This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox song. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Yeah, I got that this morning (about 9 hours ago where I am). The whole box seemed to shrink, with the loss of the blue shaded blocks. But it's been okay over the last few hours. JG66 (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Redrose64, I know that, I was trying to make you see the difference. Like in "4 Minutes", which used {{Infobox single}}, where we have the yellow lines, similarly in the {{infobox song}}, we had the blue colors. However, they are suddenly gone now and the song names are skewed to the right. —IB[ Poke ]14:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this is helpful. As mentioned above, I experienced a similar problem with song articles earlier today. Although everything looked good later on, that example "I Don't Give A" comes out now on my screen without the blue "blocks", and shrivelled as a result. But it's not as if I get this happening at, say, "Sympathy for the Devil" … JG66 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
JG66 if you make any edit to the page Sympathy for the Devil and save it, the cache will be purged, and it will be that skewed infobox. Not sure who or where it got screwed. :( —IB[ Poke ]15:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Far out! I looked at that when I wrote the above – what, 1 hour back – now it's indeed screwed. (The words "Music sample" appear with blue surround as usual, though.) JG66 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Richhoncho, so what should we do when there is more than one infobox? in the case of A Day in the Life, the second infobox has no Writer parameter. for, Billie Jean, there are several infoboxes, and it looks like two of them have no Writer parameter. but, adding a redundant Writer parameter to every box would seem to be overkill. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Appreciate you getting this done, Frietjes. Noticed the same when going through the missing songwriters category to fill in writers in infoboxes if the information was available, and came across a couple with multiple infoboxes. Darn it all! --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me19:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Richhoncho and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, we could add |secondary_infobox=y (or something similar) which would disable the tracking category on a per-article basis ... but then you would need to add the parameter by hand to the articles with multiple boxes. Frietjes (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Assume we all have this on our watch list. I have found another problem. Heart and Soul (1938 song) is in the category because it uses a different infobox - with composer and lyricist, rather than writer. Or at least, that's my interpretation. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
So now every single composition where composer/lyricist is provided but writer isn't has to redundantly proclaim the writers a second time? This edit should be reverted.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Would you please provide an example or explain how the "Cover versions" section is supposed to work? It is unclear how "alt Artist", "Recorded by", and "Performed by" should be used. "Alt Artist" wasn't included in Infobox standard (multiple artists were never listed in song Infoboxes – this is a carry over from the Infobox standard merger). For example, in "In the Pines" (which formerly used Infobox standard) multiple artists are added under both "Recorded by" and "Performed by" fields. Adding "alt Artist" would require a different approach. Many songs have dozens of "cover versions" and adding them to all song infoboxes could be problematic. —Ojorojo (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
"Cover versions" parameters in infobox song
Currently, there are several available parameters for adding cover versions to song infoboxes. Prior to March 16, 2015, infobox song had no fields to include cover songs or alternate artists.[1] On that date, "Recorded by" and "Performed by" from infobox standard were merged to infobox song and "Cover versions" and "alt Artist" were added (along with other infobox standard parameters).[2][3] On July 18, 2016, these were expanded to include "alt Artist2–5", "Recorded by2–5", and "Performed by2–5", with the edit note "Support up to 5 cover versions".[4] No guidance was provided.
I see several problems with these added parameters and don't feel that "Cover versions" should be included in infoboxes.[5] They may have had little use, so removing them should not be disruptive and may be cleaned up fairly easily. It would be good to hear from others on this before taking it further. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The obvious problem is that the infobox can become absurdly long – there are plenty of song articles where people feel the need to list every known version of the song, ignoring WP:SONGCOVER... but even if you reduce it down to the songs that pass this criterion, there could still be a lot of them – for example, "Unchained Melody" has been a no. 1 record for four different artists in the UK alone, and there are probably other versions of this song that pass notability as well. Richard3120 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I've never come across this sort of customisation in song infoboxes myself, and I agree it's highly problematic. I'd be happy to see the Cover versions parameter removed: it doesn't belong, as in no way does that sort of info define the initial release of a song. And presumably, if a particular cover recording is notable enough to warrant its own section or subsection in the article, we'll include a separate single or song infobox there anyway. (Although, I also feel the use of multiple infoboxes is often over the top and requires a more discerning approach.) I can't believe this parameter ever crept in, actually! JG66 (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Frietjes: Thanks for removing #23–34, but #19–22 still produce the "Cover versions" heading and one "alt Artist", "Recorded by", and "Performed by". As per the RfC, here is no reason to keep any covers in infoboxes. Would you please remove #19–22 also? (in the original request) —Ojorojo (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The Artist parameter produces a boldface line near the top, "Song by...". The song is by the lyricist and composer, not the performers. The box for Vaishnava Jana To is an example.
