Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 9 August 11 >

August 10 edit

Template:Phoenicians edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phoenicians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently unused. Looks rather rudimentary. GregorB (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Digimon edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Digimon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as orphaned. Template:WikiProject DIGI is the redirect, BTW. Airplaneman ✈ 19:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as orphaned. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • move/archive as a subpage of WP:DIGI's work group pages. The Todo list, which got lost in the cleanup shuffle, should at least be saved. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assumed someone had moved the original to-do list to the template space, but it looks like they just copied it. The original to-do list still remains (unchanged from the one in this template) on the WP:DIGI subpage. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Stars edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Rating}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Brisbane City Council ferry routes edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brisbane City Council ferry routes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. d'oh! talk 12:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - used where ;)? I see that it is orphaned, so… Airplaneman ✈ 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why you don't edit while tried. :P d'oh! talk 05:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HSC Merit List Mentions edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HSC Merit List Mentions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Un-sourced academic data, that even the creator accepts he does not know the source for. Codf1977 (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Templates Infobox song + Infobox single edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. I think part of the issue here is not that people don't believe there is a difference between a song and a single but that the infoboxes themselves don't do a very good job of differentiating. That may be the next step. JPG-GR (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox song (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox single (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Proposal edit

Propose merging Template:Infobox song with Template:Infobox single.
There is clear overlap between these two infoboxes; they are used interchangeably and there is no clear guideline as to when one should be used over the other. Previous discussions asking for these two infoboxes to be merged have elicited general support. However, no subsequent action has been taken. I'm therefore listing them here to elicit wider discussion of how they should be merged and what features we want in the final template; and to ensure that it actually happens. I'm particularly taken with this proposal. It may be that the best solution is to create a brand new infobox (bearing in mind that not all popular pieces of music are songs; some are instrumentals), then replace all instances of the old boxes with that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey edit
  • Agree they need rationalizing - and the conversation Andy cites has now gone further in a subsequent discussion at WikiProject Songs, resulting in a mock-up of a Song infobox that incorporates zero or more Song Release infoboxes. Crude mock-up only, to explore the principle; cosmetics not yet addressed, pending further discussion in that thread. PL290 (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That looks promising, but I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned on the two template talk pages (at least, not visibly, under the prior discussion). I'll be happy to close this TfM if that's done, and discussion continues on the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion seems to come up from time to time in different places, initially provoking interest and support but then fizzling out each time. When it came up on the wikiproject page I was pleased to see it appear again, but there's been very little input there. I hope your post here will help generate wider awareness. This has failed to get off the ground for quite a while now, and something needs to happen to change that, since there's no opposition as far as I know. PL290 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This should have happened a long time ago; this is a perennial proposal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support It is very important to differentiate between a single, a physical release destined for Singles chart (regardless whether successful in hitting the charts or not) and a song on an album or CD never released as a single. We can unify the contents of the infobox, but there should be a box in this unified form (an obligatory choice that the editor has to tick for the infobox to appear) where the editor should tick "single" or "song". Or else the infobox edit reminds him to do so.... We don't want a single to be generalised as a song, and we don't want an album song to be dubbed "a single". The bottom of the matter is a single should not be watered down to a "song". If this will be the result of the unified infobox, I would be against and let us keep both "single infobox" and "song infobox" werldwayd (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support, I strongly agree with Werldwayd. Singles and songs are two different things and should be indicated as such on their respective articles and boxes. If the infoboxes are merged, there should still be a way to distinguish between the two. Perhaps create a field similar to WP:ALBUM#Type? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have notified the Music, Albums, and Songs projects of this discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Fezmar9, basically. Airplaneman ✈ 18:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, logical solution to avoid confusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support as per werldwayd and Fezmar9 (see above). If the two are to be merged, we still need some way of differentiating between a song that was released as a single, with the intention/possibility of reaching the singles charts, and an album track that has become notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. The terms "single" and "song" should not be interchangeable on Wikipedia and if this is what is being proposed with this combined infobox, then I oppose the merge. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think rather than unite the two templates. you should combine the singles template with the albums template, anyway a "single" is an album or a discography or a release. a song is only part of it. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single is not actually a whole album. —fetch·comms 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Forgive me if I'm oversimplfying it, but just add a param to a combined infobox asking song or single, and then have the params work the same. —fetch·comms 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I feel sure I commented on this months/years ago and my feelings have not changed. As mentioned above, one infobox, but being able to easily distinguish therein between album track, song, instrumental, whatever and a genuine single release. Also, to save me commenting again in the future, can this seemingly groundswell of goodwill actually effect a change, before the well meaning and surely all embracing Wiki committee turns the racehorse into a camel - again. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support and questioning why they were ever seperate in the first place. A single is always a song but a song is never always a single. Song should be the default template. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A single is always a song" <-- but what about the fact that "singles" are often embodied in a disc containing several songs (B-sides, bonus tracks, etc. - see Boom Boom Pow#Track listing for example) –xenotalk 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Strongly agree with the points above. Never understood seperate ones for the reasons that were given.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—This nomination requires clarification, per Lil-unique1's statement. I would support merging single into song, but non vice versa. The wording of the nomination implies the final template will be called Infobox single.