The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:XHDEH-TDT. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blonde (Frank Ocean album). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Ocean. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Complicated (Avril Lavigne song) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scare-line. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Breitbart News. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suede (band). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox song. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of YouTubers. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, like you, I'm also cleaning up the defunct Infobox single fields that are cluttering up thousands of articles. I've been to a few articles where you've beaten me to it and already cleaned them, and I was wondering about the ones where you removed the ISWC field. What was the reason for it? Is that defunct too? - X201 (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see you're doing a good job. I've backed off on the singles, because it seems you can do it more efficiently (I took on the task of removing the Certifications that ZackBot didn't catch).

Removing ISWC came up during a recent discussion about streamlining infoboxes. Although I was behind adding it to the singles box (for consistency with {{Infobox song}} more than anything), now I think it's information for information sake – 1) it's never (or very rarely) referenced in the body of the article (a general requirement for infobox entries); 2) it's not a key fact about the single/song (another general requirement); and 3) ISWC numbers & info seems to only appear on the ISWC website and not in discussions in reliable sources about the single/song. It hasn't caught on with editors since it was introduced (songs in 2014 & singles last May) and has seen little use. When doing other edits, I've begun removing ISWC from articles that I added them to, looking ahead to the most likely candidates for more streamlining. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the Zackbot stuff, it made life easier, it was constantly tripping me up, the worst bits were where it partially removed certification and left the reference or second line behind. Thanks for clarifying ISWC. Has that been discussed at project level? if it has we may as well get the field removed from the template and then I can clean up the 100 uses of it in Infobox single while I'm doing this clean up. - X201 (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing ISWC hasn't been properly discussed. It seems that interest in infobox parameters is limited – current discussions about Clip requested?, Form, and Composer/Lyricist have received very little input. Starting a RfC on ISWC now would probably be too much. If you have a better idea, please let me now. —Ojorojo (talk)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Terrence Malick. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:K-pop. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vikings (TV series). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox song parameter usage is available. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Bamyers99, I've looked over the first report and it will be very helpful for infobox cleanup, discussions of parameters changes, etc. Thank you. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Album-oriented rock. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Post-progressive. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hiawatha (A Summer Idyl), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles N. Daniels. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twelve-bar blues, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tutti Frutti. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I requested closure at WP:ANRFC some weeks ago, but I wonder whether the discussion is difficult to close. Does the closure of the discussion require more than one closer, or is one good enough? If more than one, I may re-request closure at WP:AN then. --George Ho (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's rather simple question, if one can ignore all the side issues. The opposition really never gave good reasons against a merger. Their arguments amount to 1) "songs and singles are different and therefore should have different infoboxes" (despite the boxes having no real differences) and 2) "rather than being the same, they should be made different". The procedure is outlined at ANRFC (one uninvolved editor who can justify their decision). Apparently, a RFCL can be relisted (several are over 60 days). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... even when the question is simple, what if the closer doesn't ignore the side issues? Does summarizing all the arguments make closing it harder? --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to get a closer to focus on the real issue and don't recall seeing a summary the arguments. In voter's pamphlets, each party presents its side on an issue, with the other allowed one rebuttal statement. It's not a substitute for the full analysis, but can be helpful. The question of a template merger has come up before and arguments about "singles" vs. "songs " (but not about the infoboxes themselves) drag on and on. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So, if closer(s) can listen to all sides, how many closers do you need? One or two or more? George Ho (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You need to take up questions on the closure process, procedures, and options at RFC, ANRFC, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I initially requested closure on one discussion at WP:ANRFC and then discussed it with the proposer. Then I re-requested the closure at WP:AN. I've done the same method with another proposer, but the COI/paid editing thing at WT:COI is tougher. I didn't think asking at WT:RFC is necessary, though I did start a thread there about closing more complex discussions. George Ho (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: it's closed as merging two infoboxes into one. George Ho (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... where to discuss the merger proceedings: Template talk:Infobox song or Template talk:Infobox single? George Ho (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say Infobox song. Maybe deciding a name should be started there, with notes at WT:SONGS, Template talk:Infobox single, WT:ALBUMS, etc. The listing at WP:TFD/H doesn't match the others (also wrong category). Adjusted. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I left a note at those pages, but I left one at WT:WPMUSIC instead of "WT:ALBUMS". George Ho (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Shall we try opening another discussion on the template talk to have them added to Infobox single, just like they are on Infobox song?  — Calvin999 09:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

With several ongoing infobox discussions (which may resolve this), it would be better to wait until they are closed. Depending on the outcome, the issue should have a RfC (maybe along with adding "English title" and "Language" fields). BTW, have you been following Template talk:Infobox song#Removing Composer and Lyricist fields from song infoboxes? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Are any of them still active? We need to get it to match the Songs info box because for example I've had to write in the info box on There's Got to Be a Way who wrote the lyrics and who wrote the music.  — Calvin999 09:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

WT:SONGS#RfC: Should Infobox single and Infobox song be merged? was closed as "Merge". So, when the coding is done, the combined infobox will have fields for Composer, Lyricist, English title, Language, Written, Published. Richhoncho has suggested renaming "Writer(s)" as "Songwriter(s)". Thoughts? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with that.  — Calvin999 15:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

In this edit you added the statement: "Although Potter's lyrics have been connected to drug culture, it is a love song." The cited source supports the drug connection, but does not say that "500 Miles High" is a love song. I personally think that it is, from the lyrics, but I have not been able to find a source that says so. I would like to source this statement, partly because I want to nominate this article at Do you know. Can you suggest any source? DES ^(talk) 19:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel, remarkable job rescuing a ~15 word unreferenced ultra stub. I seem to remember something about Potter (the lyricist) being a Scientologist (Corea was/is), but little else. Film plot summaries or novel plot summaries do not require refs. Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed includes (emphasis added):

Plot of the subject of the article: If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information.

