Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox song/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Writer(s) = Composer + Lyricist

Hi,

Regarding music...music is 'composed', not written. Prior to words (lyrics) being added to music, tunes were composed by composers. Ok.

Once words were added to musical compositions, these were termed 'lyrics' and a writer of lyrics took on the title 'lyricist'. Thus a modern song is comprised of a musical composition plus lyrics. The writer of the music is the 'composer' and the writer of the lyrics is the 'lyricist'.

Based on this, the term 'writer' is too vague...and does not allow for clarity of both pieces of relevant 'song' information, i.e., who composed the music and who wrote the lyrics. Often, within this portion of the template I can have no encyclopedia certainty regarding whether or not the individual listed as 'writer' is actually both the composer and lyricist. Likewise, when more than one individual is listed, it isn't certain whether both wrote both musical composition and lyrics, or whether one person composed the music and another the lyrics.

Therefore, I'd like to propose a change to this (and any related) infobox templates:

Please change/split the listing for 'Writer' into 'Composer' and 'Lyricist'.

In this fashion, proper credit/information where credit/information is due can be facilitated and improve both depth of song information and accuracy of crediting a song's creators.

Thank you very much,
Woody Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.230.113 (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does this template have a place for "composer" but not for "lyricist"? I almost always use the "Infobox standard" template because it's more suitable for the songs I write up, but I found one which uses this template, and was surprised to note that there was a slot for the composer and not for the lyricist.
It looks as if someone conformed to a suggestion that was made a few months ago in putting in "composer", but only halfway because no "lyricist" slot was provided. -- BRG (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}I absolutely agree. The biggest trouble is that people started filling the Writer item both with composer and lyricist names. This happens with the Song infoboxes, Single infoboxes, and Album infoboxes as well.
To start removing this garbage from Wikipedia, I propose the following: We should make Wikipedians working on these articles to split these misused catch-all 'Writer' items into 'Composer' and 'Lyricist' as follows: Change the template item label 'Writer' to 'Composer(s)/Lyricist(s)' and add a new item 'Lyricist'.
This change is fully backwards compatible and will not break anything (on the contrary, it shows that it is not certain who composed music and who wrote lyrics, which is the state of the articles now). The existing articles will still make sense but people will slowly start separating composer names from lyricist names (moving them from the ambiguous common 'Writer' slot to the specific slots).
Please, if you can, change also the Infobox templates for Singles and Albums in the same way. They suffer from the same problem. Thank you very much. 84.42.153.216 (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Disabling editprotected. This isn't an appropriate use of the template, as it requires widespread changes to articlespace. It'll need to be discussed in a centralised forum (such as WT:MUSIC) and a plan drawn up for implementation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The plan is already drawn up -- see above. It HAS already been discussed -- see above. What do you mean by "a centralized forum"? Which one is it? WT:MUSIC (Notability) is clearly irrelevant. This TEMPLATE discussion forum IS centralized and the only relevant. So what are you talking about? Be more constructive please, not lazy. 84.42.153.216 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that there ought to be both "composer" and "lyricist" parameters. I suggest that "writer" be retained, and not deprecated. The term applies to many people as evident from widespread use of "songwriter". With regard to the hubbub over where this change should be discussed, this is the appropriate place to discuss changes to this template, but a request above mentions the same change for other templates. To proceed in a coordinated fashion, it would be best to discuss this in some central location. I think "WT:Music" (above) was a mistake and the editor actually meant Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello John, I respectfully disagree with keeping the "Writer" label, because it is ambiguous. It is not clear what is meant. Who wrote music and who words? That's the point of this request for change. I propose deprecating the label Writer. 84.42.153.216 (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It indicates that the person (or people) wrote both the music and lyrics. That's a common situation and deserves a simple parameter and simple label in the output. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This Writer item is the same nonsense as if a movie template had an item called "Author". Who is the author? The one who wrote the script or the director, or both? What you wrote is unfortunately only ONE possible interpretation. When you have two or more people listed as Writers, you have the ambiguity and question who wrote what. (The case where a single person wrote both music and words must be handled by including his or her name under two separate items, for example: Music by: Sting AND (within the same template) Words by: Sting.). This item MUST be deprecated precisely to force people to move Lyricists to the new item that must be created. That's the point of this request! I'm trying to be as polite as I can, but I feel I will soon be mad. 84.42.153.216 (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Why would someone add author to a movie infobox, and how would that cause confusion between the screenwriter and director roles? The analogy doesn't make sense to me. Putting that aside, you can call the writer parameter nonsense, but the terms "writer" and "songwriter" are in widespread use and writer is accurate for many songs. Forcing editors to use different terminology due to cases that don't apply to a particular song doesn't make any sense to me. Add/adjust the parameters so editors can indicate separate composer(s) and lyricist(s) but leave writer for cases where that applies. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Better documentation