—RJH (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No such meaning is implied or intended. The proposal says "merging with" not "merging into". The name of the final template is one of the items open for discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only if the single template is merged to the song template. Lil-unique1's comments make much sense. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, not all songs were recorded as "singles". What about the folk songs? Are they now would be qualified as singles? What about military cadences? Are they also being categorized as singles? I agree with Legolas to merge single into song. Single is a technical term for recorded songs (as oppose to albums) and very ambiguous. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal is for one box, for songs, with an optional component if that song has been released as a single. How does this not meet your requirements? What is your alternative proposal; or how do you think the existing infoboxes should be used? Furthermore, by saying "I agree… to merge single into song", you are supporting, not opposing, the proposal. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This confusion may be borne of the way the nom was worded "Propose merging Template:Infobox song with Template:Infobox single." <-- It may be read as suggesting song should be folded into single. It should probably be more explicit and say "Proposed merging of Infobox single into Infobox song, leaving the former as a redirect" (if that is what is proposed, or "...into one template with the name to be determined"). –xenotalk 13:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support conditionally as per werldwayd's suggestion for single/song parameter. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger in whatever form is decided as best. Addressing a comment above, when I think of a "single" I usually thing of a small compilation of 2-4 songs, most of which are variations and remixes of the same song placed together in one package. "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" was released as a single by Madonna with a full length dance mix, two shorter version dance mixes (English and "Splanglish") and the original album version. I have other singles named for a title song with 2-3 different songs on the disc, usually alternate versions of other songs from the album. In that context, the "single" is just a smaller version of an album, albeit with a more limited focus. If a "single" is one song released in a separate format from its album, then it's no different than a song in any other context. I suppose under both lines of thinking, Infobox single could be merged to either Infobox album or Infobox song, based on the premise of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, we would have, say, {{Infobox record}} (as a merger of {{Infobox album}} and {{Infobox single}}) and {{Infobox song}}. Which would still leave us with the dilemma of when to use one, and when to use the other, for a song which has been released as a single. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge as presented. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per werldwayd and Fezmar9 above. Cavie78 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Upon further investigation, this would make the template more complicated (never a good thing) and in the end we will end up with one bad template instead of two good ones. Also, the merged template (I believe) would complicate articles that include multiple covers of the same song, or songs that have various recordings of the same song (eg. We Are the World). There is nothing virtuous in and of itself to have fewer templates, unless having fewer templates would make things simpler and more intuitive.Support per PL290's proposal mentioned by the nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose It will be very hard to differentiate between singles and songs anymore with this? What about the info in the single template? will that just be "merged" into the regular song template as well?--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain how the current situation where the two infoboxes are used interchangeably, allows us to "differentiate between singles and songs ". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per White Shadows' comment. Also it seems as though generally, articles with a "Single" infobox contain a "Track listing" section, while "Song" infoboxes do not. I don't see a point in doing it anyway... CrowzRSA 23:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support The merged template should have a "type" field like the album infobox or a "single=y" value.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support Another matter that should be tackled is full accomodataton for "double A side" singles, singles with two successful songs at the same time. A "song" doesn't have this complexity as in "songs" we would have had two separate pages for the two songs concerned, whereas in "double A side singles" pages, we would have one infobox for the two songs concurrently. werldwayd (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have any articles about double A side singles? Can you give an example, please, so we can see what might be involved? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is one for example. Bonnie Raitte released a song in 1991 called I Can't Make You Love Me. In 1997, George Michael released the double A side single Older / I Can't Make You Love Me where the B side was the same song as that of Bonnie Raitte. Thus the need for a new joint infobox despite the song already having an infobox. Of course, it may happen that both songs are originals and yet they will get one infobox rather than two separate infoboxes as songs. E.g. S Club 7 Two in a Million/You're My Number One I believe we should give consideration to Double A Side singles within the unified infobox form, and whether they will get two separate "infobox song"s or just one unified "double A side infobox" treatment and how to fill in the info in such a casewerldwayd (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment: is there ever going to be an infobox/parameter for orchestral pieces (viz. classical music)? Evidently there's no need for one, but I don't see why there can't be. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nay No Nopes Nada Colour difference between song and single, track listing vs singles chronology, none vs option for cover art, none vs format of release, and well once could list off other variations that if all combined would result in one massive template with so many options. Should the template for all the variations of albums (studio, live, greatest hits, soundtrack, etc.) be merged into one big template for all musical releases? That would be the next step in this logic. They do not exist to be used interchangeably. Those that do so really should not be editing such articles. All singles are songs. Dah. All songs are not released as singles. This isn't difficult, complicated, or hard to comprehend. A charting non-single is still a song and calls for such infobox. Careless misuse of templates at random has created a mess here and there. Changing the template in use where it is wrong is what is called for, not this nonsense. Thanks for putting the tag on scores of thousands of pages though, as that makes it really hard to miss this foolish proposal. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A number of editors, including myself, are supporting the merge conditionally providing there is a parameter to indicate whether the subject is a song or a single. Similarly, Template:Infobox musical artist has a number of fields that only apply to individual musicians (birth, death, occupation, notable instruments, birth name) however the same infobox is also used for groups and bands. Would you still oppose if such system were implemented to a unified song/single infobox? Fezmar9 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good for you and another optional paramater or six. I think you have hit on my reason for oppose and at the same time completely missed my point. Have you found many instances of the birth and death being used for the formation and break up of the band -- "birth of the band" -- and not thought that it was an amusing but completely wrong use of the field? If you think it is bad with song & single to the point of proposing song/single just wait until it ends up being song/single/album/ep because it will be proposed. I might do so in contempt. It is more likely that someone else will do so in seriousness before i think to do it in protest. People will argue that there is not much difference between a single and an EP and so they should be merged. Then you end up with one massive template that is so cumbersome to use that misuse runs rampant, even among those who swear they used to know how it worked and never had issue with it two years ago.