I added a link to the authorized lyrics in External links. The second and third verses include:

You'll see just one look and you'll know
She's so tender and warm
You'll recognize this is love ...
Be sure that you[r] love stays so free
Then it never can die
Just realize this is truth ...

Maybe move the MetroLyrics from External links to immediately following "love song". BTW, I noticed several problematic refs (user generated, blog-type, etc.) that don't meet RS for songs. I'll flag them if you want.

—Ojorojo (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, plot summaries need no reference beyond the work itself, but it might be argued that categorization (adventure novel, love song, romance) is interpretation and so requires a source. I cna think of a few folk tunes/ballads that look like love songs at first, but are really darker -- middle ages ones where the lover is a metaphor for death, for example. I'm not saying the statement must come out without a source, it really falls under WP:BLUE, but I won't use the statement in a DYK hook if it is unsourced. They get picky about hooks.

If you see sources that seem bad or debatable, please do flag them or just remove them -- there are certainly more than enough to go on with.

Article rescues are something of a hobby of mine, such as taking this to this. In this case the key words that really persuaded me that there might be something to work on were "Chick Corea" -- I know just enough about Jazz to recognize the name. That and the Speedy for "no content" when it plainly had content, and the AfD nomination for "Does not SHOW notability" as if there were no such thing as WP:BEFORE. Those annoyed me. At least I was able to take it out in useful work. Thanks for your contributions. DES ^(talk) 23:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel, it's definitely not strong enough for a hook. I changed it in the text and moved the lyrics ref – it should be OK for the body of the article (I thought it was important to balance the drug view; the song's much more than that). I'll try some more later. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Machine Gun (Jimi Hendrix song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larry Lee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response at Wiki Project Albums. I'm pretty inexperienced, so I need all the help I can get. :) Best, Liam Gibson (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

500 Miles High

added a link pointing to Tony Williams

Having a Rave Up with The Yardbirds

added a link pointing to Fabian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Save starting a new thread on Infobox, are we keeping the EP parameter for is a song was released from an EP, not an album? It is booming increasingly more common for new artists, like The Chainsmokers, to do that before an album.  — Calvin999 15:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it will remain (see WT:SONGS#New merged song/single infobox "Use with song" in the Example templates subsection). BTW, I don't see that you've added any comments in that discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Good. I didn't know that link existed!  — Calvin999 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably going to be off-wiki for a short while, so it would be nice if you could leave a message on my talk page when the merger discussion of {{Infobox song}} concludes. I'm planning to let AnomieBOT substitute all of the templates in the series at once (including {{Infobox album}}), at least when Anomie fixes the substitution issue, since it's easier than only substituting some of them and no BRFA is required. This also means that some additional parameter changes could be made, if desired. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Thanks for all your hard work on the templates. I know nothing about the mechanics of an infobox merger, so it can certainly wait until you return. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Before all the templates are substituted, I think the only things left are to fix parameter order and any invalid parameters. The best thing I can find for searching invalid parameters is https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/TemplateParam.php, which requires TemplateData and only runs on the first of each month. I've added TemplateData for most of the remaining templates except {{Extra album cover}} (which I didn't get around to) and {{Extra track listing}} (since I don't really understand some of the parameters, which aren't explained in the documentation at all). {{Singles}} doesn't have TemplateData for single8 onwards (there's no limit, really) but it should probably be fine. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Thanks. I'll work on the TemplateData and the documentation. A couple of things I noticed (and may have been covered before): {{Extra track listing}} uses |prev_track= and |next_track=, while the infobox uses |prev= and |next=. Would it be helpful to be consistent and to further distinguish it from |prev_title= and |next_year=? {{Extra track listing}} adds quote marks automatically to prev_track and next_track, but not to the current track (nor adds bold). In the infobox, the current is OK, but quotes aren't added to prev and next. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I added the |prev_track= and |next_track= parameters earlier (quotes are added automatically), but the old parameters have to be retained before the uses are substituted. The subst should work now (the template now replaces the old ones with the new and removes the aliases). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

For {{Extra track listing}}, why did you remove the list format (|tracks=) from the documentation? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I've never seen it used, probably because it would look like this. It fills the infobox with details that have nothing to do with the song and is contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Several editors have expressed concern over uses such as in Welcome to My Hood. Once the infobox merger is completed, the misuse of extra track listings and extra chronologies will be addressed.