The field should produce "Performed by..." or "Sung by...", or something similar. I have no idea how many song pages include this error (listing a performer under "by..."), but it's one I see all over the Web on other song info sites.
The Artist parameter is not discussed on the page, only listed and used in the example, in a way that can only encourage the confusion.
The use of the Artist= is optional for this infobox. For traditional songs, hymns, anthems, etc., when a song is not particularly associated with one artist, it should not be used. Perhaps these points should be added to "Parameters". The consensus during a recent RfC was that multiple artists/renditions do not belong in the infobox.
As you point out, the phrase "'X' is a song by Rihanna", et al., is extremely common (even when someone else probably wrote it). Widely accepted usage should be reflected in WP articles (how many popular songs are actually "written", i.e., scored, even though this is commonly used). Using the fields Writer=, Composer=, and Lyricist= removes any confusion regarding authorship.
This RfC was closed because consensus was reached to remove the Form= parameter from infobox song. Thanks to everyone who participated. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The parameter Form= is a carryover from the merger from Template:Infobox standard. "Form" refers to a song's musical structure, e.g., repeating verses, sections, etc. (see Musical form for an explanation). This is different than "Format" and "Genre", both of which have separate fields. The Form parameter has little use and is often used incorrectly in place of genre or to mean style ("Jazz standard", "Ballad", etc.). Very few articles discuss musical form or reference it. Should it be removed? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Remove Rarely used or even discussed in song articles. Infoboxes should only include key facts. Musical form is more appropriate for a "Compostion" section in the article. In the Infobox, it is not useful for most readers. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Update The documentation should be updated to clearly state what should be placed in the parameter and the code should be updated to reject anything not acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The documentation explains the use of the field and provides links and examples; no coding for other parameters in this infobox (or Infobox single, album, etc.) "rejects anything not acceptable" – it is unworkable. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think arguing that information 'about the song' is 'a bit too much' misses the whole point of song articles altogether. When an article lists every different mix of a single and their catalogue numbers, but fails to mention anything about the song (or even why each mix is different) then we have successfully reduced an encyclopedia to a discography entry. If the only thing that makes a song notable is because it is a chart entry and consequently warrants an article namespace, then we have failed. The format is part of the song information, key signature and instrumentation part of the recording information. Why should it not be considered important, when it is important to all save those that do not appreciate the subtlety.
PS I agree that key signature is too much, because it is set by the singer and not the song and therefore is not specific to THE song --Richhoncho (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Rich, I appreciate what you're saying, but the fact is most popular music is not analyzed on the musical or lyrical level ({{Infobox musical composition}} is available for more serious music). I have researched dozens of song articles and Form wasn't discussed, except for some blues songs that use call and response or AAB structure. Retaining it in the infobox (it should be discussed it in the body of the article) would do little to add more musicality to WP articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Remove per Ojorojo, and particularly as it's open to misinterpretation/misuse. That's not to say I don't agree with Richhoncho's point also. Generally, there's far too much attention paid to a song/single's commercial performance and release history, relative to description or analysis of the work itself. JG66 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Remove - As the musical composition infobox can be used for it. I've never seen it used for a song/single and I've never used it. — Calvin99909:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not all infoboxes should include album track listings. Articles about traditional or historical songs might not focus on a particular recording, so details about a later rendition, including album releases, are inappropriate for an infobox. Additionally, an album track listing with links to other songs may already be included in a navigation template or navbox at the end of the article. These include an album navbox (for example, {{Thriller (album)}}), an artist song navbox ({{Rihanna songs}}), or an artist navbox that includes songs ({{Robert Johnson}}).