        If you think it is bad now, with some people using the wrong infoxbox then wait until people can't tell the difference between singles chronology and album track listing and list in the wrong fields. Unlike all of the other now-merged music release infboxes these two do have some significant differences that are not so compatible. It would really be better to fix the misuses and probably clean up the likely poorly written documentation. Now there are people all over this section supporting a proposal to to cater to the lowest common denominator of intelligent thought while not really realising some of the most obvious issues that will be created are actually just as if not worse than what they are seeking to guard against. People here claiming to not know what is a single and what is a song are either ill-informed or making poor attempts at devil's advocating. This is a really simple case of some better instructions being written and fixing a relative handful of articles but noone wants to do that; instead people want to further break what is easily fixed for something that is more breakable than what now is. I would honestly rather drop all music from my watchlist and entirely abandon what brought me to WP in the first place, indie music, than ever deal with the fallout from this foolish proposal. Oppose per nom and most every other comment. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 20:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't "oppose per nom"; the nomination is to merge. If you think "this is a really simple case of some better instructions being written", why haven't you, or why don't you do so? Why has no-one else? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Methinks i did "oppose per nom" so i guess one can do so, just as many will vote the other way with the like statement. It isn't the first time i have voted as such. It is a statement of sheer, absolute rejection of the proposal. Considering the proposal states that there is no proper use for either (just plain wrong and ignorant) and assumes merge/creation of new overriding template to be a forgone conclusion i most certainly oppose per nom.
            If you think misuse is a problem now just wait until people type in the wrong word into the proposed template and then fill it out making hack use of the wrong fields. Cleaning up those messes won't be any easier than dealing with those currently in a state of misuse. The proposed merge actually makes it easier to make mistakes. The most obvious hint to anyone unsure if they have the correct template is the lack/presense of a singles chronology field or cover art. Then there is the simple matter that in all of my reading of new music releases in the last year or so i have not found one instance of needing to switch to the correct template. If this really is a problem then it is being resolved quite promptly and this is just unnecessary. If this were the merging of variations of albums being discussed (it already is so) then i would be most in favour of that for the overwhelming commonalities. Such is not the case with these templates and their subject matter. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You did indeed say that you "oppose per nom"; but you cannot do so, because "per" means "in agreement with". You offer no evidence or reasoning to support your assertion that "people [will] type in the wrong word into the proposed template and then fill it out making hack use of the wrong fields"; and you have not answered my questions about writing clearer guidelines. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well we have a very different understanding of "per". You say "in agreement with" and i say "because of" or "according to". I still oppose per your nomination. My only assertion is that you proposed this because you claim there is evidence of misuse of the two individual templates and the proposal actually makes it easier to be uncertain which to use.
                Another reason for opposing is that if anything the single template should be merged into the other release formats' template and leave song on its own. This proposal has at its core the perpetuation of the concern you claim exists.
                As to clearer guidelines, i really feel they are not necessary. One should know enough about that which they wish to contribute to not need to be instructed in such base things. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                Actually, there are two proofs of confusion about the two templates. The first that you proposed merging them when they are different. A song is just that. A single is a type of release, just like a greatest hits album or a soundtrack or an EP. The second is that you have so many supporting the proposal. In short this proposal itself is the proof of the confusion. Merge single into the other release formats instead of into song and the confusion would be resolved. However that would require the renaming of the template if one wants to be really picky since a single is not an album but otherwise contains the same template formatting for the infobox. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the two templates were merged and had one unified article documenting their intended use and explicitly stating what a song and single are, how would that have a negative impact on this situation from where it is now? The editors with new accounts and the IPs will still indiscriminately copy and paste the infobox around just like before, but more active and experienced editors would now have a more clear guideline. And there would be a place to point out fault to editors that are unfamiliar with the difference. Also, in response to your earlier comment, in my 3+ years of editing I have never once encountered a musician infobox with inappropriate fields being used. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • If someone editing here needs to be explicitly told what a song is versus what a single is then they really need to gain some basic understanding of that which they wish to edit, be they otherwise experienced contributors or probies. You propose a situation where consensus will determine what constitutes a single. WP using consensus to dictate to the real world what is and what isn't something should never be the case.
