Wikidata item for Single RG - Single, Song or both?

Wow, a nikki ticket!
Indeed it seems to be about the reverse, several WP to one WD.
But we need several WD to one WP.

Yes indeed and we cannot wait. We must link. :slight_smile:
So we can just go on doing like we have done since the beginning of the RG to WD and Work to WD links.
Allowing WD Singles and WD Songs being linked to MB Songs (Works) and MB Singles (RG).

We always have such mappings to do when we want a new external DB in the whitelist. Because why would every external database be miraculously on the same model as MB? :wink:

Update (proposed solution)

Trying to find an actionable immediate solution that doesn’t need constant monitoring of this linked URL and that didn’t need to bend concepts too much.

So we know how Wikipedia pages are.
They regroup work, release and recording information.
They also include covers of the work (other artists who are playing or singing the same work)
They are interesting like that.
They will rarely be split (not seen yet).

So what it is in fact?
It’s all about a work and its derivatives, isn’t it?

And, as a Wikipedia can only have one Wikidata (type), let it be a work typed Wikidata:

  • We link MB Work to WD Work
  • If this WD Work is an A side of the single, then we can link the MB Single Release Group to this WD Work
  • We never link WD Single to any MB Entity
  • If such a Wikipedia is linked to another type than Work Wikidata, we change this and make the WD Work/Song to WP page link
    It means editing WP and/or WD pages (I don’t remember which)

So the supported types of Wikidata would become:

  • Album
  • Area
  • Group of persons
  • Person
  • Place
  • Work

And never Single.

Please, do not go change Wikidata to make it better fit MusicBrainz.

That seems like a good way to make the life of people trying to improve music in Wikidata worse. By doing that, you make it so that bots will probably repeatedly add the RG link to the WD work page, while the WD single is left empty.

It’d be nice, but we don’t need to do so - and any alternative that involves making wrong links to Wikidata, making the actual data worse just so we can display a Wikipedia fluff on single RG pages, is something that is not going to be style-endorsed.


Sorry, my misuse of words. Not “need”, maybe a “it would nice to see”. Not demanding anything. Just saying that we should not be breaking someone else’s database because it doesn’t fit the way MB can use the data.


By such a Wikipedia, I mean an article that documents a work and its recordings, releases (as Single or other), covers, versions, etc. The typical Song Wikipedia article.

What is wrong in typing such a Wikipedia as Work (or is it Song?) rather than the limitative Single type?
Isn’t it a legitimate Wikidata edit in its full rights?

It looks like a dead end, then. :thinking:

Nothing, unless it goes against the wishes of people organizing music in Wikidata. If that’s how they do it, then that’s fine, just respect their style decisions.

1 Like

Yes indeed…

I found this:

If a Wikipedia article is about a single with only one track, or mainly discusses one track of that single, then it should be connected to the item about the composition.

Bingo! :dancer:

Maybe I’m not understanding properly, but if it’s a big deal for MB then we could easily tackle this in the display:
Show Wikipedia pages for songs on RG’s with type ‘single’ that contain that song. Maybe with a note, or more hidden than usual (to set it apart from a ‘true’ Wikidata link for that single). It would have to allow for multiple songs potentially being on the single.
Maybe collapse the whole WIkipedia heading by default if it’s too much.

1 Like

The main problem with that is that it’s likely to pull up a lot of pages about the song and other people’s related singles but which don’t reference the performing artist at all, or at best just a mention (“… also covered by this artist”). Eg, just as an example, Blue Suede Shoes. Most people know the Elvis Presley version, and some might even remember Carl Perkins (I’d forgotten). Musicbrainz actually has 585 recordings of it (many duplicates but dozens at least distinct artists) but the Wikipedia Song entry mentions just those two.

I’d consider that Wiki blurb interesting and relevant anyway (assuming the single contains a rendition of the song), even if the performer isn’t mentioned there.
But I do think it would be important to be v. clear that the wiki blurb relates to the song/work.

