases, a lot of songs are simply released on their own as a digital single, whereby the song gets its own cover and release separate from the album. For example see "On the Floor", a 2011 release by Jennifer Lopez. It was released in the following ways: Digital download (1-track), CD Single (2-tracks), Digital EP (12-track), Digital Downlad (1-track remix), Digital Multimedia single (3-track + music video). Now which length would go in the infobox hmm? It would be silly to have every "total" length in the infobox and equally it would be silly having just the first release. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In the cases where the single is a single track it's moot as the length of the track and the length of the single would be the same. I would have to ask whether a length field is really useful at all. It certainly isn't key information about the single. In the J.Lo case above the lead track isn't even the same length on all releases. It's equally silly to have an infobox about a seven-inch single with about 3 minutes of music on each side where the length is shown as 3 minutes. --Michig (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're idea of clarifying tracks and songs would also be considered confusing given the terminology used. For example it is generally said that an album contains songs and that songs might be released as singles. Yet, in industry one often refers to the number of tracks on an album, and also when individual recordings from an album are downloaded digitally that is referred to as an album track. Therefore I think you would find it difficult to clarify the differences between tracks, songs and singles. Presently we define an album as a collection of songs/tracks released together. A single is usually defined as the independent release of a song from an album, whereby the song is packaged and marketed sometimes with other songs (b-sides or remixes). Within those realms trying to define tracks makes the situation a whole lot more complicated. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A song is a composition with music and lyrics. A track is a recording of a song or a piece of music. Albums and EPs are collections of tracks. A single is a separate release that can be a single track, especially in the digital era, but typically contains two or more tracks. Seems simple enough really. --Michig (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting responses, given that I did not claim that a song and a single are the same thing, but pointed out that "whatever the purist intent, they are in practice used interchangeably; not least because our articles talk about both 'songs' and 'singles' on the same page". Lil-unique1 says both "a song and a single are two different things" and "I think you would find it difficult to clarify the differences between... songs and singles". Consider "Another Brick in the Wall Pt II is a song by Pink Floyd. It was their first number one single". Anyone care to address that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It was the lead track on their first number one single. --Michig (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard anyone, much less reliable sources, refer to it in such terms. Would you care to address my wider point, as quoted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Which one? The confusion of Misplaced Pages editors, Lil-Unique's perhaps contradictory statements, or the sloppily written sentences about the Pink Floyd song? --Michig (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I've said there's a clear difference between songs and singles. But trying to define tracks from singles/songs is much more difficult and near impossible because of how the terminology is used. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Singles and independently notable songs are different that they can not be used interchangeably. Example: A single is a release and despite most reviews are about that one specific song, they do make that review off that single, not only that but they may review additional songs that came with that featured song. And since single is a release, sales are also relevant.

Independently notable songs however, may have only been released in an average studio album so the reviews and development have to be pinpointed specifically to that song. Beside the point: I agree with Michig on having "total length" on singles, and just "length" on feature songs.Lucia Black (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected by Lil-unique1 and accept without reservation that his statement on "differences between tracks, songs and singles" was meant to convey that "there's a clear difference between songs and singles" (a fact I have not disputed); I also acknowledge Lucia Black's untenable assertion that (my emphasis): "singles and independently notable songs are different that they can not be used interchangeably". Neither of these statements acknowledge my pointing out that (and I apologise for repeating this again; I trust I shall not need to do so again; emphasis added) "whatever the purist intent, they are in practice used interchangeably; not least because our articles talk about both 'songs' and 'singles' on the same page". Unless this fact is acknowledged (I can provide evidence if required) there seems to be little point in discussing the matter further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes the terms are used in a muddled and confusing way on Misplaced Pages, which is a problem, and we should aim to resolve this. --Michig (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be nearly impossible to solve without either giving the single aspect of a release a separate page to the song or without being able to produce a guideline as to when to use the word "song" and when to use the word "single". I think this is beyond reasonable expectation particularly as wikipedia's interchangable use of the words "song" and "single" comes from their interchangable use in media and reliable sources. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolve how? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