                That is part of my point. I don't see the misuse of the templates as they presently exist. This appears to be nothing more than a manufactured concern. As such it warrants nothing more than hypothetical counter evidence of equal believability. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Admachina (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is promoted or whatever, how will we change the THOUSANDS of song articles from infobox single/song to how you have proposed? CrowzRSA 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: A single and a song are conceptually different things. A single is form of release, often with multiple tracks, while a song is a single composition. They are simply not the same thing. - BalthCat (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But the article would be about the single's song. The track list for the single would be included in the article. So the infobox would just be about the song. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (, but)... Although I think this is a solution in search of a problem (a single is a single, everything else is a song), if the merge is going to be done, it should be done right since, as User:Deliriousandlost notes above "these two do have some significant differences that are not so compatible". The experiment at User:PL290's "You've Really Got a Hold on Me" article is a start but care needs to be taken that singles and non-singles are clearly differentiated. The sub-templates should not all read "Song release by..." as this is a bit vague. And I worry the result of all of this will be a massive, bloated template that scares off all but a small circle of editors. — AjaxSmack 03:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per White Shadows' comments. Candyo32 03:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment to any opposing - Some of those giving reasons to oppose appear not to have read and understood the proposal. It is not the "merge" it might be assumed to be on the surface. Please ensure your response addresses the proposal rather than reacting to the word "merge". Thanks. PL290 (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed - and will those opposing please state how else they think the current confusion and duplication between the two templates can be resolved? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure how there's any confusion about usage. If it is a single, use the single template, if it was not released as a single, use the song template. And in what way is the duplication a problem? That was not actually explained. - BalthCat (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really surprising that the "actual proposal" was missed, because the nom didn't feel it was important enough to the discussion to actually elaborate on in the nom itself. It comes across as "There's general support, lets talk about it." Those who don't support it aren't going to bother exploring old (and ultimately 'unproductive') discussions and one linked suggestion for a problem they don't have reason to believe exists. In reference to your experimental page, it introduces numerous problems trying to solve an issue I still don't believe exists. (Try applying your template to Gloomy Sunday and figuring out how to work out the hierarchy.) - BalthCat (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to have overlooked the wording in the nomination, which is "I'm therefore listing them here to elicit wider discussion of how they should be merged and what features we want in the final template". HTH. Gloomy Sunday is clearly an article about a song, not a single. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I read it, but I don't feel there's much sense in merging it. I'm not reading archived discussions of the issue; the onus is on you to convince me. If you aren't going to summarise the good reason to do so, in a compelling way, it's not my error as User:PL290 is implying. And while Gloomy Sunday is indeed a song, it contains singles within it. The demonstration article commits a grievous hierarchical error by putting the song and its original performer and original genre as a super-quality of the individual songs. Gloomy Sunday is a wonderful example because there are multiple genres and "forks" of covering. Billie Holiday sang one English translation, Diamanda Galas covered another. Serge Gainsbourg and Damia interpreted a French translation. Who is covering whom? You almost have to default to considering the song not by performer but by composer. A super-box is a bad idea, and what exists now is fine. All the errors you list below are just that, errors, not cause to revamp anything. - BalthCat (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the overlapping usage of the two existing infoboxes just causes confusion for folks who are actively involved in The Albums Project and Songs Project. A song is a song and if it one happened to be released as a single, that can be noted in the article text. If there is a problem with a singles release chronology, that is another thing that tends to overlap with yet a third type of infobox - the Album infobox. However, the "conditional supporters" here have an excellent point that should definitely be considered. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose- im going to oppose because it really isnt that hard of a concept to grasp. Song template is a song that became notable but wasnt released as a single (no radio release or digital download/physical release). Single is used when its a single. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If only it where that simple! In practice both of your definitions are incorrect. Notable songs are often called singles by the media, meaning that major references are available to contradict rational attempts to keep a song as a song. While on Singles the reverse it true, when none popular single have no source to confirm then are actually singles. Also this definition varies by country, something can correctly be a single in only one country of the world and be a song in all the rest - and every variation in between. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If only the media knew what they were talking about! Honestly, just because a bloody major reference can't use a word properly is no excuse to perpetuate a mistake. References, reliable or not, can be absolutely wrong. That is what a retraction is for. Petty things like use of single instead of song get scoffed at if one called for a retraction. If that is the foundation for this proposal then no wonder the proposal exists. Hello, common sense! delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 03:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; Straight, No Chaser- As per Lakeshade's comment. Just no point in it. -Leodmacleod (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per White Shadows and CrowzRSA's comments. Blackjays1 (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Creating a single template with a parameter to switch between single and song will only confuse even further the difference between the two. The solution here is proper documentation of each template to explain and differentiate their uses, certainly not to merge to inopposite things together in one. It's like suggesting a cow template be merged with a steak template. I understand there are many similarities between single and song (like there are between cow and steak) but the desire for simplification does not outweigh the need for clarity and accuracy. --Bsherr (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - A necessary first step to clean up the vandalism and confusion that reigns. