User talk:Flowerparty/Test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| "I Heard It through the Grapevine" | |
 Grapes! |
|
| Written by | Norman Whitfield, Barrett Strong |
|---|---|
| Published | 1967 |
| Language | English |
| Original artist | Smokey Robinson & the Miracles (1967) |
| Recorded by | Marvin Gaye (1967), Gladys Knight & the Pips (1967), Creedence Clearwater Revival (1970) ... |
| "My Favorite Things" | |
 A picture could go here. |
|
| Music by | Richard Rodgers |
|---|---|
| Lyrics by | Oscar Hammerstein II |
| Published | 1959 |
| Language | English |
| Recorded by | John Coltrane (1960), ... Björk (1999) |
| "Non, je ne regrette rien" ("I regret nothing") |
|
 Ceci n'est pas un toucan. |
|
| Music by | Charles Dumont |
|---|---|
| Lyrics by | Michel Vaucaire |
| Published | 1956 |
| Language | French |
| Original artist | Édith Piaf (1960) |
| "The Star-Spangled Banner" | |
 Nicholson took the copy Key gave him to a printer, where it was published as a broadside on September 17 under the title "The Defence of Fort McHenry," with an explanatory note explaining the circumstances of its writing. Of the five copies made, two are known to still exist. |
|
| Lyrics by | Francis Scott Key |
|---|---|
| Published | 1812 |
| Language | English |
| "Major General's Song" from the operetta The Pirates of Penzance |
|
| Music by | Sir Arthur Sullivan |
|---|---|
| Lyrics by | W. S. Gilbert |
| Published | 1879 |
| Language | English |
| Form | patter song |
| "Dixie" also known as "I Wish I Was in Dixie" and "Dixie's Land" |
|
 Sheet music cover, c. 1900 |
|
| Written by | Daniel Decatur Emmett (disputed) |
|---|---|
| Written | 1997 (earliest attested) |
| Language | English |
| "Maryland, My Maryland" State song of Maryland |
|
 The Great Seal of Maryland |
|
| Lyrics by | James Ryder Randall |
|---|---|
| Written | 1861 |
| Language | English |
[edit] Comment on the song infobox
I welcome your suggestion and that it includes a possibility to separate Composer and Lyricist. I do, however, feel that an image rather belongs in a single infobox. Good work! --Bensin 07:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. It's already possible to omit the image, actually. All I've done is to add an optional caption so that a different image may be inserted if the song doesn't have a record sleeve (see "The Star-Spangled Banner" example on the right). I'll repeat, however, that this here isn't a single infobox but a song infobox - the distinction is quite important but seems to have largely been ignored. Flowerparty? 11:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you on the difference between a single and a song, and I definitely see the need for separate infoboxes for the two. However, I don't believe that an image is connected to a song in the same way a single's cover is connected to the single. If, for some reason, there is such a strong relation, like in the case of "The Star-Spangled Banner", I rather think the image belongs in the article (but outside the song infobox) instead. Because although some songs have a relation to an image, far from all do. Unlike the variables of composer, lyricist and language, which virtually all songs have. Even though it just leaves the option to add an image, it does invite to do so, perhaps leading to somewhat "forced" additions. In fact, I see this lack of relationship between an image and a song as just another call for the need of a song infobox. --Bensin 12:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean now. Well, indeed, the image is completely optional, so if it feels more appropriate not to have one in a particular article it can easily be left out; I don't think that's likely to be a real problem. I've added an example for the "Major General's Song" at the bottom to illustrate a version without the image. Actually, I was rather of the mind that we need a song infobox instead of a single infobox, for the reasons I've outlined at the WP:SONG talk page. I suppose both have their unique merits, but I hoped this one would be more universal. The thing is, we don't have articles about singles, we have articles about songs (with one exception I've just found at The Fallen / L. Wells, which looks exceedingly awkward - what happens if one of those tracks is reissued separately?). Flowerparty? 13:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you on the difference between a single and a song, and I definitely see the need for separate infoboxes for the two. However, I don't believe that an image is connected to a song in the same way a single's cover is connected to the single. If, for some reason, there is such a strong relation, like in the case of "The Star-Spangled Banner", I rather think the image belongs in the article (but outside the song infobox) instead. Because although some songs have a relation to an image, far from all do. Unlike the variables of composer, lyricist and language, which virtually all songs have. Even though it just leaves the option to add an image, it does invite to do so, perhaps leading to somewhat "forced" additions. In fact, I see this lack of relationship between an image and a song as just another call for the need of a song infobox. --Bensin 12:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- We have many, many articles about singles, as evidenced by all the single-oriented categories (Do I hear talk about an AfD for number-one single categories? Interested in seeing how that plays out), not to mention rampant tracking of chart positions, single releases (including serial codes), re-releases, and so on. And yes, I'm guilty myself of starting single articles based solely on dry single release data — because, frankly, the sizeable history books haven't been written for many contemporary musicians yet, but the chart data and discography databases have been building up the whole time. And they're mostly free to access without getting out of your seat.