This template could use some better documentation. I don't use it often, otherwise I'd do it.--Rockfang (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cover parameter

Why do we have an parameter for an album cover? I don't think that an album cover would pass the WP:NFCC for a song article: specifically, ii) Respect for commercial opportunities, iiia) minimal usage, and iiib) minimal extent of use. In some cases, e.g. Hallelujah_(Leonard Cohen song), we have a free equivalent of the album cover which saves the same, if not a better purpose. If anyone can point me to a article using {{Infobox Song}} where the album cover does pass the NFCC (identification isn't really a defence), then that would be grand. Otherwise, I plan on deprecating the parameter. Sceptre (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, months later, but I came here looking for the same info as well. The album cover used to be used in this manner, but that long ago was tossed for the NFCC concerns. I'd say the field is now unnecessary and can be removed. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"from the album..." parameter

In the single infobox, the top part reads, using "Paranoid Android" as an example, "Single by Radiohead from the album OK Computer", yet in this template the album comes below it in the infobox – this should be changed to be the same as the former! Andre666 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

musical characteristics

I think it would be a good idea to include parameters for standard musical characteristics that songs have (e.g. key, time signature, etc.). A makeshift example of what I mean can be seen at Box of Rain#The song. I wouldn't include the chords of the song though, since wikipedia isn't a database of guitar tabs. One more thing worth pointing out is that infobox color includes lots of classification information about the color(RGB, CMYK). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.170.24 (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox edits

Hey folks,

Can we make the text for this template the same as the text used for Infobox Single Template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PK2 (talk • contribs)

{{editprotected}} Yeah, I also think it would be a good idea to implement the same recent updates included in Template:Infobox Single. ([1]) –Dream out loud (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done:. Your request is not yet specific enough for an admin to action. However I've asked User:Thumperward to look at this for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} Done, work is in the new sandbox, comparison in the new test cases page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging the template

Hey folks,

Can we merge the Infobox Song Template into the Infobox Album Template?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by PK2 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 23 June 2009

Recent change

The recent change seems to have affected the way the first title under "Track listing" is shown. See Venus in Furs (song) for an example. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please sync with the sandbox to fix this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. --- RockMFR 21:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

Allow {{{Name}}} to be inherited from article title

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync with the sandbox to allow the {{{Name}}} attribute to be omitted if the article title is the same. No change to existing deployments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Song by X from the album Y"

{{editprotected}} Template:Infobox single uses the wording "Song by X from the album Y" on the top line if an album is defined, whereas this template simply says "Song by X", and has "album" as a separate piece of information in the main listings. I think the templates should be standardised, preferably by using the first (infobox single) version on this one too. What do you guys think? Dendodge T\C 20:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Ideally this will be merged with {{infobox single}} in the long run, but unifying them for now helps with that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
See previous merge debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind putting the proposed code in the sandbox? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done in sandbox. Editprotected reinstated. Dendodge T\C 21:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Made a couple of changes:

  • I'm not convinced of the need for or the wisdom in supporting another parameter from Album when Album would seem to do the job perfectly well.
  • Perhaps it looks better in the same cell as the artist?

What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of from Album—I copied it directly from infobox single, but don't think it would matter if we were to delete it. I think it looks better in the same cell as the artist, which is how it used to be in infobox single, though that changed recently—I don't know whether or not it was discussed. Dendodge T\C 13:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 Implemented — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Extra line / install sandbox

{{editprotected}} I've edited the sandbox version to remove an extra blank line that follows the prev/next songs track list. (See Template:Infobox song/testcases)

Can someone install it please? — John Cardinal (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Keith D (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Writer credit

I've got a question about the use of the writer (and associated) fields, but I asked it on the Infobox single page. Please see Template_talk:Infobox_single#Writer_field. Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility improvement for alt text

{{editprotected}} For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, please install this simple sandbox patch. It adds an |Alt= parameter for alt text as per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. {{Infobox album}} already has this parameter, with the same name. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing fields

Cover, etc. I was bold and removed the fields Cover, Caption, Alt, and Border from the documentation (but not the template itself), since non-singles have no cover to put in this field. In years past, the cover to the album on which the song was (first) featured was used, but it was long ago decided that this did not constitute fair use. If the song has a cover, that means it has been released as a single, therefore {{Infobox Single}} is appropriate. In cases where some other image is used (e.g. sheet music or the record itself), these images can be easily integrated into the text of the article, as they are not "covers" for the songs.