In regards to your question about the header colors: I've seen it both ways – most are all the same, but several are mixed (FAs: Like a Rolling Stone, One Tree Hill, Say Say Say, Smells Like Teen Spirit, Speechless). I try to avoid track listings and chronologies as much as possible, so haven't really thought about it. Maybe bring it up for discussion? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I added the TemplateData for {{Extra album cover}} and header for {{Singles}}. I also added it to {{Extra track listing}}. That has several old parameters, from when covers were included in the infobox (removed following this RfC). Altalbum, length, and label should be removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There are only 20 transclusions using |altalbum=, so all of them could be done manually. I've added a tracking category (Category:Music infoboxes with deprecated parameters; additions should have sortkeys), but it'll have to wait until after the substitutions for all the pages to sort themselves into the category properly. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As for the header colours, I think track listings, etc. should use the header colour of the album or EP, although I'm not sure about the music videos as it seems like an overuse of different colours (and almost all pages use single/song colour anyway). Releases that are themselves music videos should use the video colour, I think. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I removed altalbum (and label & length) from the infoboxes. Testing with the sandbox version, I noticed that the header for |prev_track=, etc., is different for |album= ("NAME track listing") and |EP= ("Track listing" – "NAME track listing" must be added to |chronology=). Also, if |chronology= is used when both |prev_track=, etc., and |prev_title= are filled in, it will be displayed in both headers (different sequences should have different headers). If limiting use to only one of the two (and using {{Extra chronology}} or {{Extra track listing}} for a second sequence) is not preferred, two chronology-type fields will be needed. What should receive top priority for removing invalid parameters/clean up for the merger? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added it; it just wasn't ever there. I don't think two chronology parameters are necessary, since if it needs to be different then the subtemplates can be used. As for the parameter cleanup, probably just anything that's not an actual parameter in the templates and won't be handled by substitutions (except |Background= and other parameters which were removed and never cleaned up). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 03:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Thanks. So deprecated parameters, such as |performed_by= (127) and |recorded_by= (237) should not be a problem. Almost 40 song infoboxes have |Last single=, |Next single=, and |This single= (not displayed). Would this or misuses (type=Grammy winner, etc.) be a problem? I think X201 cleaned up the single infoboxes, including removing type=[something]. Most song infoboxes (~5,000) don't have |type= filled in. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Misuses shouldn't be problematic for most parameters, since those would be displayed. If there is a way to track misuses, they could be tracked with categories (a switch for |type= would need to be present in each template) since every page which hasn't been gone through yet should be edited or purged. The chronology parameters should be fixed (manually) or removed (automatically), although this obviously depends on whether they're appropriate for each article. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: All the chronologies appear to be used for promotional singles, which arguably is an appropriate use (and another reason to merger the two infoboxes). If I am understanding this,[1] the merger can go ahead, with all former uses of infobox single having "Single by" in a khaki header and all former infobox song with "Song by" in light blue (default) or whatever is in |type= also in light blue. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Would it help to wait until after the monthly error reports are generated and potential problems are fixed? Also, the proposed documentation is ready for another look, particularly the sections on chronologies and track listings and others that have an automatic feature. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether the template is updated before or after June 1, as both infobox templates already have TemplateData and the reports will be generated regardless. Substitution has to wait, obviously (for both the input fixing and for Anomie to fix hidden comment handling for AnomieBOT's template substitution). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Then I'd say go ahead and implement the merger. This is as far as my technical understanding goes. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Also gone through the draft documentation, it might need some changes (I haven't updated the live one yet). I've removed the comment that |type=single should only be used if the original release was a single, because this would mean that any digital album tracks released as singles after the album would have to use |type=song. It would be nice if you could compile two slightly longer parameter lists for Module:Unsubst-infobox's |$S1= and |$S2= (with the former being the longer one – possibly the first being for singles and the other for songs as recordings), since otherwise all the parameters will end up being added on substitution for most releases. |$3= (I intended this for sheet music, compositions etc.) might need changes. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, there appear to be a handful of song infoboxes which use |A-side=, such as the one on James K. Polk (song). Is this usage appropriate for B-sides, or should those also be marked as singles? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: It's great to see this finally happening. 1) I've seen it both ways, so it is probably better to leave the "first release only" out. 2) Module – this is beyond me. I can do the TemplateData. When should the documentation be added? 3) That was the old practice, they should now use single. Also, I've noticed some problems with the quotes for the B-side. Sometimes they are doubled, but if they are removed, none are displayed, etc. [I see you're working on this] Could |writer(s)= be changed to |songwriter(s)= (so it would be the same as what is displayed)? Many editors seem to think writer=lyrics. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The documentation in your sandbox belongs in Template:Infobox song/doc, does it not? I think editors should notice the change in the displayed label is different – changing the parameter name as well doesn't really reduce the ambiguity. The quotes problem should be fixed, except for possibly a few singles with two B-sides which should use {{hlist}}. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Did I fix the infobox for James K. Polk (song) correctly? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: The header correctly displays "Single by" and is khaki. Shouldn't quotes for the A/B-side be generated automatically (I tried a null edit)? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

My error, tried mixing unnamed parameters and numbered parameters in the template. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A lot of infoboxes have |Last single=– instead of having it blank. I've changed the template's behaviour to remove the dash if it's there (instead of vomiting up an error); is this correct? There are also all sorts of other errors in Category:Errors reported by Module String, such as missing punctuation/year/line breaks/whatever, sticking two different songs into a parameter, writing "N/A" instead of leaving the field blank, adding the featured/collaborating artist in the chronology, adding little notes such as "(re-release)", not having the release date in the infobox parameter…. Most of them need manual fixes; this article has the same song (first/second release) in prev/next of one of the infoboxes, with notes in brackets, and I don't really know what would be done with it, really. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: 1) All of the —, none, n/a, NA, can be removed (the guidance has always said to leave it blank). 2) I think if something has to be explained, referenced, or footnoted in a track listing or chronology, it shouldn't be there and belongs in the body of the article. I don't know if a bot can remove these. 3) For "Dignity", there clearly isn't enough in the body of the article to justify more than one infobox, so I'll remove them. Regarding your other ping, I started cleaning up the infobox songs in Category:Music infoboxes with malformed table placement. It appears that many of the problems are caused by a missing |misc= before the use of the extra templates. For example, if {{Audio sample}} is placed after an empty |producer=, it will screw it up. I don't know if a bot adding an empty |misc= would fix these. Should Category:Errors reported by Module String be the top priority for clean up? I've only looked at a few of these, but why should Ahab the Arab show up? —Ojorojo (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The quotes were missing (the page was re-rendered in the meantime); I've added them. A lot of the pages render fine until they're purged. I think having a bot (or a very, very enthusiastic AWB user) would work for adding |misc=, although I've already asked for help at WP:BOTREQ and no one's responded. The string errors should probably be a priority, since the table errors sometimes aren't rendered but the string errors are. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I'm going to concentrate on the string errors then, since they probably require a more hands-on approach. I would think that something like missing quote marks should not trigger a string error. Is there some way to have this ignore (or not add the glaring red warning) lack of punctuation, parentheses, presence of citation and other templates, <br>, etc. inside the sensitive params? Let me know if you run across any infobox errors that maybe can be eliminated by other means ("Dignity"). I'll watch the music infobox talk pages for others. Also, I notice that |last single title=, |next single year=, etc., are only used in 6–7 articles (I can change these). Would it simply matters to remove these from the coding for {{Infobox single}}? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added a temporary parameter to {{Infobox song}} so that {{Infobox single}} can insert the entirety of the old chronology code for now, while hiding the new table code with display: none. (The chronology now has a slightly thicker upper margin for some reason, but it should be okay for now.) I don't think it's necessary to remove |Last single title= etc. from the wrapper since they don't really affect editing the rest of the code (if that's still needed). Note that it should be okay to substitute all of the templates now (just not automatically yet). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there actually any songs with |type=remix single? It might be better for the choice to be removed from {{Infobox song/color}}, because otherwise it might be confusing for it to have to be specified as "remix single" and not "remix". Remixes usually don't have their own infoboxes anyway AFAIK. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I seem to remember a couple, but can't find them now. Probably would not be missed. Would X201's suggestion work: "I think the best way to tackle it is a bot run to empty the category of the simple formatting errors, which will then make it easier to spot the more complex and unique cases." 1,300+ articles to go through will take some time. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

