Template talk:Infobox single/Archive 1

message: what is the point in the "Professional Reviews" section for a single infobox.  99% of singles on Wiki do not have any - it just looks stupid!  Deano 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: How do I remove the "From Album" line? I want to add the infobox to Rock Around the Clock and other singles from the 1950s that were originally issued as standalones. 23skidoo 04:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you either need a separate template, or make a table out of this then remove the "from album" line. (you can do this by putting subst: in front of "Template:<something>"." -- WB 05:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Recorded and From Album are now optional parameters. So just leave it empty. KittenKlub 15:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Reviews are optional as well. The argument above is not correct. I've tried looking for reviews and there are none in many cases. And AllMusic is oriented to the US. In general old singles and non-US singles do not have an online review anymore. KittenKlub 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't figure a nice way to hide the extra column without going into extremely difficult coding, a parameter NoReviews has been added to hide the "Professional Review" column. KittenKlub 16:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed that "NoReviews" requirement, while retaining Reviews as optional.  If "Reviews" is blank or not defined, the header and the cell won't appear. -- Netoholic @ 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But you can never put Reviews in the hiddenstructure. That is the issue. I saw the bug myself and if it is in there and there are reviews, they'll show three times two of which in the main document, because excess HTML is generated. So Reviews can never be used as a parameter, because it simply breaks pages with its HTML content. So if you don't want to use boolnot, I'll put in the code from boolnot. Nevertheless the only alternative is the #if define, but that's very complex and I don't like to experiment with that given the fact that there are 100s of pages using this template. KittenKlub 00:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What about standalone singles?

message: I have revised the usage instructions, but the change is very subtle: if you put in too many pipe "|" symbols, thus creating an empty parameter, you get an unsightly pair of quotes ("") appearing in the article, usually right at the top just above the introductory paragraph.
I am busy trying to get to all the client articles to fix them, but if you have a copy of the blank template stashed away for quick cut/pasting, fix it now.
HTH HAND Phil | Talk 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised usage instructions 

message: Was attempted to transclude the doc on this template like I did on Template:Infobox musical artist and it doesn't work quite right as the <noinclude> tags in the template itself mess up the formatting. It looks like an attempt to make the template generate an example when the page is viewed, which seems wasteful in a template that's transcluded in so many places.  Is there another purpose? If there's no objections I'm going to removing those tags within the template.   *Spark* 13:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noinclude in the template?? 

message: Is there any reason a single's name is put in quotes as opposed to the Template:Infobox Album where it is not? And if this detail is up for discussion, I'd suggest to drop the quotes for the singles template. - Cyrus XIII 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this, album titles are to be italiced, while single and song titles should be quoted. Both WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Songs "inherit" these recommendations. -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Thanks for the heads-up. - Cyrus XIII 08:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes around name 

message: Could somebody take a look at Don't Give Up (Chicane song) and see why the filename I provided as the infobox's "Cover" argument doesn't display, but works when used in ? This is entirely beyond me, I'm afraid. –Unint 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed now.  It appears that (at least for that infobox section) you have to use the code for apostrophe, %27, for it to read correctly.  Thus, "Chicane featuring Bryan Adams Don%27t Give Up single cover.jpg" works, where as "Chicane featuring Bryan Adams Don't Give Up single cover.jpg" doesn't.  Not sure why.  I've removed the second album cover from the bottom. -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover display problem 

message: can the background color be changed?? that yellow is really horrible Armando (talk|contribs) 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you suggest changing it to?  Bearing in mind it cannot clash with any of the colours used by .  DJR (T) 18:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to "khaki", remember that the colors of  is about to change, so we might have to change it to something else later. →AzaToth 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Khaki looks much better than the previous bright yellow. The JPStalk to me 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I agree - much better.  DJR (T) 17:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  colour 

message: So, which was the last version before the template broke? -- ReyBrujo 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, was trying to figure that out myself.  Tons of articles screwed up now. -- eo 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried every revision back to may 21, and nothing worked... there must be an adational problem elsewhere--T-rex 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: appears to have now been fixed --T-rex 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a purge link in the article, and probably an inlined example so that modifications to the template can be checked immediately for backwards compatibility. -- ReyBrujo 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken template 

message: I propose that the next and previous singles on the bottom of the template be reduced in size using the method in the Album template.  I believe it looks a little more elegant. Tertiary7 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on that one...  Cheers, Ian Rose 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I just doesn't look good the way it is. --Kristbg 04:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. --Mal 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller prev and next singles 

message: A lot of them can be found at Special:Whatlinkshere/Songwriters and Special:Whatlinkshere/Single Certifications. Extraordinary Machine 19:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles using syntax instead of the infobox 

message: 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  and its buddies ,  and  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Reviews belong in the article, surely 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Certification field 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Name field now optional