We let the RS do all the defining.Lucia Black (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but definitions are not the issue. My question was "resolve how?", not "define how?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would clarify exactly what you are saying from now on. Asking "reselve how/" implies the word "resolve" was used which it has not (at least not in the current chain of discussion). And defining it is how I consider it resolved. But you're not being clear exactly.Lucia Black (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My reply was to, and indented directly after, Michig's comment "Yes the terms are used in a muddled and confusing way on Misplaced Pages, which is a problem, and we should aim to resolve this." (emphasis added). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe lil unique responded to that. So you can see how the chain of discussion can break. I agree with lil unique.Lucia Black (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If Michig wants to explain how she/he thinks we can clarify the use of "song", "track" and "single" on wikipedia then I'm sure we'll all be willing to listen. But right now all I can see is a small technicality which doesn't add up with the way music releases are promoted in the media and reliable sources. Our use of terminology matches how the media/RS report music releases and therefore is most understandable to the masses. I can't support any kind of change (based on a technicality) just to be precise if it makes things massively more complicated for editors and readers. TBH I'm not sure its a much of an issue as being suggested if I'm being completely honest. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 11:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I already clarified this above. We currently have a very confused, muddled approach. We have editors who believe every song played on the radio is a single, and editors who seem to be unaware that most singles are not individual tracks (I've come across both on this project), so we can either aim for clarity (this is an encyclopedia after all) or just go with lowest common denominator approach. It looks like it's going to be the latter. We've strayed from the point of the discussion which is whether an infobox for a single should contain details about the whole single (as is the case for EPs and albums) or about one track (for which we have a separate infobox, putting aside the difference between songs and tracks). --Michig (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Michig: What you've clarified is what you perceive as the problem. what I'd like you to clarify, please, is how you propose that we resolve this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll repeat myself again: "Given that we have separate infoboxes for songs and singles, surely...the single infobox should use the total length of the single (A-side + B-side or total length of all tracks on the release)." --Michig (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be at cross-purposes. You said "the terms are used in a muddled and confusing way on Misplaced Pages, which is a problem, and we should aim to resolve this"; I asked "Resolve how?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO taking everything into account, the one track/recording/song which is being promoted as the single should have its length in the infobox. The other tracks/songs that form part of the single are secondary to the release. I.e. in my example with On the Floor), it is the main version of "On the Floor" which was being promoted and charted, the remixed recordings which also formed part of the single package (the EP and the CD) are secondary to that first track/recording/song. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC) btw is is pointless aiming for clarity when the industry itself and media/reliable sources also lack the same clarity. Michig, I think its generally irrelevant whether we consider that a single is made up of multiple tracks or not because as given in examples, single's these days usually come in multiple forms. They can be released as single tracks or as a bundle of tracks so we'd always have a conflict over which length would be included if a particular recording received multiple single releases. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ever feel like you're going round in circles? --Michig (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A little, cause it feels like we're missing an explanation. I might be willing at accept that technically Misplaced Pages is ocnfused regarding the whole single vs. song thing but when I've prevented a scenario as above which is a typical single release you're unable to give me a definitive answer. My issue is that there's no point in Misplaced Pages trying to hammer home that a single consists of multiple tracks and then putting just the first track length in the infobox when this wouldnt match the coverage in the media etc. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What explanation are we missing? You're now arguing that "that there's no point in Misplaced Pages trying to hammer home that a single consists of multiple tracks and then putting just the first track length in the infobox" which is exactly the point I made at the start of this thread. We have lots of articles about singles (as opposed to songs) which spell out all the tracks that appeared on the single, and all the argument above from other editors is that we should just put the first track length in the infobox, even when that one song has different lengths on different releases. Take a look at Anyone Can Play Guitar for an example of how ludicrously the Length field is being used. Now excuse me while I bang my head against a wall. --Michig (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is similar to OVA being direct-to-video releases but have also received TV-premieres and theathrical release for promotion. Single tends to deviate from its definition (and no I'm not referring to the general word "single"). Its best we just let sources call it what they call it. As in if 1 source deviates from calling 1 song a single, we should take it with a grain of salt.Lucia Black (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone Can Play Guitar includes the statement "'Anyone Can Play Guitar'... remained a staple of the band's live sets throughout the early-mid 1990s." To what does "Anyone Can Play Guitar" refer, in that context? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You know damn well that it's referring to the song so why ask? Singles are generally referred to by the name of the main track - nobody has argued otherwise. That doesn't mean that the track and the single are the same thing. --Michig (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no sources whatsoever...so we should only bring up articles that have been well written and well sourced. Otherwise issues such as these will be made because one or two editors didn't see the original research.Lucia Black (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Album tracks as B-sides

