Template talk:Singles

Overall

This appears to be a useful subcomponent to Infobox Album. I might use it myself in updating Album articles with considerable numbers of singles released in support of the albums detailed therein. - B.C.Schmerker 15:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Stops chronology being at the bottom

I believe this is useful, but by being added to the misc= field, it prevents the chronology from being at the bottom of the infobox. I think by now readers expect the chronology to be last. --kingboyk (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Is it possible to replace “programmer’s” quotes around a song title to “book quotes”? – Klimenok (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation marks recommends against this. Typographic quotes are by far the minority style here and typically make a mess of things (especially when they get into article titles...ick). That also means you yourself should not be adding typographic marks to article and elsewhere (as I see you've done recently). — Huntster (t @ c) 09:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Including artist's name in quotation marks

Shouldn't only the song title be included in the quotation marks? Template:Scarce signature. 18:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

hAudio microformat

{{editprotected}} Please replace this template with the version in the sandbox, which applies additional mark-up for the hAudio microformat already emitted by {{Infobox album}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. My bad; I didn't close some spans. I've fixed that in the Sandbox; please try again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted to last-known good so consensus can be sought for this change. –xeno^talk 13:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* Does anyone have a reasoned objection to making this template emit its data as machine-readable metadata, as an adjunct to the existing metadata emitted by {{Infobox album}}, so that others can parse and reuse our data more efficiently and efficiently? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it unnecessarily complicates the template and offers no tangible benefit. –xeno^talk 14:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's palpably false, because the benefits are clear and tangible. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the benefit? –xeno^talk 14:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Benefits, plural. This was already answered in the earlier discussion to which you refer; and on our pages about microformats. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No benefit to the average reader was established. Some vague "Google and Yahoo use these!" was offered up, it wasn't compelling. –xeno^talk 14:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The last community discussion on microFormats did not demonstrate consensus for them to continue to be added globally, and in fact, some felt that they should start to be removed where they exist: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 76#Microformats. –xeno^talk 13:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained to you, Wikipedia already emits millions of microformats added by consensus over the last three or so years, buy a number of editors. They are already widely parsed by external partners, not least Google and Yahoo!. Your crusade to stop their further deployment is counter-productive. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A fait accompli does not consensus make. –xeno^talk 14:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not. Which is why I said "consensus" and not "fait accompli". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the consensus? –xeno^talk 14:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to the answer I gave you, the last time you kept asking the same question. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a small number of editors have been editing templates or filing editprotected requests and having admins fulfill them who probably don't fully understand the request or realize that these microformats have never had a community-wide discussion is not consensus in any way, shape, or form. The fact that a discussion at the community pump did not generate much support for these is also telling. As I suggested to you at the AN discussion, you should file an RFC and if community consensus for microformats is established, you will no longer see me object to this piecemeal implementation of an unproven concept. –xeno^talk 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You again repeat your baseless allegations, such as the one about supposedly-duped admins. I wonder if you've put that allegation to Tivedshambo? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I left them a message [1]. –xeno^talk 13:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in that message, about the allegation about supposedly-duped admins you make here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC is here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xeno^talk 14:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

HTML syntax error

<span class="fn" style="font-size:110%"{{{Single 1|}}}{{{single 1|}}}</span>

Opening span tag error. See an example of the miss-display on Kokopelli (album). Add a proper ">", please. — Lacrymocéphale 13:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed in sandbox. See above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

To repeat my question, from above: Does anyone have a reasoned objection to making this template emit its data as machine-readable metadata, as an adjunct to the existing metadata emitted by {{Infobox album}}, so that others can parse and reuse our data more efficiently and efficiently? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the specific benefit that will be enjoyed in this case? –xeno^talk 13:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, this template's parent, {{Infobox album}}, already emits metadata, in an hAudio microformat. This change will include details of each album's singles as an adjunct to the existing metadata so that others can parse and reuse our data more efficiently and efficiently. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

One week on; no objections. Request reactivated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. If there are any objections, please revert and discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The singles template no longer seems to be appearing - a result of this change? Cavie78 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted again strictly because it is broken (i.e. not an objection to the microformat per se). Please test sandbox proposal in the mainspace before asking admins to implementing. –xeno^talk 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the error was introduced by Martin. Please use my last version. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done All set, I think. –xeno^talk 19:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be working well. Thanks, everyone. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Italics