Please note that these fields still work in transclusions that have them, but removing them from the documentation discourages further implementation. If other users agree with me about the superfluousness of this field, then instances of its use can be fixed and the field deleted from the template itself.

I would be happy to get feedback from other users on retaining or deleting these fields. (Note: previous discussion in 2007 and 2009.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - There may be cases where images has been put in the public domain, and so WP fair use policy doesn't apply. I doubt this happens often, but it's possible. — John Cardinal (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    John, you make a good point here. Justin, you identified a few such cases yourself. For "America the Beautiful" I would say that the image could be moved out of the infobox as it doesn't really illustrate the song but rather a monument about the song (a bit like if the infobox in John Lennon contained an image of the memorial in Central Park). "Air and Simple Gifts" is more tricky as it's unclear from the lead sentence if the article is about the song or the quartet that performed it. Reading further I understand that it is actually about the classical composition (i.e. the song) so I guess the image does not need to be in the infobox. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that I still support your proposal, you just have to be careful not to lose content, i.e. you have to assure that all free images are moved out of the infobox before those fields are removed from the template itself. – IbLeo(talk) 17:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More

Addendum There are currently 1,516 transclusions of this template. Looking through 150, here is what I did to instances of the Cover field:
As you can see, most instances were inappropriate in the first place. Until/if this gets merged with {{Infobox single}}, there is simply no reason for this field as far as I can see and it causes more harm than good (more than one of the album covers I removed was redundant to a file for the album itself as well.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Addendum 2 Including the redirects {{Song infobox}} and {{Infobox Song}}, there are 2,517 transclusions. More uses: Athiradee, Balleilakka, Style (2007 song), Vaaji Vaaji, and Sahana (song) (I'm not sure what is going on here). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Addendum 3
Removals: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]
Should be converted to {{Infobox Single}} (some are promo singles): Ain't My Bitch, Better than You (Metallica song), Bodysnatchers (song), Box of Secrets (song), Brand New Key, Caramelldansen, Change (Taylor Swift song), Chelsea (song), Close to the Edge (song), Cold World (song), Counting 5-4-3-2-1, Cowbell (song), Death Letter
Other: Bāng Chhun-hong (record), Battle for the Sun (song) (???), Bird Flu (song) (iTunes cover--was this a single?), Classico (still from music video), Close but No Cigar (song) (still from music video)
Again, most song articles don't use this field and among those that do, most of them are incorrectly using album covers. Several should be converted to singles, most of the remainder have images that can easily be integrated into the text or deleted outright (e.g. some of these music video captures are probably invalid fair-use rationales.) There are 1,997 left to review, which I can do later. I will also convert the songs to singles if you want. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious. How did you determine that the article was about a single rather than a song? From the article text? — John Cardinal (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know also. There has been some discussion on this over as WP:SONGS. Many editors have quite contradictory ideas of what makes a single. SunCreator (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Singles Some cases (e.g.) explicitly mention it in the text. In other cases, the simple fact that there is a cover for a release of that song shows that it was a single—either commercially or promotionally—in a few cases (as noted above) I really don't know what to make of the song/release or what it's "cover" even signifies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Update 1,400 transclusions left. I have found the following:

Removals: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]
Left alone: Día Especial (apparently a single cover), Friday's Child (1965 song) (record label), Hajde da ludujemo (album cover, album has no article), He (song) (sheet music), I Got a Crush... on Obama (music video still), I Gotta Get Out of This Town (record label), Sugar Town (record label), This Town (record label), Just Bummin' Around (record label), Things (1962 song) (record label), I Love You Truly (two sheet musics), I Saw the Light (Hank Williams song) (possibly a compilation album cover), In Spite of All the Danger (record label), In the Good Old Summer Time (sheet music)
Note that many of these record labels are the same generic picture; they are not specific to these records
Converted to singles: [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95]
Again, in most cases, the field is unused. When it is used, it is often for an album cover or sometimes a placeholder image. Amongst the rest of the articles, there are generic record labels, articles to be converted to singles (many of them explicitly state they are singles, have track listings, etc.), and a handful are ambiguous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Umm, I'm getting a little nervous. Are you trying to eliminate the use of Infobox song? If so, I oppose that. There are plenty of notable songs that were notable and never released as singles. There are other songs that were notable as songs and were later released as singles. Infobox song should be used om those cases. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No Of course not; I've left it in thousands of song articles and with good reason. There are notable songs that are not singles (e.g. America the Beautiful or Maple Leaf Rag). All I'm trying to do is what I said before: delete useless or inappropriate instances of Cover and have a discussion about the few remaining instances and whether or not they justify the existence of this field (and its related ones.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Got to say, while well intended, I'm quite unsure of the changes. Tell me how Here to Stay (Christina Aguilera song) is a single? SunCreator (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Single It says explicitly in the text that it's a single and has a track listing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It says Promotional single. I was under the impression(from reading posts by other editors) that promos where not singles, the lead on the article itself doesn't say its a single but calls it a track. SunCreator (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Promos All I can say is that {{Infobox single}} doesn't say anything in its documentation about excluding promotional singles and promo singles are just that—promo singles. They don't serve the function of being a commercial release, like most singles do, but they do serve the function of promoting an album, like many singles do. In point of fact, this release is a more classic example of a "single" than most contemporary single releases, as it has one "A-side" and one "B-side". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Overview of the use of Cover