Hi all. Just want to get some thoughts from others on a point that came up at a recent GAR: when both sides of a vinyl single were lifted from an album, released perhaps just a week or less before the album, should a song article covering the B-side carry a "single" infobox, or the standard song infobox (treating it as an album track)? Logicially, it seems it should be the single infobox, to acknowledge the song's first release. But what about when a single's taken from an album perhaps six months or more after its initial release – should an article about the B-side carry a single or song infobox? As an example, there's the George Harrison track "Woman Don't You Cry for Me", issued as a B-side six months after its initial release on an album. My thinking is, all that's needed there is the song infobox, and that the face-label image can sit inside the 'box (with the necessary caption).

The only thing that muddles that first situation for me – regarding an album track released as a B-side to a lead/advance single – is that most readers would probably consider it an album track only. The song has notability for its place on the album, but not necessarily on the single. That's what Sufur222 raised early on in the GAR I mentioned (look under "General" comments), for another Harrison song from the 1970s, "World of Stone". (So I'm talking about in the pre-CD era but post-1970, when B-sides were no longer eligible for inclusion on singles charts such as Billboard.) Any thoughts, precedents maybe – anyone? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This point has already been raised by me at WPSongs WikiProject_Songs#If_a_b-side_a_single.3F. The single, in the days of vinyl, was the a-side and not the b-side. It was the a-sde which was plugged, promoted, bought etc and in many cases the b-side was no more than a throwaway track. Elevating b-sides to singles is not really on. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My preference would be for articles on songs to use the song infobox and articles about singles (i.e. the released 'record') the single infobox. As I have suggested elsewhere, there is a real muddle between singles and songs (and tracks) on Misplaced Pages. A 'single' is traditionally the whole release - A-side, B-side(s), cover art - although they are/were generally promoted and named using the title of the A-side. A track only released as a B-side and album track would use the song infobox, I would have thought. --Michig (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your comments. Hmm. I struggle a bit with the idea that we'll be ignoring a song's first release in the case of a B-side to an advance single, but I can see it's worth going for the regular song infobox in that "World of Stone" situation. I still think a non-album B-side has to have a single infobox. I take your point, Michig, about a single being the full "release", but isn't the purpose of the infobox simply to show where a song "belongs" – either on a single release or an album? (I'm not sure a song is necessarily being "elevated" through the use of a single infobox, I guess.) If song infoboxes allowed for B-side status, i.e. if it weren't for that standard Album field in the 'box, perhaps it would be different. (In other words, if text could read: Song by ... from the single "..." Or maybe I've missed something – perhaps there's a way to make it read like that ...)

Worth pointing out that it's not just record company promotion that was the issue for B-sides in the era we're talking about, during the 1970s. It's also radio play – which of the two sides DJs picked up on, something that was often dictated by listeners' requests. I'm talking primarily in the US, because throughout the '70s, the way I understand it, radio play for both sides contributed to a single's chart placing on Billboard's Hot 100 (which is why chart placings can be some way out compared with Cash Box, which I believe was purely sales-oriented). Record companies had no control over this; at best – I'm thinking in the case of Billy Preston's "Outa-Space" and Wings' "Sally G" – the record company simply played catch-up by printing new picture sleeves. Taking another Harrison example, "Apple Scruffs" was as popular on radio as its A-side, "What Is Life", so one would imagine that through DJs supporting the original B-side, many fans we're going out and buying "Apple Scruffs" (your point, Richhoncho). Up until the end of November 1969, both sides of a single were eligible for listing on Billboard's singles chart, and in cases where the A-side was even reasonably successful, the B-side often charted also – figured that point might be relevant.

Anyway, thanks again ... I might weigh in at that discussion you've got underway, Rich. I just think it's a far from straightforward issue (unfortunately), depending on the era. We can't simply talk about the vinyl era and apply a rule there, for instance, because there's Billboard's approach pre-Nov '69 to consider, and then a period over the following decade when it appears that B-sides still had an impact on a single's chart performance, in the US at least. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class song pages