Please can I ask what is going on with this template? Earlier today it disappeared from all existance although now its reappeared but is unecessarily making song titles appear in italics! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The italics were always present. For an answer to the rests of your post, see above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't in ''italics'', it was in "quotes". They may look similar but they have different effects. Song titles belong in quotes, not italics. Italics is for albums. AnemoneProjectors 22:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. AnemoneProjectors 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; my mistake - bad eyesight! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The singles appear in italics not in "qoutation marks". Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been fixed. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

Perhaps its time this template was merged with the Album infobox template? Why is it necessary to have them seperate? It is quite confusing and hard to understand that the templates are seperate for new users. It would make better sense for the template's fields to be merged with the infobox. If the fields aren't used then they won't appear just as other fields in the infoboxes. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a great idea, just as you described. Wiki would be a lil bit more user-friendly.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Digital singles

Is anyone aware of this template fork?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: the reporting of Radio add dates.

After many discussions at WT:SONG, a consensus has been reached that a 'Radio add" date can 'create' a 'single'. However the template formatting displays "Released:" but the industry does not call Radio a 'Release'. We are attempting to resolve the reporting of Radio date HERE. Also feel free to review the considerable material prior to the subsection given in the link. Please contribute and thank you.
If consensus is reached I anticipate that we will seek the following changes

ADD field
| Single 1 radio =
to render Radio:

Change field | Single 1 date =

to | Single 1 released =

to render Released:
and continuing for subsequent singles as well.
—Iknow23 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request to fix offset quotation marks

I request to make a minor edit to the template to fix the issue with the quotation marks being offset from the letters in the song title. Normally, the top of the quotation marks should be at the same height as the top of the capital letters, but currently this template places the marks a couple pixels below. The change is simple and requires moving the quotation marks inside the <span class="fn"> tags. The comparison of codes and output is shown below:

Current: {{#if: {{{Single 1|}}}{{{single 1|}}} |# <span class="item">"<span class="fn" style="font-size:110%">{{{Single 1|}}}{{{single 1|}}}</span>"{{#if: {{{Single 1 date|}}}{{{single 1 date|}}} |<br />Released: {{{Single 1 date|}}}{{{single 1 date|}}}}}</span>}} will render:

"Song Title" Released: Date

Proposed: {{#if: {{{Single 1|}}}{{{single 1|}}} |# <span class="item"><span class="fn" style="font-size:110%">"{{{Single 1|}}}{{{single 1|}}}"</span>{{#if: {{{Single 1 date|}}}{{{single 1 date|}}} |<br />Released: {{{Single 1 date|}}}{{{single 1 date|}}}}}</span>}} will render:

"Song Title" Released: Date

–Dream out loud (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done for single1. If you want the others changed as well, could I trouble you to make the required changes to Template:Singles/sandbox and reactivate this request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes have been added to sandbox. Sandbox template output is below. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

{{Singles/sandbox | Name = Album | Type = studio | Single 1 = Song | Single 1 date = Date | Single 2 = Song | Single 2 date = Date | Single 3 = Song | Single 3 date = Date | Single 4 = Song | Single 4 date = Date | Single 5 = Song | Single 5 date = Date | Single 6 = Song | Single 6 date = Date | Single 7 = Song | Single 7 date = Date | Single 8 = Song | Single 8 date = Date | Single 9 = Song | Single 9 date = Date | Single 10 = Song | Single 10 date = Date | Single 11 = Song | Single 11 date = Date | Single 12 = Song | Single 12 date = Date }}

 all done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Single date

It's not clear if the single date is the date it's made available to radio or if it's the date it's released to iTunes or other similar sales channels. Perhaps we could clarify that in the documentation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Updating Infobox Album

Along with changes to {{Infobox album}}, some changes are being proposed to this template. They would involve possibly changing the word "Released" to either "Available" or "Impacting" and also changing the size of the text for the release date so that it matches the rest of the infobox. Please poll/discuss at the discussion as desired, Template_talk:Infobox_album#Time_to_Update_the_Infobox_for_the_Industry_and_Accessibility. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Single date size

Based on the discussion at Template talk:Infobox album#Proposal 3, there is a consensus that the "release date" font size is unnecessarily shrunken and should be increased to match the rest of the infobox. This would be inline with the recent WP:ACCESS changes taking place across wikipedia to unify editing and make articles more accessible. I think its as simple as removing the "span font size formatting". → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You were part way there - your edit was fine for albums with just one single, like Revolver. But what about albums with more than one single, like Bad? I think that this covers it though. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

thank you for that! Template:Singles/sandbox now contains a the necessary edits to make the template perform as we wish. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I needed to make another tweak, you'd managed to turn the colspan="3" attribute into a value of the style= attribute, which won't work as intended in all browsers. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems Redrose forgot to actually update the template :)  deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Amount of singles

