Template talk:Infobox song

Template:Infobox song is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Infoboxes

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes

Songs

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

RfC: customizing infobox background colors based on album or single cover colors

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Early WP:SNOW closure. Participants unanimously opposed the proposal, citing in particular WP:COLOR's accessibility-based prohibitions against such designs. (non-admin closure) Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm requesting for your consensus on whether infoboxes for songs and albums should be customized with background colors that reflect the primary colors of the associated album or single cover. I proposed this because to enhance visual appeal and strengthen the connection between the article design and the featured music branding.

Should we allow the customization of infobox background colors to reflect the color of the album or single cover?

Choices:

Yes – Infoboxes for songs and albums should have customizable background colors based on the significant colors of the album or single cover.
No – Infoboxes for songs and albums should retain their current yellow or blue design without background colors.
Neither – No strong preference or support for either. Alternatively, propose a different solution or compromise (need an explanation if C is the answer.)

ROY is WAR Talk! 10:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Royiswariii: have you started a discussion in the relevant WikiProjects beforehand? RfCs are time-consuming, and it is more often than not easier to get consensus on talk page discussions first. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 12:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
B. No - This has been discussed in the past. Coloring infoboxes is a time sink with no benefit attached. Editors just waste time arguing and edit warring about which color they prefer. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
B/No Background colours have the potential for accessibility problems, see MOS:COLOR, and to provide good contrast need to be subtle/pale. Consider: what are the significant colours of the album cover at A Hard Day's Night - dark blue, or black? Both would give contrast problems. Also, what are the significant colours of the album cover at A Collection of Beatles Oldies? There's plenty of choice, so see Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With Hard Day's Night, you forgot "grey/dark grey" (and which spelling do we use for gray?).--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
B/No. This is a MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Color issue. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC/B. No - @Royiswariii, as Elias noted, RfCs are time-consuming, and typically there's a discussion beforehand to see whether an RfC is even necessary. So I suggest that you withdraw this RfC. If you proceed with it, note that the RfC question should be worded neutrally, whereas your comment about why you're proposing this seems to be advocating for a response of "yes," so I encourage you to edit the question wording. As for the question, I agree with others that this may lead to accessibility problems, and given that many covers have multiple colors, would be a time sink / lead to arguments about which color to use. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow no For reasons elaborated above, namely the existing scheme of colors corresponding to a category of musical release, sometimes a lack of a dominant color, and the accessability issues.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
B/No - no need for this and a potential source of problems. Rlendog (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is not DecorationPedia. See also MOS:COLOR. We sometimes grudgingly use well-tested background colors in infoboxes, a systematic manner that indicates something categorical, but we do not do it simply for decorative/designerly or marketing-related purposes, and doing it willy-nilly with random colors picked from album covers would cause accessibility problems due to insufficient luminosity contrast between various background and text colors. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Questions for 'concurrent_title'

Hello, I can't figure out what does 'concurrent title' do. Can I see some article which uses this section? Camilasdandelions (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Camilasdandelions, the parameter is used for dual single releases (i.e. songs released to radio at the same time). Squabble Up + TV Off, BMF (song) + 30 for 30 (song), and Kiss It Better + Needed Me are some examples of how it's used. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 16:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you so much for explanation! By the way, then what is the difference with Billie Eilish's song Party Favor / Hotline Bling? Camilasdandelions (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilasdandelions, the difference is that "Party Favor" and "Hotline Bling" were released on a 7-inch (aka a physical release), which has its own notation. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 18:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I see. Thank you for your kind explanatiom again. I'll try to refer it.

If you're okay, could you please explain in Template:Singles talk about 'child'? Camilasdandelions (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why "co-producers" should not be included?

I don't understand why it says co-producers shouldn't be included on the infobox as producers. The "co-" prefix literally means "joint" and "shared", not additional. What's the difference between producers and co-producers? They are both equally producers of the same song. I don't get it. Could someone explain this to me? Thedayandthetime (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many people misuse the prefix "co-" as a synonym for the word "assistant". If two people are listed as producers on a record, or if there is no listed "producer" and two people are listed as "co-producers" (using the actual meaning of the prefix "co-", meaning that the two listed people were the primary producers and are credited equally), then just list them using the |producer= parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Jonesey95. Let's say there's a song with a person being officially credited as "producer" and two additional people credited as "co-producers". In that case, the song's official credits are misusing the prefix so its infobox should only list the person that was credited as "producer", right?

What about the rest of the article though? Should it call these two people that were wrongly credited by the label/artist as co-producers "additional producers" instead? Thedayandthetime (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave out anyone not officially credited as a producer. Wikipedia is not a database or collection of trivia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's mentioned in a source, for sure include them in prose. If it's from liner notes, I think evaluate. It can be mentioned in the article body without going into the infobox. The infobox is a summary, the article can get more detailed.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thedayandthetime (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of opinion articles to find genres

I have found that many articles use opinion articles to add genres to infoboxes. Is this practice allowed? I'm mainly against it due to how this is based on the writers opinions, rather than what the band thinks. ^Wiinter_U 18:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When reporting a problem or a concern, always link to one or two example articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which image is due?

If a song was released as a single multiple times, is there a consensus as to which should be the infobox image? If the original isn't available, are any of the subsequent covers acceptable/necessary/appropriate? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]