An album track listing may be added to infobox song if the article does not have a navbox at the bottom of the page, and as long as a majority of the album's songs are linked to WP articles. Currently, three different approaches to listing album tracks are found in infobox song.
A collapsible full-album track listing is created by adding an album track listing template in the Tracks = field. If a template for an album does not exist, it will need to be created first, using {{Extra collapsed text}}. {{Rumours tracks}}) is used as an example.
Code:
| Tracks = <!--add your template here as {{That Album track listing}}-->
For a displayed full-album track listing, add the following fields. List the tracks on the album in sequence using numbered list notation, preceded by Tracks =. The current song should be added using "quotation" marks and bold. Since this song is the subject of the article, it should not be linked. Use "quotation" marks for the other songs and link those which have Wikipedia articles.
A partial track listing only provides the previous and next album tracks. By adding the following, the current song will be added automatically with "quotation" marks and bold. Use "quotation" marks for the other songs and link as appropriate (note: Tracks= does have to precede the list).
Removing Composer and Lyricist fields from song infoboxes
Richhoncho has begun removing the Composer and Lyricist fields from song infoboxes. This signals a fundamental change in the use of the infobox and is contrary to current guidelines (see Template:Infobox song#Parameters). These two fields have been in use for years – Composer is used in over 1,300 articles and Lyricist in over 500. This change requires consensus in an RfC. Removals these fields should stop until there is an agreement to change the guidelines. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ojorojo, I though it prudent to wait a couple of days before responding. It helps to gauge the interest in the subject. It appears only you and I are really concerned. For the record I have spent the past few months removing song articles from Category:Song articles with missing songwriters, presently down from 9700 to 5220 entries, and that ignores additions. What I did was part of that process. I have NOT done anything contrary to guidelines, but merely failed to complete the infobox as prescribed - something most other editors have done - including yourself! So I don't feel too bad about that. FWIW, At no time have I removed information, just reformatted it. Please confirm you have no objections to me continuing to reformat (I have desisted since your note on my talkpage as a matter of courtesy, but feel it is time to move on). Thanks for your interest. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Infobox discussions don't seem to get much interest. Since they are what most people first look at when viewing an article, a cluttered, poorly organized infobox doesn't reflect well on the subject (and WP as a whole). Identifying "Writer" (if appropriate) is important, but not by effectively removing the separate "Composer" and "Lyricist" fields from the infobox. Bunching them together in the Writer field solely for a tracking category isn't a valid reason for removing these fields. It's like the tail wagging the dog – if the current "Category:missing songwriters" tracking/category scheme is the problem, it should be fixed, not by removing/changing fields. The category should be coded to exclude infoboxes that use them. Composer and Lyricist were included as separate parameters for a reason, similar to Recording and Studio and Venue. What happens when you get to {{Infobox musical composition}} or other infoboxes that don't use Writer?
BTW, I always add Writer or Composer and Lyricist when they are clearly identified in the article. When they are not, I leave it blank. I think we touched on this before: "Unknown" may be subject to different interpretations. A folk song may be developed ("written") by various performers over time in an identified or "known" tradition. "Unattributed" (or "Traditional" if the refs support it) would be a better choice.
If there are no objections, I'd like to continue cleaning up song infoboxes using the Composer and Lyricist fields instead of the split Writer field if they are identified. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been slow responding because I wanted to see what others think. I am checking many things, and I have seen "writer" used to mean lyricist in any event, - including ignoring musical composition. I also have a sneaking feeling that some are confusing songwriter with producer (over and above sampling issues). The difference between lyricist and composer was thin at the best of times and seems to have been ignored in the past 60 years. Sure the difference can be noted, if there is evidence and at no point have I removed the difference between lyricist and composer. Perhaps we should wait longer? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This came up in a recent discussion. One editor felt strongly that the composer (classical) or songwriter (non-classical) writes the music, while the lyricist writes the words. However, songwriter is not used in the following:
Rich, this hasn't received any interest. Since your goal is for the tracking category, wouldn't WP:PETSCAN or a similar tool be more helpful (search for all articles with Category:Missing songwriter that also don't have filled in infobox parameters for Composer= or Lyricist=? Regardless, separate infobox parameters should not be effectively removed by combining them into another without a RfC. I'm continuing with cleanup using current guideline.