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - All songs that use that infobox song that are not singles. Will have to use a singles infobox when they're not singles. It's ridiculous. Jayy008 (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is proposing to force the use of a singles infobox onto articles not about singles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment So what will be used for songs then? Jayy008 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The currently preferred option is to have a 'song' infobox, with parameters to record occasions where the song has appeared on a single. Edge cases (double-A-sides, etc) remain to be catered for. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I strongly oppose this merge. A single is not just a song. There might be less of a distinction currently (what with most tracks available for purchase individually with the possibility of making the singles chart) and there may be increasing problems in defining what constitutes a single, but that does not undo 60+ years of a 'single' being a totally distinct concept to 'song'. Whatever 'misuse' there is now, there will inevitably be with any merged box (and as has been stated - it will probably be more likely). Also, as has been stated, if anything, it should be considered to merge Single, EP, Album etc (they are essentially comparable concepts) but that wouldn't stop the 'problem' cited here of multiple infoboxes. Could I also say that the proposed example User:PL290/Sandbox/Song article with 'song release' boxes is ugly and much less clear and informative than it would have been had they been more easily differentiated as which versions were singles, album tracks etc. It is significant if a version of a song was released as a single or just used on an album. Imagine the amount of 'song release' boxes you could end up getting for popular songs! Anyway, I'm getting off topic - basically these boxes should not be merged because they serve a different purpose and the concept of a 'single' is entirely distinct from that of a 'song'. This merge and the proposed 'song release' layout serve to basically eradicate the concept and significance of a 'single' from Wikipedia. In the real world, and in countless reliable sources (which Wikipedia is meant to reflect), singles and songs are not one and the same. Even if the article is about the song, one or more single infoboxes are perfectly acceptable - the alternative would be to have separate articles for each version of a song which would be ridiculous (and they would be proposed for merging pretty soon!). --Retro junkie (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the proposed example User:PL290/Sandbox/Song article with 'song release' boxes is ugly and much less clear and informative than it would have been had they been more easily differentiated" - Yes; and PL290 explicitly states in the linked discussion that it's a proof of (technical) concept, with cosmetic presentation still to be addressed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not judging it as a finished article but the concept is ugly - boxes within a box are ugly. Also, the point of infoboxes having different colours is so that they are instantly identifiable. It is not obvious looking at that which versions were singles or album tracks etc. Also, it doesn't solve anything - the boxes within a box don't really save space (if that was an issue). It also shows how actually, the idea of a 'song' infobox is pretty pointless - the only constants are the writer and year first published. That example has genre but this is heavily dependant on the recording (as seen by the different versions of that song!). Basically, as has already been said, the problem is not with the infoboxes themselves as the way people are using them. It could be a rule that for example, the writer (or any other common information) is only in the first infobox.--Retro junkie (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, you didn't reply to the other point - It doesn't matter if the article is about the song but has 'single' infoboxes. Seriously - this is NOT a duality. This is NOT something that needs fixing. It makes sense for there being one article for a song that details each notable version. The alternative to this is a separate article for each recording of a song which is both ridiculous and would never stand without people proposing (rightly) that they are merged. The infoboxes are an important tool for navigating around Wikipedia, for example, if you are reading about every Beatles single, in chronological order, you need to follow the links in the infoboxes. So, any version that is notable enough, does need its own infobox. Most information is unique to that box and that which is repeated could easily be removed. Also, even if there is only one 'single' box but the article begins "X is a song" - that is NOT a problem. That is absolutely fine. Just because it is a single, doesn't stop it being a song! Usually a single infobox is all that is needed for a particular version of the song (that was released as a single) - it links to the album, more than one running time can be added etc. It works well. Of the examples you have below, they do tend to be exceptions. The Beatles tend to crop up in most of them - The Beatles are a bit of a unique case in that the sheer level of interest in them makes virtually all of their recordings notable. This is not a widespread problem. Also, the 'B-sides' using the 'single' infobox problem - this is a problem but all it needs is a 'B side Yes/No' parameter in the single infobox to differentiate. The vast vast majority of B-sides are not notable enough to warrant an article of their own (again, The Beatles are a major exception).--Retro junkie (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ack, that mock-up is a nightmare. Boxes within boxes are the definition of bad web design. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sigh. The boxes need not be seen; it's a technical mockup with cosmetic presentation still to be addressed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sigh. You are still ignoring the main gist of the opposition - that there isn't a problem to be 'fixed', and that your examples arte either exceptions that are fine or errors which can already easily be edited. It is not unclear. Generally, if a song was released as a single (and that is the main or a notable version), a 'single' infobox is required. If not, a 'song' box is used (although more acurately it should probably be 'recording' or 'track' as songs themselves don't really require infoboxes (the only possible parameters being writer and year first published). There will always be exceptions to any rule which is where common sense and knowledgeable editors come in. This proposed merge is both unnecessary and a huge backward step in terms of clarity and accuracy of songs and singles on Wikipedia.