AWB seems like the best solution for now, since a bot could misinterpret the code and miss errors such as the footnotes, and would be unable to decide whether to remove information or to remove the infobox altogether. It's also very likely that new minor errors would be found (e.g. I just found <small> tags in one infobox), and a bot would be unable to add them as it went through the category. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's any help, the errors can be split by decade or by year (although they seem to be mostly the same throughout). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Not really. Maybe list those that still have the red error warnings. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

None of them should anymore, just wait for the pages to update. The CSS is supposed to hide all of them but it might be a few days. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Why is Da Da Da on the error list? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Brackets for years are missing. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: How about <br> vs <br />, &nbsp vs {{nbsp}}, – vs {{snd}}, etc.? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The first one is already handled, not sure where you'd run into the other two in the specific case of the chronology parameters. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I was thinking about the infobox parameters in general. Since I'm fixing the string errors, what else can be done to prevent other problems? BTW, {{Audio sample}} doesn't appear in the infobox when it follows another subtemplate, unless the two abut ( }}{{ ).[2] —Ojorojo (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

They're really the only parameters which have (automatically fixable) problems, although I've added a search in |recorded= to convert " – " to {{snd}}. Hyphens could be changed to en dashes, but that would interfere with references. Comma-separated lists could be converted to bulleted lists, but artist names containing "and" or commas would be problematic. The subtemplates problem is known and will be fixed in Module:Infobox in a while. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Yesterday, the total of errors was 1,300+; today it shows 2,400+. Fixing these is going to take a long time without additional editors. Any ideas? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I've tried replacing some with AWB, and it turns out that quite a lot of the errors are due to the lack of a |misc=, so maybe those should be fixed first. Some others are due to the lack of a release date, which I've tried fixing in the wrapper by putting the year from the chronology into |released=. (I've also found a promotional single which shouldn't have |type=single, but those are probably for manual fixing.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: The error count is now over 4,200 and includes a lot of albums. It would be helpful if these were separated, similar to Category:Music infoboxes with malformed table placement, with a TOC for better access. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Done; tracking category is now Category:Music infoboxes with Module:String errors (4). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 03:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I forgot to mention this: there are some infobox chronologies (e.g. on Amor Fati (album)) where EPs are marked with "(EP)" outside the italics, which causes an error. Should these be removed? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: The former parameters read last, this, and next album – mixing in EPs doesn't make sense. So I'd say remove altogether. Extra parentheses outside of quote marks (or as in this case italics) is one of the biggest cause of errors, e.g., "New Song" (live), (U.S.), etc. I've solved some of these by putting them inside the quotes: "New Song (live)" or adding an extra chronology for U.S. releases. Also extra <br />, additional date info (May 2010), (2011 UK), etc., seems to cause problems. The infobox guidance has always been just "Name" or Name <br /> (year). If anything else could be removed automatically, it would be very helpful. Some other problems I've noticed:

• Linking using [[New Song (So&So song)|"New Song"]] (A Horse with No Name, Gimme Some Lovin', Lazy Sunday, etc.) seem to show as errors. Can this be fixed?
• Golden Years, It's So Easy!, King of Pain, Lola: unsure why these are in the error category.
• Two or more songs in the A-side or B-side parameters also causes problems: without quotes, it produces "New Song, Newer Song"; with proper quotes, it produces New song", "Newer Song; ""New Song", "Newer Song"" shows properly. Proper quotes show correctly using hlist, flatlist, and plainlist. Although most singles don't have more than one A or B (these are usually EPs), some do. Is there a way to fix the existing appearances and/or should the infobox song documentation be updated to advise the use of hlist, etc.?
• In some song articles, if |Artist= is used rather than the lower case |artist=, the header for chronology will not show the artist's name. Maybe all the "automatic" features should allow for both upper and lower case.

I've been trying to note problem cases. There are still ~3,425 pages under Infobox song in category "Music infoboxes with Module:String errors". Do all of these need to be fixed before the merger can be completed? What would happen without fixing them? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Do you mean to remove the EPs from the chronologies or to remove "(EP)"? The latter makes more sense to me, since there's nothing saying "studio album chronology"; and there isn't a separate Infobox EP for EPs so the parameter name doesn't really matter much here.

  I suppose it could be argued either way, so whatever it takes. Another possibility is Oh, My Regrets EP (all inside the italics).

• Month names before the year (or basically any word before the year, actually) should be removed, I forgot whether by the bot or by the template.

  Just to clarify for the chronologies: parentheses are OK within the quote or italics marks; only one <br />; (YEAR xxx) is OK, but not (xxx YEAR). Does the same apply to the other parameters?

  (xxx YEAR) will be fixed, but nothing else. If parentheses are not part of the title and are outside of the quotes or italics marks (e.g. [[Album (Artist album)|''Album'' (Artist album)]] or "[[Let It Go (Disney song)|Let It Go]]" (Disney song), then they will have to be fixed manually. If they're inside they will be treated as part of the song or album title. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 17:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• The bot will be fixing the quotes inside the brackets.
• For all four pages, it's the second infobox on the page; "Lola"'s has a "(live)", "King of Pain"'s is missing a quotation mark, "It's So Easy"'s is missing <br> and "Golden Years"'s is missing brackets for the years. Could be other issues.