BTW, I'll start adding "unknown" or "traditional" as appropriate for the writer field. Perhaps you could remove some deprecated parameters along the way, such as Form=, alt Artist=, Performed by=, Recorded by=, etc. Thanks.
Sorry I have been thinking about/trying to make my mind up and make a coherent response. Not necessarily as easy as it sounds. Here's my comments :-
Can the infobox read and display "songwriter" rather than writer as this is confusing some editors to mean lyric writer only (and I daresay, singer only in some cases).
Be careful the songwriter is known on many traditional songs! Not all unknown writers make it a traditional song, either.
Adding to lyricist/composer, I am in favour, but there is a nagging doubt at the back of my head that says it creates more problems, can't nail what they would be ... and that's why I have been slow responding. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
1) "Songwriter(s)" seems to be a better choice, but probably wasn't picked because it is long (at 10+ characters, it is one of the longest in any music box). Writer(s) is also used in infobox single, so that would have to be changed too (I'll try it in the sandbox and see what happens). 2) Well aware, I just mentioned both because they seem to be appropriate for most of the missing writer fields. 3) Unsure about your "Adding to lyricist/composer" comment – do you mean retaining/re-adding? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo:. At present both single and song are covered in this. That leaves us point 3. Think either "songwriter" or "composer" should be completed in all instances. I would suggest omitting "lyricist" because that would add instrumental pieces into the group, which may be incorrect. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The current guideline explains the proper use of the three parameters (with added bold):
Writer Use this field if the music and lyrics were written by one person or, in the case of multiple writers, where a separate lyricist and composer have not been clearly identified by a reliable source. Do not use this field if the Composer and Lyricist fields are used.
Composer The person(s) who composed the song's music, if different than the lyricist. If not differentiated in the article, use the Writer field instead.
Lyricist The person(s) who wrote the lyrics, if different than the song's composer. If not differentiated in the article, use the Writer field instead.
If it would help, the guideline for Composer could include "For instrumentals, use this field only" (in current WP practice "song" is not used to describe an "instrumental").
Lyricist is the most precise (and probably best understood) of the three: "a person who writes the words to a popular song or musical". Songwriter can write both music and lyrics: "a person who writes popular songs or the music for them". Composer is oriented more towards the music: "a person who writes music, especially as a professional occupation"; although it can be synonymous with songwriter: "songwriter, melodist, symphonist, songster, writer" (defs from Oxford English and American dictionaries).
Hi Richhoncho! Well I have an objection after seeing Special:Diff/769235964 (I pressed "Thanks" on it to notify you). Well according to the Template:Infobox song,
"Use this field [| Writer =] if the music and lyrics were written by one person or, in the case of multiple writers, where a separate lyricist and composer have not been clearly identified by a reliable source. Do not use this field if the Composer and Lyricist fields are used."
Then wasn't there a reliable source in this section? The YouTube link is purely official, but maybe one has to play it to see the credits. Above infobox might needed a reliable source, but below one already had one (as per my thinking). M.Billoo17:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@M.Billoo2000:. I think you have mistook the problem here. When I saw the article the text read, “written by Javad Akhar and composed by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. The first info box stated that Javed Akhter was the writer (but no mention of composer). The second info box says the composer was Faakhir Mehmood, and lyricists Javed Akhter (original) and F K Khalish (additional).
The problem is the article is now claiming that two different people, separately, wrote the same piece of music. This HAS to be incorrect. I note you have changed it back. What you are claiming here is plagiarism and theft on behalf of Khan or Mehmood. Accusations of theft (including copyright theft) should be carefully backed up with verifiable facts at WP. Can you find the correct answer and have the correct information? Are you mixing up composer with arranger?