The amount of singles that can be added needs to be expanded. Journals (album) has 15 singles. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Question: Can be more specific? How many should it be able to handle? Can you just chain two or three of the templates together to get the same result (without bloating the template code for other pages)? Technical 13 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • How about I rewrite this in Lua to accept an unlimited number of them? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The "singles" in that article are not discussed. There's no indication of the importance of any of them, how they were released as singles (to radio, to a streaming service, as digital media downloads with a "b-side", or anything else). This has become a serious problem. As for that artcle, even Confident (song) indicates that it's the last single released from the album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Walter...unless a song can be specifically cited as a single, it should not be included in such a list. People seem to love classifying a song as a single even if they've simply heard it played outside of the album. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Done: The template now supports an unlimited number of singles. Whether or not it's appropriate for a given instance of this template to use them or not is not for discussion here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

I don't know why but whenever I view this template in the application of the Misc field in Template:Infobox album the rows are all squashed together and unreadable. For example at The New Classic the singles section of the infobox is all squashed. For clarification I've checked another album and added a screenshot here to show what I am seeing. Is this a universal problem? Could it be reverted please? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Even the revision from 2011 exhibits this behavior. I know it didn't used to do this, but it wasn't anything that happened here that caused it to start. If you know of a way to fix it, please specify exactly what change that would be. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look that bad in Chrome for me, but it does look squished in both Chrome and Firefox 29. It might have more to do with the recent font and style changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

its nothing to do with the recent font change because it worked fine prior to April 30. The font change happened much earlier than this. Where can wr go to next to try and fix this? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 11:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In other words, go to Bugzilla and submit a bug report that the new skin changes broke it. Yes, I see you are saying it was working fine before yesterday, but that could have just been an false appearance because you may have been looking at cached versions of the page. Regardless of the cause, it is something in core and requires a ticket on Bugzilla for any hopes of a fix (and it may even be a browser bug not related to MediaWiki at all, in which case you would have to report it on your browser's Bugzilla. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm it looks fine in Monobook, so it's highly likely that it was indeed the typography refresh that broke it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure its to do with the font change because some of the pages affected I did not view before the font change and did not have in my cache. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not the browser. I use Chrome on a regular basis, so I checked it in Safari, and it looks the exact same way. I'm using a Macbook. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Since both Safari and Chrome use essentially the same render engine, that's not a good example. I indicated above that a similar thing is happening in Firefox and Chrome (two different render engines) in Windows. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine now – it must have been a browser effect. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(←) I know this discussion is over a year old, but I recently started having the problem described by Lil-unique1. I didn't before. I run Safari on OS X Yosemite. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If you know how to use your browser's Web development tools, can you poke around with the styles via the DOM inspector and see if you can figure out why it's doing that? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Bug"

@Jackmcbarn: If someone is using the moduletemplate and doesn't fill some singles (e.g., starting with the 3rd single), then ugly first two singles are showing. Ok, yes, you can say, that it needs to be removed from code, but can't this be fixed? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: Fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

criteria for inclusion

I have seen songs added using this template that were only listed at sales source such as Google Play or at the iTunes store, but I can buy any single song at those sites. What is the criteria for inclusion? It should be detailed in the documentation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

B-sides

Is it possible to add B-sides as a parameter in this template? BlackCab (TALK) 05:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@BlackCab: What should that parameter do? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My wish would be that, using Sold (Died Pretty album) as an example, the singles section would read:

1. "Cuttin' Up Her Legs"/"Slipaway"

Released: September 1995

2. "Good at Love"/"How I Feel"

Released: December 1995

To collectors, the B-sides of singles are important too and it would be nice if that detail could be included in the infobox rather than in the text, per this. BlackCab (TALK) 04:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@BlackCab: That's already possible. I've done it with Special:Diff/686904635. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

How innovative! Thanks. I'll keep going then. (I just made up those B-sides but will fix). BlackCab (TALK) 02:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Change the "Title" for the "Singles Section"

Currently, the template comes pre-loaded with the words "Singles from" and the name of the album is picked up from a field on the template that is filled in by the editor. Would it be possible to change the language? If the name of the album starts with "From", the label says 'Singles from "From One". Since the name of the album is given at the top what about making the label simply "Singles"? This does away with 'from from' and then the album does not appear on the Word repeated list. Editors will not have to keep checking something that they cannot change and the language is smoother. Thank you for your consideration. Bobdog54 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it matters as the first "from" is lower case and in regular font while the second is upper case and italic: "Singles from From One". Since you're reading an article called From One, it is clear what's happening.