-
-
-
-
-
- Looking at this song infobox, I see it as being more befitting for articles where you can actually generate substantial discourse out of the song, such as, well, some of the ones you've listed here. As for everything else, chart errata, music video variants, and possibly lists of TV commercial licensings are really going to be the only substance there's going to be to a lot of single articles, and in fact a lot of one- or two-line stubs are being solely propped up by the single infobox until a) the history books get written 30, 40 years on; b) someone goes and does some detailed research with the newspaper / magazine clippings and websites of dubious repute that we do have now; or c) massive AfD listings. Which I am not saying some single articles don't deserve, but just try and generate a list of those that everyone can get behind. –Unint 08:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well that's very negative - it's only an infobox :P But you're right, this one does seem better suited to songs that haven't been released as singles, and the single box is kind of well-established, so we'd clearly need some severe consensus before trying to get rid of it, or anything. Flowerparty☀ 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Wait a minute... I've just realized I've been moving "(single)" pages to "(song)" pages even though I somewhat disagree with the fundamental principle there. Heh.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Also, this isn't really going to replace {{Song infobox}} either, is it? People are using that for album tracks, which need source album, writer, genre, the track listing chronology...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm now wondering if this is going to end up with Template:Album track infobox added to the pile, or something like that. –Unint 08:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Something like the "Major General's Song" could maybe use a field for the show it originally appeared in. Maybe also "Form" for folk songs? (e.g. ballad, epic song, work song) And national anthems could use an "Official in" field. I think a space for an English translation of the title would be good too (e.g. put "I regret nothing" under "Non, je ne regrette rien"). Tuf-Kat 07:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I still feel the number of fields be kept at a minimum, to what is common for (virtually) all songs. Therefore I vote no to space for images and "official in". I see no reason why this type of information can't be put in the songs article insted. A space for an English translation is a good idea however. --Bensin 08:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agh, fragmented discussion! Wow, thanks for all these rapidfire comments. They all sound like worthy suggestions, I particularly like the English translation idea, and the "Form" thing sounds sensible. I've thought about the other two before, but wasn't sure how to negotiate them. Is the meaning of "Official in" going to be clear to most people? As for indicating which work the song is from, I don't know - I kind of agree with Bensin that this would be better left in the lead, and just can't think what would be written in the left-hand column. Flowerparty☀ 08:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note: My French is rusty, so don't trust my translation. (It's probably more precisely "No, I'm not sorry for anything") How about rather an "Official in", there could be a field which would produce a little caption rather like the english translation now, reading "Maryland, Maryland"/Official song of Maryland. Tuf-Kat 14:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I think your translation's fine. It's often rendered more idiomatically as "No Regrets", but I don't know which is more "correct". Anyway, I've added a 'comment' parameter which will produce a smaller line of text under the title (and the translation). This would seem a fairly versatile way of doing it, and it will also allow people to include alternate song titles and what not (see the modified "Dixie" example on the right), and to mention the operetta in songs like the "Major General's Song". Maybe this is a bit clumsy? I've added the form parameter too. Flowerparty☀ 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Awesome! Making them captions under the title looks good, IMO. Doesn't seem clumsy at all to me (just gotta try and keep things standardized so they all say "State song of Maryland" rather than "Official song of Maryland" or "Maryland state song or something). Tuf-Kat 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suppose it looks quite neat on these examples. But I bet there are songs that are not only taken from an operetta, but are also the official song of somewhere, and their title's in Italian, etc. Might not be a big problem, but we'd be relying on editors to use the field sparingly. Flowerparty☀ 12:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Awesome! Making them captions under the title looks good, IMO. Doesn't seem clumsy at all to me (just gotta try and keep things standardized so they all say "State song of Maryland" rather than "Official song of Maryland" or "Maryland state song or something). Tuf-Kat 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think your translation's fine. It's often rendered more idiomatically as "No Regrets", but I don't know which is more "correct". Anyway, I've added a 'comment' parameter which will produce a smaller line of text under the title (and the translation). This would seem a fairly versatile way of doing it, and it will also allow people to include alternate song titles and what not (see the modified "Dixie" example on the right), and to mention the operetta in songs like the "Major General's Song". Maybe this is a bit clumsy? I've added the form parameter too. Flowerparty☀ 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Feedback
Well, uh, I can't think of any problems I have with this. Everything I can think of offhand has already been put in. On the other hand, I really haven't thought much about the usage of this infobox at all. I suppose you might get WikiProject Theatre to take a look at this. –Unint 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Genre?
I think it would be a good idea to include a genre option in the box for those songs with clear genres (for example, "Stormy Monday." -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