  Fixed.

• I'll add a tracking category for the A-side and B-side parameters to detect if there are more than two quotation marks and whether {{hlist}} is used.

  Meanwhile, should I be fixing these using hlist, etc., while I'm there?

  Why not? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 17:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'll add {{{Artist|(()))}} in the chronology section.
• They all need to be fixed, or error messages everywhere. The bot should be able to handle many but not all of those.

Note that there are still the error reports, which should be dealt with before the mass substitution. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I was working on these before starting on the malformed tables, strings errors, etc. I've fixed all the seldom occurances and most of the rest are the deprecated |performed_by= (127) and |recorded_by= (226), but these probably have overlap. The next, this and last single (~40) can be converted to the new prev and next title parameters or just be removed (much easier). What should be the priority? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, your choice (or the choice of anyone else cleaning them up) I guess. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: OK. I left a couple of questions below your points above. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Should the documentation be updated to reflect: 1) for |prev_title= and |next_title=, something to the effect that "anything entered in this field will be displayed inside quote marks – further details should only be included in the body of the article."; 2) for |prev_year= and |next_year= "only enter the year in this field – other info will produce errors and should be explained in the main article"; 3) for |A-side= and |B-side=: again, "anything entered in this field (even separated by a comma or <br />) will be displayed inside quote marks. For multiple values, use {{hlist}}, {{flatlist}}, or {{plainlist}} with each item in quotes." Also, would it be better to replace the infobox single documentation with something like "Singles now use {{Infobox song}}. Please see Template:Infobox song/doc#Code for the new template code and Template:Infobox song/doc#Parameters for an explanation on its use." —Ojorojo (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

1) I think so; although perhaps the parameters could be modified to behave like |A-side= and |B-side= (which add quotes unless quotes are found inside, in which case they don't). 2) I think it would be better to elaborate on what it actually does as well, i.e. add quotes unless quotes are inside. I think it would be a good idea to put a {{notice}} at the top of {{Infobox single}} with that text. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: 1) Even if they were modified, would |prev_title="New Song" (single version) or |prev_title="New Song"<br />(album version) cause problems? It seems that using {{hlist}}, etc., would be easier; 2) Is your comment about #3? (it doesn't seem to apply to #2). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

1) no, because the only thing |B-side= does is add quotes; there's no complicated processing involved like in the wrapper (and using {{hlist}} wouldn't really do anything with just one entry); 2) yes; I agree with the previous point 2. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: 1) Just to clarify: in the chronology, |prev_title="New Song" (single version) or |prev_title="New Song"<br />(album version) wouldn't cause problems? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If inserted in {{Infobox song}} and not {{Infobox single}}, then no it wouldn't cause any problems. If it's in |Last single= then you could change it to be in |Last single title= before substitution. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Proposed wording for documentation (any suggestions?). Also, would it be better to delete most of the documentation for infobox single? The small {{notice}} at the top is likely to be overlooked with the following three larger templates. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Made the changes. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that you added a couple of notes to my addition to the article about the song "Spoonful". As I have only been editing Wikipedia for a short time, I may not fully understand all of the criteria regarding "cover versions". I have read the referenced article, "WP:COVERSONG?" and I feel that these deserve inclusion. I ask for your patience and assistance on this so that I can improve articles correctly. First, I did not realize that the section had been removed previously, I am not in the habit of reviewing the history of the articles. I added this list simply to provide additional information that would emphasize the popularity of this song with fellow musicians. OK, I agree that the wording regarding "notable" probably isn't the best, and I have removed it. However, I do not understand the basis of your question "do any of these meet WP:COVERSONG?". While none of the artists on the list rate a separate section as Cream does, all of them (the artists) have their own articles as do many of the albums. As far as the group of artists at the end of the list, I did not feel that they would rate an entire sentence, if they do, I could certainly add one. But they all have a Wikipedia article about them as well, that I would think would qualify them for listing. Anyway, I would appreciate your assistance on this as there are numerous other articles related to music that are in need of improvement that I wish to edit in accordance to established protocol. Thank you in advance.Frankzappatwin (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We've had this conversation before at Talk:Hoochie Coochie Man and I don't know what I can say that I didn't say there. I seriously doubt that most of the versions you listed are "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song" (WP articles are not considered reliable sources) and none "itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS", which is what COVERSONG requires. Artists' versions that appear on albums that don't have WP articles should be removed. WP is supposed to provide encyclopedic content – a list of names can already be found at AllMusic, Discogs, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I do remember that discussion, however I didn't follow it all of the way through. Being new at that time, I just walked away instead of discussing it further. There was more information and discussion that followed. My bad! Following up on what you have posted today, I have a bit of a better understanding and I will certainly remove those from albums that do not have their own article. Those were questionable to begin with. However it is my interpretation of SONGCOVER that the notability aspect applies to a separate section within the article such as the Cream version. I will re-edit and wait for any further comments.Frankzappatwin (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I will add albums and dates to the remaining artists in a little bit.Frankzappatwin (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