With that said, I agree that it may not be necessary to repeat the album title. Is there a need to do so? Is it ever used in a stand-alone article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Substitute not working

@Frietjes: any chance you could take a look at this? When I tried substituting the template it brought the check for unknown parameters with it... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Zackmann08, should work now, but if there were any unknown parameters, it will probably leave a category behind. Frietjes (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I undid your edit because it was resulting in the tracking category being substituted into pages. See this diff. The only change I made on that page was to add subst: i.e. {{subst:Singles. I 100% support what you are doing, but want to make sure it doesn't break the substitutions that I and a few others are actively doing. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Module problem

@Zackmann08: There is a problem with articles in Category:Pages with script errors: "Lua error in Module:Singles at line 98: attempt to concatenate field '?' (a nil value)." In case a record would be helpful (maybe these need parameter updates?), the current articles are: A New Chance + A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (Black Sheep album) + Adrenaline Rush 2007 + Angel Dust (Indo G album) + Animal Logic (album) + Artificial Selection (album) + Bottle It In + Cha-licious + Dance Gavin Dance (album) + Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor + Deliverance (Bubba Sparxxx album) + Dirty Computer + Don't Mess wit Texas + Dreams Can Come True, Greatest Hits Vol. 1 + Everclear (album) + Flo'Ology + Grow into One + Kimi no Uta (album) + Man on the Moon: The End of Day + Mars Audiac Quintet + Me Being Me + Mercury (American Music Club album) + Pet Grief + Respect (Lisa M. album) + Roxy Music (album) + Sinking (album) + Slapp Happy (album) + Sort Of + The Best of Kansas + The Chase (Marit Larsen album) + The Commission (album) + The Remixes (SWV EP) + Walker River State Recreation Area.

I have only spent a few minutes looking at this and do not understand what's going on, but a recent edit to the template seems to be saying "single 1" is deprecated and no longer supported, but getArgNums(args, '[Ss]ingle ?') seems to be supporting that. At any rate, you will know how to fix it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm on it. Just a matter of fixing some parameters. I'll take care of it. Out of curiosity, how did you generate that list of pages? Would be helpful for me to know how to do that moving forward. Thanks for taking the time to put that together and to ping me. I'm fixing it now. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I use the "Article namespace" API link at Category:Pages with script errors to generate the list which I copy. I then use a home-grown script to remove the gumph included in the copy and put it in my comment. That all happens on my computer in my editor. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Important discussion about singles and when to include in the album infobox

See Talk:Brightest_Blue#RFC_on_Singles_from_the_Album. Thanks ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Albums with only one single

I think the template should be adjusted for albums with only one single. There is no reason to include a number for just one single in an infobox, it doesn't look aesthetic, and quite frankly, it makes it seem like there is info missing (i.e. there should be a single #2 listed). See Meddle for an example of this (and there's countless other articles too I'm sure). Can we update the template to include numbers only when there are two or more singles? –Dream out loud (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't support this notion. Having numbers shows exactly how many singles have been released. Additionally, if we removed numbers for album's that only released one single I can almost guarantee we'll get all sorts of strange formatting and people inserting their numbering etc. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A problem with some newer albums is identifying which are actually singles. Some may be teasers, promo only, or later re-designated if they change their minds. For example, are these actual singles?[2] They are not referenced nor mentioned in the main body. The same editor also added the singles to the song articles, without any sources. None are listed in the discography article. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

EarOne

Hello, hopefully someone can answer this but I’m always curious to know why we are sourcing random songs that are being played on some random radio station located in Italy called EarOne? From how I’m understanding this any random song listed on their website supposedly makes it an “Italian only single” without any actual release or announcement from the artists, label, management team etc. To me this sounds absolutely bogus and ridiculous to include, especially if no music video, or any actual promotion of the song itself worldwide. According to Template:Infobox album states “Do not add specialty- or limited-release singles, such as those supplied to radio stations and music publications, which are often marked as "Promo copy" or "Promotional".“ which seemingly sounds like what most users are doing. Although songs on EarOne actually don’t even state the word “single” or anything. They only give a date which states the day the song was played on their station. Also EarOne isn’t part of “contemporary hit radio” which many users also seem to add.

Some songs that are using this are Mood Ring, “It Should Be Easy” on Britney Jean, I Rise and I’m sure many others. Pillowdelight (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)