In the meantime, if you want to change back to lyricist/composer as opposed to Writer I have no problem with that, I had agreed not to do it while the problem above is sorted, so in that, I was wrong.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: No, I haven't changed it back yet. I understand what you are saying, and I searched some references which credit mixed about "original one". But here, I talked about "other one", on which official YouTube reference doesn't talk about "Writer"; the video says, "Music Director-Faakhir Mehmood", "Originally Sung & Composed by Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan", "Lyrics by Javed Akhtar", "Additional Lyrics by F K Khalish". Well, I will only change back the "other", not "original". Thanks! M.Billoo16:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: But music for the other version of song has been directed by Faakhir Mehmood. Again I am only only talking about other version of song (2016). Only original version was composed by NFAK, how can he compose 2016 song after his death in 1997? See credits in YouTube video, and enjoy the song. M.Billoo17:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
A composer writes the music, a "musical director" or an arranger will conduct music for that song, it might be different, but if it is the same song, then the composer remains the same. This is why there are songs written by say, Cole Porter, John Lennon or even Stephen Foster who are all dead are still credited as songwriters of the songs they wrote, not subsequent arrangers or performers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
A bug
On Desperado by the Eagles, the parenthesis that's supposed to appear after the number of the next track actually appears above the name of the current track. Esszet (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Odd, tried a couple of different things, but the < ) > was still centered above, rather than following the < (6 >. However, when I remove the {{Extra music sample}}, it shows correctly. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
In the closing notes, renaming the final product was mentioned. "Infobox musical recording" and "Infobox sound recording" were suggested during the RfC. A problem with including "recording" is the current use of Infobox song for traditional or historical songs (partly due to the merger of "Infobox standard" with Infobox song). Often these articles do not mention a recording or use any of the fields pertaining to one (format, recorded, studio, venue, length, label, producer, etc.) "Infobox musical work" was also suggested, but this may be too similar to the existing {{Infobox musical composition}}. Any other suggestions? Is there a problem with using "Infobox song" for the merged infobox? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
As a note regarding renaming, I'm not really bothered with the end result but if {{infobox song}} is the final choice, {{infobox single}} should still redirect there. Saves having to rename templates on 50k pages. You could also do it the other way and make ib song the redirect. Either way, it shouldn't be necessary to change the existing usage of the templates (barring parameter name changes, of course). Primefac (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The RfC was for merging songs with singles, which then branched into a discussion about splitting the concepts of albums/tracks/singles ("sound recordings") and songs/pieces ("musical compositions"). It doesn't make sense to move in that direction until we're already in the process of merging the album infobox.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, those names were suggested in connection with merging infobox album and aren't appropriate for a combined song/single infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Coding issues
These are a couple of ideas to handle the colors, headers, etc. Not sure which would be easier or even possible.
1) Have a bot add Single=yes to all Infobox singles. Then add to the new infobox, if "Single=yes", use yellow background color, "Single by" in the header, "X singles chronology" with Last, This, & Next single; ignore Type=, Tracks=, prev=, etc. If there's no Single=yes (or Yes, y, Y), use blue background, "Type by" (default to "Song by" if Type is blank), "X track listing" with prev, etc. or Tracks= with numbered list notation.
2) define a set of Types that will be the only allowable entries: song, single, promotional single, instrumental, composition, hymn, nursery rhyme, etc. (saving anything else would not be displayed). Then add if Type=single, use yellow, single chronology, etc. Have a bot add Type=single to all infobox singles.