Statistics From what I can tell, there are 2,901 transclusions of {{Infobox song}} (including {{Infobox Song}} and {{Song infobox}}). Of these:

  • 259 (8.93%) used the Cover field prior to me reviewing them (not that several also have album covers that have been commented out)
  • 193 (6.65%) were amended by me:
    • 111 (3.83%) had either the album cover or a placeholder image (almost all of them were the album cover), which I removed
    • 78 (2.69%) were converted into single infoboxes based on the presence of tracklistings or explicit references in the text to the song be released as a single.
    • 4 (0.14%) were redirected to the album article.
  • 67 (2.31%) were left alone, because I wasn't sure what to do with the image (see below):

Breakdown:

Removal: [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124]. [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206]
Conversion: [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250] (sort of), [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284]
Redirects to album: [285], [286], [287], [288]
Left alone: Ain't My Bitch, Air and Simple Gifts, America the Beautiful, Angel of Death (song), Athiradee, Balleilakka, Better than You (Metallica song), Bodysnatchers (song), Box of Secrets (song), Brand New Key, Caramelldansen, Change (Taylor Swift song), Chelsea (song), Close to the Edge (song), Cold World (song), Counting 5-4-3-2-1, Cowbell (song), Death Letter, Bāng Chhun-hong, Battle for the Sun (song), Bird Flu (song), Classico, Close but No Cigar (song), Día Especial, Friday's Child (1965 song), Hajde da ludujemo, He (song), I Got a Crush... on Obama, I Gotta Get Out of This Town, Just Bummin' Around, I Love You Truly, I Saw the Light (Hank Williams song), In Spite of All the Danger, In the Good Old Summer Time, Love You I Do, Miss You (Feeder song), Nellie Dean, Mule Skinner Blues, Not a Criminal, On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away, Peace of Mind/The Candle Burns, Piyu Bole, Polly (song), Precious Love (The Onset song), Put Your Hand in the Hand, R U Professional, Sahana (song), Sea of Love (song), See You in My Nightmares, Sing, Sing, Sing (With a Swing), Sleep Walk, Sugar Town, Stars and Stripes Forever, Stephen, Stephen, Style (2007 song), The Lightning Strike, The Look of Love (1967 song), The Pink Panther Theme, These Days (Powderfinger song), Things (1962 song), This Town, Transit of Venus March, Vaaji Vaaji, Waterboy (song), We Are the Winners, What What (In the Butt)

Of these 67 uses, here is what I can surmise from the function of Cover:

Please feel free to amend my numbers if you notice that I've done something wrong here.

Apparently, out of almost 3,000 translcusions, only 30 use this field for something that is appropriate and several of them may not be as well—generic record labels, screen shots from films without valid FURs, etc. It seems pretty clear to me from this data that the Cover field is essentially useless. In the 0.1% of articles where it is used in some valid and reasonable way, the images can be easily moved from the infobox to the text. Consequently, I remain convinced that Cover, Caption, Alt, and Border should be deleted from the template because they are virtually unused and when used, they are overwhelmingly used in an inappropriate manner. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the work you've done is valuable, but I wouldn't bother removing the Cover parameter from the template. I am in the process of wqriting a proposal and a new template to merge Infobox song and Infobox single, and removing the parameter would be busy work that would be undone by the merge. The merged template can enforce a rule to ignore cover parameters when used for songs, if we agree that's the way to go. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_song/Archive_2&oldid=803281111"