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support as long as the replacement template still contains the characterisrics of a single and a song. Because in the end, a single is still a song. But, we could still put articles about songs that weren't not released. Please do it immediately.Jonathan329 (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Forks should be avoided. A single is a song. Optional parameters can be created to accommoate any esstial fields relating to a 'single'. The JPStalk to me 10:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, a single contains a featured song and may contain others, especially in a physical release. This is not a forking of templates. This is however a proposal to merge unlike subjects into one template, when there exists, template:infobox album that single, as a release format, could be merged into. Confusion on this is so rampant it triggered this erroneous proposal and runs throughout it. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 03:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose There are parameters on Infobox single, likelength, B-Side, label etc..., that will probably be lost in the merge. These are important aspects of the infobox. I also think that songs and singles need to be differentiated. Thanks, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Review me) 12:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "parameters […] that will probably be lost in the merge": Your evidence for this claim is what, exactly? Have you viewed PL290's draft new template? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The infobox looks incredibly ugly with the "considered for merging" template at the top of it. Esteffect (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support: I think there should be consideration to "downloads only" as in iTunes. This issue should be addressed. "Downloads only" also known as "Digital singles" should be duly identified and addressed werldwayd (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Merge to Infobox Song. --Cosmonaut Kramer (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. A single and song are two different things. More importantly, and more relevant to Wikipedia, a single gets notability through radio play, while a song (particularly a non-single song) can get notability in a variety of ways other than radio play. The difference between the two should be made clear at the beginning of the article... the infobox. Geeky Randy (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As per the aforementioned differences, and also: The convention of digital singles doesn't change the fact that some songs are released as singles. The definiteion becomes somewhat muddy when you refer to a dual a-side single (aka a "double") such as a few of the releases from Powderfinger's second album Internationalist (album) or third album Odyssey Number Five, and almost all singles released by The Beatles were dual a-sides, or single a side whose chart performance was bolstered by the b-side included. The new convention of digital media adds a new perspective to the term, but it doesn't stop songs and singles being separate things. --rm 'w avu 03:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose ~ I really do not like this proposal. Keep them separate. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose As mentioned above, not all songs are singles recorded by the music industry. "Single" refers to a technology that is rapidly becoming obsolete, and does not include Child ballads, most folk songs, soldiers' songs and cadences, art songs (lieder), and probably others as well. Some guidelines would be clear. I would recommend that song refer to sung music, and single refer to music industry marketing . Pustelnik (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I just don't see a good enough reason to do this. A good reason not to do it is that horrible template proposal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Why Why Why Why? You "Support" and "Conditional Support" people are giving me a headache with statements like this from Fezmar9: "A number of editors, including myself, are supporting the merge conditionally providing there is a parameter to indicate whether the subject is a song or a single". Why are you searching for a way to distinguish singles and songs when one already exists? Wikkitywack (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because, as evidenced above and below, Wikipedia has articles which are about songs *and* singles of the same name and - like our sources - conflates the two. As does everyday speech: "I love 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand" [song], so I bought it [single] yesterday". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, no, no. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was released as a Single. It is therefore a Single, first and foremost. "Octopus's Garden", on the other hand (to pick a random Beatles example), is designated as a notable song because it was never released as a Single (notable because it's a frickin' Beatles song and has a fair amount of cover versions). Plain and simple. Singles are released as separate entities. Just because you buy a "single" song from iTunes or something does not make it a Single! Look at the "I Want to Hold Your Hand" article - it's a separate release. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is the Single, "I Saw Her Standing There" is the (American) B-Side. ("This Boy" is the UK B-Side). This is why we have two separate infoboxes! Wikkitywack (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a reader of various single and non-single articles, I've compared both the current setup and the mock-up and I have to conclude that the proposed setup is just plain confusing. Not every "song release" is a single, and singles often have multiple tracks apart from the main song. Sure, the proposal may benefit editors, but Wikipedia is for the readers; making sure that they understand the article, even if they only decide to skim the infobox, is the most important objective. Therefore, I'm going to have to oppose I'm afraid --O (talk • edits) 15:52, 19 August 2010 (GMT)
    • Absolutely. Although I don't think there's any benefit for editors either. Wikkitywack (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - There is already a great deal of conceptual confusion concerning the difference between a "song" – which can exist in many different versions, recorded or not, and has a considerably longer historical existence, including prior to the time when music publication began, or the ability to record music existed – and a "single", which is a physical manifestation of a particular rendition of a song by a particular artist made at a particular time. To combine these two templates merely compounds the confusion, and what we will end up with is a template that is not well-suited for either, or one that is so complex (because of the necessary parameters needed for both things) that it will be unwieldy to use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues edit

On further research, addtional issues become apparent. We have:

  • {{Infobox song}} being used to fulfil two significantly different functions: sometimes it is used to convey information about a song; but very often about a specific recording of a song, often as an album track. Many of the properties (label, producer, even duration) apply to a specific recording, not the song.