For a bot, there needs to be a job description written of what changes, additions etc get done to what template; plus the all important consensus for the changes. Then that job is put on the bot group for discussion and then someone will pick it up.- X201 (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Using a bot was mentioned in the RfC.[6] Since it would be to assist in the merger, would additional consensus be required? At this point, finding out what bots can do (or can't do) in an infobox merge, such as 1) & 2) above, would help before putting together a formal bot request. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Bots can be programmed to do almost anything. In a merge like this one they could change field names (eg | type = to | new type =) add fields (like your | Type = singles suggestion), they can make text edits just like a human. Their weakness is that they rely on pattern matching and they can fail on infoboxes where they can't spot the required pattern of fields, or on infoboxes where humans have fudged it and left the template in the article in a mess or where the template has old defunct info and fields. I use a semi-automatic bot, I've cleaned up 4500 articles that used infobox single that had erroneous info in the template, I'm currently cleaning the same amount that use infobox album. I'm doing it because it needs to be done, but also because it will help bots to traverse the infobox easier and help their authors writing their code eg there are 14 valid entries for the Type field, I've so far detected 43 different entries, and the list keeps growing, I've had to write code to detect 61 separate errors in the use of the template and I know that I will need to add at least another 20 to that. All of those errors means that bots are more likely to fail and that their authors will have to write longer and longer code to account for every one of the 61 errors in the template usage, cleaning makes it easier for them. So in short a bot can do most things, but the easier you make it for the bot author the sooner and more successful the result. - X201 (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't entirely understand how "remove the category" follows from the discussion above and in-fact do not believe it is the correct solution (a better solution from my read would be a category where more than one of the parameters in question are missing). @Ojorojo, Richhoncho, and M.Billoo2000: --Izno (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your question, Izno. At present if there is no entry under the 'Writer' parameter then the article is automatically added to Category:Song articles with missing songwriters. However, some articles are split into lyricist and composer, and do not contain an entry under writer, so these also appear, incorrectly, in the category. The correct solution would be to ensure where the composer or the songwriter field has an entry then the article should not appear in category. The creation and creators of a song is essential to a song. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Totally approve of change to "songwriter," as the correct term. Many editors are considering the word, "writer" to encompass lyric writers only. Sometimes common abbreviations do not work as intended. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
So if I read that correctly, if no writer exists, and neither lyricist nor composer exist, there should be an error category similar to Category:Song articles with missing songwriters (probably Category:Song articles missing songwriter, lyricist, and composer). If, however, there is a writer, and also a lyricist or a composer or both, should there be a separate error category indicating incomplete or inconsistent information? And, ignoring whether there is a writer, if there is a lyricist but no composer, or vice versa, should there be an error category? (I haven't looked at the template code, so forgive me the followup questions.) --Izno (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
A category with "missing both songwriter and composer" should address the primary concern. Other error categories may be helpful, such as "having lyricist but missing composer", "having both songwriter and composer", and "having both songwriter and lyricist". (Ilovetopaint added the code above). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think the request is sufficiently-well refined that an experienced template editor could implement the change that Ojorojo just above requests. I'm reactiving the TER just so another template editor can get his eyeballs on this, since I've been AFK here and there of late. --Izno (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Added three new tracking categories and changed the behaviour of the existing one, as suggested. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me16:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Unless anyone has objections, the uppercase parameters in transclusions of this template will be changed to their lowercase counterparts by a bot per MOS:INFOBOX, which states that parameter names should use lower-case unless they are proper nouns; see WP:BOTREQ#Parameter titles. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me07:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: In the process full track listings in |tracks= will be left-aligned, and we probably need to add |type=[[Song]] for infoboxes without |type= (which is probably most of them). The current policy is very vague about what "substantive change" means, but this probably counts since {{Infobox song/color/sandbox}} would return the wrong colour without a value in |type=. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me15:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: If you're merging from {{infobox single}} to {{infobox song}}, the template should continue to assume that |type= is equivalent to |type=[[Song]] (which is currently does with the code {{#if: {{{Type|}}} | {{{Type}}} | [[Song]]}}. There's no reason a template called "infobox song" should have to specify that it is being used on a song article. It's much easier to call the color template with {{Infobox song/color|1={{{type|[[song]]}}}}} or change the last line of your sandbox template to {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|#E6E8FA}} than make 50,000 7,000 bot edits. Similarly, changes to text alignment should be handled by the template, not editing the articles. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: There are only about 7,000 pages using {{Infobox song}}, but if the template handles these properly then I guess anything for this template will only be (manually?) done if there are other page problems. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me15:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo and X201: I'm assuming that when the uses of {{Infobox single}} are substituted, after the template is converted to a wrapper, that |type=single will be added. Obviously there is only one type for it currently (single) so none of the uses have it. I think mwparserfromhell can parse nested templates effectively, assuming there's no broken markup within the infoboxes. JJMC89 might know more about how it works, since I have virtually no experience with bots. (|background= would be a poor choice for consistency, and using it might not be necessary.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me16:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry about |type= being used in an infobox and a subtemplate. A properly coded bot will handle it without any issues. If this will be done using wrapper substitution (and it should), then it won't matter anyway. I took a look at {{Infobox single/sandbox}} and {{Infobox song/sandbox}}, and I'm not sure what is going on. {{Infobox single/sandbox}} should be a (subst) wrapper of {{infobox song/sandbox}}.