SONGCOVER doesn't just apply to separate sections. It is intended to prevent long lists of unimportant covers as well. "Spoonful", as with other standards, have been recorded by dozens of artists. Articles could easily become overwhelmed by what many see as trivia. There needs to be some way to limit covers to the most important ones. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Software picks up which songs are redirects if you only put WPSongs (etc.), which is useful because if somebody adds text the article immediately shows up as unclassified. Much less work! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: Like this?[3] —Ojorojo (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the talkpage Project assessments. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Every Time I Feel the Spirit (song). Since you had some involvement with the Every Time I Feel the Spirit (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeing lots of these today, example at Kuroi Namida, looks like somebody has messed with a template, not that I'd know how to fix, hence coming to you. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Track listing doesn't show any recent changes.[4] This requires a WP:template editor. Several others have brought this up at Template talk:Track listing#Error message "Track listing error: Time value does not contain a colon". —Ojorojo (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Jc86035: The Infobox song documentation includes some language left over from Infobox single, specifically "Separate multiple values using commas, {{flatlist}} or {{hlist}}.[2]". The footnote includes "For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists the use of {{flatlist}} or {{hlist}} is preferred as they offer a benefit to users of screen readers (see MOS:HLIST). Vertical lists should always be implemented by {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}} and never by <br /> tags for reasons of accessibility (see MOS:PLIST)." Several of the infobox parameters include |class=hlist or |class=plainlist. MOS:HLIST and MOS:PLIST don't provide a good explanation for using these. Do you know of any good examples? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think "format these as you would a normal bulleted list; don't use other list templates" or similar should suffice. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi 'Rojo. Apologies for not replying to your comments (and the same to Jc86035, for ignoring your replies). I can only spend so long on project and template talk pages – technical stuff, basically – before I need to clear out of Wikipedia's backstage area and get some oxygen …! You raised an interesting question at Template talk:Infobox song#Earliest release info only or?, one that's long overdue for discussion, I'm sure, but at the same time, it's somewhat frightening because of the repercussions (say, on chronologies). I'll post some replies there shortly. JG66 (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In cleaning up the infoboxes, it became clear that the "earliest only" or "single occurrence" approach isn't workable. One recording may have more than one noteworthy release. The problem is how to translate that into a guideline for the current infobox format, without encouraging detail overload. I'm going to take a couple days before I add anything. An idea may be to experiment with the new template to see how the three SP/1978 single songs work in the new parameters. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@JG66: It would be difficult for the infobox guideline to address many of the possible single/album releases scenarios without it becoming unwieldy. Including examples of singles chronologies for earlier album tracks (using type=song) may result in infoboxes overwhelmed with minor releases. The guideline should focus on the broader applications. That said, I think Beatles articles are a special case. You have a much better idea of what the key facts are and should follow that ("ignore all rules") – more on SP talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't watching this page, so I didn't see your previous reply. I agree it would be very difficult to include wording in the guideline that covers the various scenarios adequately. It's tempting to leave the situation as is; failing that, add a fairly general comment, but encourage editors to sort it out on a case-by-case basis on the talk page. If I've understood things correctly, chronologies are meant to run across the encyclopaedia unbroken – so that's partly what's behind my suggestion for the likes of Sgt. Pepper (song) (that and the fact that we could then lose an infobox dedicated to a later, notable single release each time). But going back to when I flagged some potential issues, in March, I've never been clear on this point and it's come up with a few GA reviewers over the years. If you want to log it away in the "Too hard" basket, I completely understand – life is good but it's short! JG66 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding The Needle Drop should be count as an reliable source or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The bot run has now fixed approximately 10,000 pages, but that still leaves 8,000 more (many constitute lack of bold in {{Extra chronology}}, lack of dates, or incorrectly nested templates). A few non-bot-fixable items:

• Bulletproof Wallets has a chronology which includes releases by all the Wu-Tang Clan members. Should this be removed?

Yes (I removed) – chronologies are limited to the artist(s) credited with the specific work; in this case only GK is listed. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• (Not an error, but A Fresh Aire Christmas similarly has a separate chronology for Mannheim Steamroller's Christmas albums. Should this be removed?)

Yes (I removed). Separate chronologies for different album types (live, compilation, etc.) are not warranted, plus the Christmas album chronology duplicates the Christmas listing already in the navbox at the bottom. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are several albums which have a Chinese name preceding the English name. AFAIK italics are not used for Chinese characters, so either they could use {{noitalic}} or another parameter could be created.

WP:TRANSLITERATE includes "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated." WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS also discourages the use of "Characters not on a standard keyboard". —Ojorojo (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Big Bang have four double A-sides where both the A-sides and the individual songs have articles; see Made (Big Bang album). I have no idea what to do about this, input needed here.

One style for Japanese, Korean, etc., pop appears to mix odd combinations of characters, English words, numbers, and/or symbols. Perhaps this is carried over to naming the format also – I've seen one-track releases identified as "albums", five-tracks as "singles", etc. Big Bang is particularly "creative", with albums subdivided into "single albums", which contain singles (often multitracked) that also have song articles (I suppose it's one way to get exposure). Resisting normal naming/classification conventions is probably part of the gimmick. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully we can get the number of pages down to under a thousand before we need to do more manual fixes. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

On another note, Like a Corpse Standing in Desperation needs to be fixed soon so that the bot will stop editing it on subsequent runs, but a lot of the chronologies for that artist's albums are incredibly mixed up and it might be hard to order them (the previous album is actually a single). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Sopor Æternus needs more work, but I've fixed the rest as noted above. I'll try to address that and Eien / Universe etc. tomorrow. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Great job! With recent efforts, the numbers for infobox song are encouraging: string errors: ~1,600 (down from ~3,000), malformed tables ~28 (from ~300), unknown type: ~200 (from ~400). Also, unknown params are ~140 (apparently all due to ISWC – won't these just be deleted in the merge?) and all other "valid name? = N" entries in the monthly error report have been fixed.