  • articles which begin "X is a song", but have {{Infobox single}} (e.g. What a Wonderful World, Lady Madonna).
  • articles which begin "X is a song", but have {{Infobox single}} and which were not singles, but B-sides (e.g. The Inner Light (song).
  • instances of {{Infobox single}} with Eurovision Song Contest data: the single is not entered onto the contest, the song is. Example: Congratulations
  • many articles which have both infoboxes (Back in the U.S.S.R.) with a great deal of redundancy (artist, writer, label - but note label contradiction on Back in the U.S.S.R.).
  • articles (Stalin Wasn't Stallin') which apparently refer to two released singles, one using {{Infobox single}}, the other {{Infobox song}}.
  • articles about frequently-covered songs, whose {{Infobox song}} refers to the the artist who made a specific (often first or most well known) single version (Fly Me to the Moon)
  • {{Infobox single}} on articles which are about many different version of a song (The Long and Winding Road)
  • articles about songs which have been hit singles for more than one artist, but only have one {{Infobox single}}, for one of those artists (The Tears of a Clown).
  • With a Little Help from My Friends has three {{Infobox single}} for three different artists; but also {{Infobox song}} for one of those artists.
  • instances of {{Infobox song}} with references to the running time of a single (Young Lust (song)).

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest I don't think that the argument that songs and singles are fundamentally different things holds much water: a film's plot is not fundamentally a different thing from a film, after all. And the distinction between "single", "EP" and "album" is also rather minor from a semantic point of view. I think a super-merge of the song, single and album infoboxes could be made to work; in the short term, the best way of testing that would probably be to create a new meta-template ({{infobox musical work}}?) and to have the various current templates sub-class it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a profoundly ahistorical viewpoint. Songs existed well before singles ever did, and are simultaneous singular and multiple in nature, while singles are... well ... singular. The two templates deal with two different things, and that fact that they're being misused (if they are) is a matter for some kind of behaviorial corrective, not an argument for merging them.

As an aside, the idea that a film is not fundamentally a different thing than its plot may be true for a certain kind of mainstream film in which straightforward unalloyed story-telling is the primary purpose, but it's not true of any of the great films, almost all of the very good ones, most of the good ones, and a lot of the others, since style, direction, design, casting, the actual words being said (as opposed to the plotline), and all those other artsy-fartsy things do make a major contribution to what makes a film a film. One merely has to look at the vast mahjority of cheaply and quickly-made TV films that re-use the plots of much better theatrically-released films, and are distinctly inferior to them, to see that.Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant songs, whose recording history is non-existent or irrelevant. National anthems, folk songs, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
{{Infobox song}} being used to fulfil two significantly different functions
sometimes it is used to convey information about a song; but very often about a specific recording of a song, often as an album track. Many of the properties (label, producer, even duration) apply to a specific recording, not the song.
The default usage for Infobox song is indeed for any recorded songs that have not been released as a single. This makes perfect sense and is not a duality. It should be used for the most notable version of the song and any other notable versions that would justify an article of their own (even if it would be a pretty short article). As has been noted above, there are very few parameters that apply strictly to the song itself. There would indeed be no need for a song infobox if it wasn't used for recordings of songs.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
articles which begin "X is a song", but have {{Infobox single}} (e.g. What a Wonderful World, Lady Madonna).
As discussed above, this is perfectly fine and not a duality. The article is about the song which has been performed and recorded by multiple artists. The infobox is about the most notable version or versions which can happen to be a single. The alternative here would be to have one article for the song, basically a list of all versions, and many many articles for many versions which would be ridiculous.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
articles which begin "X is a song", but have {{Infobox single}} and which were not singles, but B-sides (e.g. The Inner Light (song)
This is more helpfully solved by changing the Single infobox to include a way of distinguishing between A sides (default settting), B sides and double A side - this would truly be helpful. This is also a minor problem - most B sides are not notable enough to warrant their own articles.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
instances of {{Infobox single}} with Eurovision Song Contest data
the single is not entered onto the contest, the song is. Example: Congratulations
I really don't get your point here. The article is about the song which was both an entry in the Eurovision Song Contest and a single. The single infobox is entirely justified.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
many articles which have both infoboxes (Back in the U.S.S.R.) with a great deal of redundancy (artist, writer, label - but note label contradiction on Back in the U.S.S.R.).