{{infobox song/sandbox
| name = {{{name|{{{Name|}}}}}}
...
| type = single
...
| misc = {{{misc|{{{Misc|}}}}}}
}}
@Jc86035:, @Ahecht:, @JJMC89: obviously, your experience with coding templates, merging, etc., is far greater than mine. It's time to leave this to the experts, so take it from here (although I may chime in from time to time on parameter names, etc.). Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@JJMC89: I've converted {{Infobox single/sandbox}} to a wrapper. It's not totally complete yet, as the order of parameters is different in {{Infobox song}}, and some Module:String magic is probably needed for the new chronology parameters (and could be used for some other cleanup, such as adding {{Start date}} and {{Duration}}). Do you think it's possible to convert the subtemplates to wrappers of themselves (using Module:Unsubst) to automatically replace the parameters without having to write bot code? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me15:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Why do we need to subst subtemplates? {{Infobox single}} doesn't have any. A bot should just {{infobox single|...}} → {{subst:infobox single|...}} = {{infobox song|...}}, so any parameters modifications are done in {{infobox single}} (currently {{infobox single/sandbox}}). — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that it will always return blue. You're saying "if it would return khaki, return the default (blue) instead. Otherwise, return blue".
There are two ways that this should work. Either just specify background-color: {{Infobox song/color/sandbox|{{{type|{{{Type|}}}}}}}} and let the color template choose the default, or get a bit fancier and distinguish between type being undefined or just being empty using something like {{#ifeq:{{{type}}}|{{{type|}}}|{{#if:{{{type}}}|defined|defined but empty}}|not defined}}. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Through trial and error, I tried to find something that would handle existing occurrences of Infobox song and single. If the boxes already used in articles can be modified with single=yes, type=single, or something to distinguish singles from songs (necessary for correct color & heading), then my experiment would not be applicable. (see my note above.)
These are some numbers to consider:
Pages using infobox single with no type= or type=[is empty] (about 52,633)
Pages using infobox song with no type= or type=[is empty] (about 4,857)
Pages using infobox song with type=[something] (about 1,756)
I was thinking about requesting tracking categories for Infobox song:
Category:Pages using infobox song with no type= or type=[is empty] parameters
Category:Pages using infobox song with type=song parameter
Category:Pages using infobox song with type=[something other than song] parameters
No articles use {{infobox single}} with a type= parameter. Therefore, it should be trivial to have a bot replace "{{infobox single" with "{{infobox song|type=single" and have type missing or blank default to "song". --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. I suppose this wouldn't affect uses of Infobox song with no type=. BTW, many uses of type=[something] in infobox song are plain wrong. I think X210 removed the misuses of type= in infobox single.
I originally approached this in the sandbox as type missing or blank defaulting to single (with yellow and "Single by" heading) and type=song (or type=[something]) switching to blue and "Song or Something by" as the header. Of course, the uses of infobox song with type missing or blank would have to be fixed (~4,857).
Then between what Ahecht and you are saying, the type= issue and the correct colors/headers have been solved. Those seem to have been the main merger concerns. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