I haven't been following the progress on infobox album. I'll do what I can for those you have identified. Perhaps notify X201, who's been doing a lot of work on those infoboxes.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, what should be done for singles with multiple songs on them, like Eien / Universe / Believe in Love? Should each of the song titles have their own pair of quotes? Should the {{Singles}} approach (e.g. |title=Eien'''" / "'''Universe'''" / "'''Believe in Love) be used? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Fixed the rest of Sopor Æternus. I don't have an easy answer for the more quotes/less quotes problem. Albums and most EPs have names, but double (or triple, etc.) A-sides aren't named as such. WP doesn't have a consensus on this, because most double-As probably have separate articles for each song. A quick Google book search for Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane and Ruby Tuesday/Let's Spend the Night Together shows a lot more uses of "XXX"/"YYY" or "XXX" / "YYY" (with spaces) than "XXX/YYY" (listings in charts, discographies, etc., usually forgo the quotes or list them separately). I would go with the first, since I don't think an unnamed multitrack release is a single "work", but rather a collection of individual songs (which are identified using quotes). George Ho may have brought this up in another forum, but I don't remeber which one. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Ojorojo. Thanks for the ping; I hope this helps: "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 17#RfC: Should Infobox song and Infobox album be merged?" --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox album is down to around 2200 (the category says 1900, but I know this is wrong). Mostly the same problems as above: embedded templates without use of the misc field, users freestyle interpretation of template code layout and general "What the...?" moments like the examples above. One thing I would recommend after Infobox song is cleaned would be to set the ignoreblank field in the template code to n, They've just done that on Wikiproject Video games and it turned up thousands of articles where users have made up their own fields or where defunct fields were still present without a value. It provides a really thorough deep down clean of template code in articles. - X201 (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@X201: I don't think this should be a major problem, since unknown parameters would be removed in the mass substitution anyway, and it can just be done again in the future if necessary. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: In cleaning up the rest of the Category:Music infoboxes with malformed table placement, I noticed a couple of items:

• {{Extra album cover}} doesn't have a default for |header=. Could it be set to "Alternative cover", with |header=no not having any header. This is useful for two or more covers, where the first can be set to |header=Alternative covers (plural) and the additional ones set to |header=no (none).
• {{External music video}} always produces "Music video" with no options. Could a header option be added, set to "Music video" (default), with |header=no not having any header?
  

This would be consistent with {{Audio sample}}. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Added the switch for {{External music video}} and {{Extra album cover/sandbox}} (not the main version). I don't think it's safe to only hide the header if there's |header=no or |header=none yet as this doesn't control for the uses where the header is already empty. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Thanks, I've updated the documentation. Why does the merger notice still appear on {{Audio sample}} and the listing in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been merged yet. I'm waiting for the cleanup of the other templates to substitute {{Audiosample}} and {{Extra audio sample}} (which are both still separate templates) so that it's all done in one go.

If there aren't any years for the chronologies, should they just be left without the years (the bot script could change the parameter names and remove italics/quotes manually)? It would probably clear out at least a thousand pages from the error category. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: If the page editors haven't gotten around to making the fixes so far, it should be OK to work around them. A lot of pages seem to be created, then forgotten. I've seen many which lack notability, any refs, etc., and have been tagged as such for years. I don't think we should be so worried about the very worst articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I've removed a couple of new "Valid name?=N" that showed up in the 8/1 monthly song error report and continue to chip away at other song error categories. But the song numbers haven't changed much from last month (~1,600 string errors, etc.). How's getting the number of pages down to under a thousand going? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been off-wiki for a while (the bot hasn't run for a few weeks) but I'm planning to start the bot on chronologies without any dates sometime this week. Sorry for my absence. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ojorojo, I have been speaking with the editor in question in regards to the AN/I report, and I have tried to address the problems in which you have pointed out in this particular article. I will monitor and work with the editor in question in the meanwhile to work on voluntary restriction from maintenance templates and be reminded of using proper citation format. Do you think this would be a viable solution? Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 15:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thanks for your efforts. Over the years, Led Zeppelin-related WP articles have been a target for constant vandalism, pov-pushing, OR, sock puppetry, etc., etc. While it would be great to actually improve all their articles, removing the BS seems to take up a lot of time and effort. Your edits to "The Ocean" address all my immediate concerns (the |at=eBook for the Lewis ref got lost in the shuffle – couldn't find a page no. – re-add it?) and one day, I'd like to fix the rest. Hopefully, your edits/explanations will also satisfy the editor; he seems to think I'm hounding him, but I'm a regular participant at GAN and added the comment about the Doors nomination to underscore the overall referencing issue (I didn't comment on a second similar nomination). I hope the editor understands the situation. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey so to sum it all up on my behalf:I did not know engouh as much about certain Wikipedia guidline than I thought or should have , but you two showed me that there is more to know.Thanks for that.Anyway about me nominating The Doors and Definitely Maybe:I thought if Id see an article that fits the GA requirements Ill just go ahead and nominate it (Btw the process for the two articles is taking very long and Im not sure why). I wont be making any edits to The Ocean article to cool things of so to speak (Alex Shih already mentioned that in a way). Cheers mate. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you put Forbes.com to WP:ALBUMAVOID? Because acccording to RS noticeboard, Tenebrae says "Forbes "contributors" are not Forbes editorial staff, but suppliers of user-generated content." 115.164.179.252 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@115.164.179.252: ALBUMAVOID includes "Websites with user-generated content should never be used as sources ... It is also important to be cautious of websites that publish user-submitted album reviews." So, any content that can be shown to be WP:USERGENERATED may be removed. The discussion at the RS noticeboard didn't specifically recommend adding Forbes to the list. Maybe bring it up at WT:ALBUMS, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