This is what is known as an exception. Back in the USSR is a 1968 album track. This is it's most notable existance. The 'song' infobox is most appropriate. It then happened to be released as a single 8 years later to promote a compilation (Rock 'n' Roll Music). This would generally not be notable if it wasn't for the fact that it is The Beatles so even a cash-in promotional semi-hit is worthy of an infobox. Also, just to clear up, the 'label contradiction' is because the 1968 album was released on Apple Records whereas the 1976 single was released on Parlophone (in the UK - as the image shows, it was also released in the US on Apple). While there is redundancy, this is a matter that could be dealt with by a rule that only the first box has common information. You failed to notice this one already has the 'writer' information left out of the second box. It could be argued however that it is worth having repeated information in infoboxes as the whole point of them is an 'at a glance' summary.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
articles (Stalin Wasn't Stallin') which apparently refer to two released singles, one using {{Infobox single}}, the other {{Infobox song}}.
The first box should also be a Single infobox. I suppose, the confusion here comes from the fact that in the '40s, there really weren't anything other than singles (except 'record albums' - literally books holding a collection of 'singles') so they weren't referred to as 'singles' at all - rather simply 'records'. So, this is an interesting example but not cause for changing the whole system - it is an exception that can be fixed.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
articles about frequently-covered songs, whose {{Infobox song}} refers to the the artist who made a specific (often first or most well known) single version (Fly Me to the Moon)
There should only be infoboxes for notable versions. Here that is the Sinatra version. If there were any truly notable covers, they would need their own boxes.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox single}} on articles which are about many different version of a song (The Long and Winding Road)
See previous example, the only difference here being that the only notable version was a single (although only in the US!).--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
articles about songs which have been hit singles for more than one artist, but only have one {{Infobox single}}, for one of those artists (The Tears of a Clown).
There seems to be a pattern here - see above. In this example, The Beat's version could arguably warrant its own box.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With a Little Help from My Friends has three {{Infobox single}} for three different artists; but also {{Infobox song}} for one of those artists.
There are three notable versions of this song worthy of an infobox which, were they not versions of the same song, would warrant articles of their own. Again, the Beatles version needs a 'song' box because it is most notably a track from the 1967 Sgt Pepper... album. Again (see Back in the USSR), this was released as a single 11 years later to promote a singles reissue box set (in fact a reissue of a box set that had been released in 1976 with this single added to fleece completist collectors!). Again, not notable if it wasn't The Beatles.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
instances of {{Infobox song}} with references to the running time of a single (Young Lust (song)).
Again, this is a total exception. This song was an album track. The fact that an edited version was released as a single in Italy is bearly notable - it wouldn't be worth having another single box just for that. Arguably, that piece of information could be removed from the box. It is not the case however that all infoboxes should have only one duration - many singles have more than one version on various formats (eg one CD single might have the radio edit while another has the album version, the 12" may have an extended version etc etc.) Having more than one duration is OK as long as they are labelled correctly.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation (clicking on the citation) it appears Young Lust only accidentally appears on the B side of some mis-pressings of the Italian single version of Another Brick in the Wall part II as an 'alternative' (probably demo?) version! This certainly should not be in the infobox, does not class it as a 'single' and should probably be only mentioned in passing in the article itself (it doesn't seem to be). I'll leave it for now then edit later (when discussion here has ended).--Retro junkie (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are significant songs, whose recording history is non-existent or irrelevant. National anthems, folk songs, etc.
These can use the song infobox, leaving most parameters blank. This 'problem' would not be addressed by one box for songs and singles.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this is against some kind of regulation but since no discussion is being entered into in the 'survey', I have given my opinion on each of your examples above. With the greatest respect (seriously - you seem to make a genuine contribution to Wikipedia - particularly to infoboxes and templates), I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of songs, singles, recordings, cover versions, album tracks, notable versions etc. The current system is correct. These boxes should absolutely not be merged.--Retro junkie (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored my post to its original form, and refactored yours accordingly. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ZoosexualityLaws edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted by DragonflySixtyseven; nuking of pages made by a troll. —fetch·comms 01:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ZoosexualityLaws (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is just a collection of tables, not a template. Doesn't belong in the template namespace. There are no links to this template. Since it appears that a lot of work has been put into these tables, userfication might be appropriate. SnottyWong confess 04:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy per nom. In the wrong namespace. Airplaneman ✈ 04:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy per nom, with the added comment that the table has no sources and should not be returned to mainspace as an article or list without verifiability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unreferenced, and not really a suitable subject for a table in any case, given that 'zoosexuality' is illegal almost everywhere. I have a feeling this was based on a template about homosexuality laws, which would be more appropriate (as there's much more worldwide diversity in that area), but this one should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it's an "article" in the wrong namespace. As an article, it fails on several accounts. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is supposed to be an article. Farjad0322 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IMac edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IMac (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to the iMac listings in {{Apple hardware since 1998}}, which is also included on iMac pages. {{Apple hardware since 1998}} is preferred because it is more comprehensive, as well as being a standard navbox. Airplaneman ✈ 00:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mostly redundant; has more "related articles" than iMac listings. —fetch·comms 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as redundant. The extra content here isn't appropriate there. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant.  ℳono  01:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 19:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_10&oldid=1138299912"