that you want me at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. I am a wikianarchist and am an inclusionist and am one of the folks who would like all cover versions of a song to be listed somewhere, either in the songs article or in a separate List of cover versions of . . article. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It's up to you (I wasn't aware of your view). Since we discussed it length before and you're active in that area, I thought I'd pass it along. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I do a fair amount of music editing but am of the Rules are made to be broken school, and naturally believe that all my rule breaking is for the good of our project and I hate it when other editors break the guidelines and do stupid edits. I suppose it is a vanity thing. I tend to stay out of arguments that hinge around interpreting the rules. Mostly I just mutter curses at my dog and back away from those sorts of discussions, I am still annoyed about loosing my list of session players on Bobby Day's Rockin' Robin (song) because supposedly the source was not reliable. I am sometimes a bomb thrower and am often best left out, but I do thank you for your invitation. Carptrash (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ojorojo, please look at this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Richey and verify it is poorly sourced. I can not understand how any editor worth their salt could vote to keep...174.97.1.181 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Jc86035: "Album chronologies for film franchises and series" at WT:ALBUM didn't get much response, but I think it still should be pursued. Maybe be bold and remove a few and see what happens or open a RfC. BTW, the Infobox song error numbers haven't changed much since last month.[5] Where do we stand on completing the merger of Infobox single and song? I see Zackmann08 is back. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've stalled it for a while and worked on some other stuff due to a bug in AWB which I didn't really want to work around, but with manual review for each edit and a few tweaks I should get a few hundred more done. A lot of the remaining song infoboxes are not fixable automatically or have brackets like "(featuring Quavo)" or "(remix)" or "(acoustic)" which aren't handled yet or need to be checked and removed manually, and then there are the split US/UK chronologies which aren't formatted consistently or correctly. Jc86035 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: OK, I'll focus on those with brackets, etc. I've already seen many odd/problematic uses of chronologies, which are basically for navigation and have little to do with the actual article. Something so trivial presents a major stumbling block. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

but probably a source for the piano in R&R should be found, given the importance to Fats Domino, Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis to the music. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Genre articles are magnets for OR, POV-pushing, and general bloat. Requiring citations to RS helps keep 'em on track. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, since the piano was not in the reference cited it had to go. And pianos are mentioned both before and after the reference used, so it is not a big deal. I suspect that the addition here was done in all innocence and ignorance of our process, but I dislike editors trying to sneak stuff in using other references as shields about as much as anything. Maybe date changing is worse, maybe not. Carptrash (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ojorojo, I am working on the article slide guitar. As you know, I have re-written the lead and I am now working on both lead and body to improve the article. I have added several sources, and it is a work in progress. Now I find that the "Technique" section of the article is largely a verbatim copy of THIS. Will you have a look? Should the section be deleted if it is copyvio? Also, is it possible that Youtube copied the Wiki article, i.e., reverse copyvio?? Regards,--Eagledj (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The video indicates "Published on Jul 28, 2008". Much of the text accompanying it appears in the WP article by mid-2006, so it looks as if the video wording was copied from WP. Since the article is mostly unreferenced (the "Technique" section has been tagged since June 2010), the whole thing should be rewritten with proper inline citations to RS. You've made a good start, but the lead could be further simplified.

"Slide guitar is a particular technique for playing the guitar that involves using a object to change the pitch of the strings. Instead of definite notes, slide playing is usually used to produce glissandos and deep vibratos that make the music emotionally expressive. This technique was practiced on string instruments in Africa and also used in Hawaiian and steel guitar playing. However, slide guitar techniques allow the player to alternately fret the strings and thus provide a rhythmic or other melodic component. Early American blues musicians used this style and is heard in recordings from the 1920s by Charley Patton ...

Slide guitar playing typically involves playing the guitar in the traditional position (flat against the body) with the use of a "slide" fitted on one of the guitarist's fingers. A slide may be a metal or glass tube, such as a small section of pipe or neck of a bottle ..."

Finger picking vs flatpick, pressure, raised nut, etc., and other more technical aspects are better in the main body. Think of the lead as an outline of points that are discussed later. In fact, it is usually easier to write the main body first, then summarize it for the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Red House (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheGracefulSlick -- TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The article Red House (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Red House (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheGracefulSlick -- TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please desist from your nonsense repeat edits to this article (and from what I can tell, you have yet to actually contribute constructively). You are the only editor reverting my factual and referenced edits, apart from the occasional editor that changes the birth year based on false information from a handful of obits. The incorrect birth year has no place on Wikipedia - employment records, birth records AND passport information confirm the information. It isn't a coincidence that a newly auctioned passport has 1946 at his year of birth. It's interesting that you blind reverted my edit with your stock edit summary, without reading the talk page yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.178.105 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Why [6]? Where exactly do you see any rules saying to remove empty fields from infoboxes? I hope someone will add more information, and that someone won't have to spend half an hour figuring out how to do it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: WP:COMMONSENSE – some parameters will never be used: |written= & |published= are not used for commercially released records (they are used for pre-recording era songs); if |B-side= is used, there is no use for |A-side=; if it's a live recording |venue= will be used instead of |studio=; if a separate composer and lyricist have been identified, |writer= should not be used, etc. So as not to confuse editors who have not worked with the updated Template:Infobox song, I made the corrections, but only left the parameters that may be usable. Also, with minimal effort, many of the fields could be filled (see Hi-Revving Tongues info[7], Demis Roussos info[8], etc.). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. By the way, you removed a template called "Interlanguage link". I don't think it was good idea. Now some reader will click and will find himself in some Wikipedia in a foreign language. (I personally think that direct links to Wikipedias in other languages is a bad practice.) The interlanguage link template was created for a reason, it is commonly used. I think it also incourages people to create new articles and helps them during creation. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: OK, but they should be used in the main body and not in the infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you get busy cleaning up Wikipedia of its indiscriminate trivia.

[9][10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]

Take it easy, P.S. that reminds me, I should check the Eagles song "Take it Easy." Oh look, it has indiscriminate trivia too. [20]. Please clean it up as well. Thank you, and take it easy, Terry Foote (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

[COPIED TO Talk:Led Zeppelin#Instruments in Members section for more possible input]

I noticed you added mandolin back to Jones. I don't have a problem with it being there, however, with it's use frequency, we would have to include many other things in order to be fair to the other musicians. Jimmy Page's use of Theramin, and Steel Guitar would need to be added. But these, including Jones' mandolin, aren't used very frequently. The instruments they are known for are all that should be included in the main article. Additional instruments are listed in the albums articles. Don't you agree? UtahCountryBoy (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@UtahCountryBoy: I'm not interested in loading up the "Members" section, but I think it should contain more than the bare bones. Jones didn't play mandolin that often, but unlike Page's steel and banjo, he did play it live during the acoustic sets. Maybe add theremin to Page, since he also played it live. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)