Might well be unworkable though. I don’t add wiki* links anyway - this thread gives me a headache more than anything :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like

It’s a question of relevance, as I see it. The wikipedia entry for a Song belongs with the Work. It’s only because those pages also have info on well known singles based on the song that we’ve been linking it to Single RGs as well. It doesn’t relate otherwise.

1 Like

But no need to do difficult things now that I found Wikidata’s guideline:

If a Wikipedia article is about a single with only one track, or mainly discusses one track of that single, then it should be connected to the [Wikidata] item about the composition.

So @reosarevok and the others, it means we should always link WD Song items to MB Songs and Singles.
And that we should help them by linking the WD Composition/Song item to the WP page, if ever it was linked to a WD Single item instead and if their guideline criteria is met (A side criteria).


No, it does not mean we should add the WD song to the release group of the single. That’s still the wrong entity. A MB release group is not a composition, but that’s what you would express by such a link.

The snippet you linked just is a guideline how they link their Wikidata items to Wikipedia, because they somehow need to deal ith the limitation of only being able to link exactly one item to that article.

Look at the table in that guideline, it shows how they consider the relationships between Wikidata items and MB items. A Wikidata type of release links to a release group, a type of composition to the work.


No there I really don’t agree at all.

We have our own types, we don’t have to match every other external DB.
There are things called release elsewhere, that are release groups for us, etc.
If we would block ourselves because of different terminology elsewhere, it’s a dead end to any external DB relationships.

I extracted a WD guideline, featured prominently in their Music project, that they don’t say is there because of their limitation, showing that their Composition WD is representing also our Single release group.

I’m feeling I completely want to drop any WD WP support in my userscripts if we break those Single or Song links.

I lost my patience at the moment but I think we should go with examples case by case because it seems what seems obvious to you is not too me and vice versa, starting with the OP example.
But not immediately for me I need a rest.

1 Like

But we do match to other database properly. This is not just a matter of different terms. We do link release groups to Discogs master releases, and releases to Discogs releases. We don’t link releases to Discogs master releases. We quite definitely don’t link works to Discogs releases just because it is the single with a recording of that work on. And the later is the exact equivalent of what you suggest we do with Wikidata, linking their compositions to our release groups.

Nowhere on that page does it say that. They have a table there, and that shows the equivalent of a composition is a MB work.

The problem is I think that people see Wikidata just as a mean to link to Wikipedia. If you look on a Wikidata page you see those links to Wikipedia on the right. But this is not what Wikidata is all about. A Wikidata item represents some concrete entity. It is has properties that apply to this entity.

If you say that the release group 32e2dc5b-2960-3638-ae2a-a1e5b8e88691 is the same as Q3045853 then you also say that this release group has the ISWC T-070.282.481-4 and has this page on SecondHandSongs.


Almost every single entry I see at Wikidata where there was a “single” vs. “song” was created by a MB user. I’ve never liked it. The song & single Wikidata is stupid, IMO. There is no such thing as a “single” Wikipedia article really, at least not that I’ve seen. They are always about the a-side work and always talk about covers, etc. Maybe we should just never link a single release group to Wikidata or WIkipedia at all. Because this separation is nonsense as long as Wikipedia never separates them. Which they don’t. Does nobody beside Jesus2099 and myself think that it’s odd to replace a single WIkidata link just because it’s for the “work” with 20 Wikipedia links that were already linked to to that same Wikidata link with all the Wikipedia liks that that Wikidata pointed to??? Wikidata didn’t create those separate Wikidata’s. Looks like most of them were created by MB users. And no, it’s not the same as the Discogs links because they have a clear delineation between releases and release groups (masters).

And let’s not kid ourselves. Wikidata IS just a group link to Wikipedia articles in reality. I guess I just will never link another Wikidata/Wikipedia article to a single release group again.

1 Like

Nowhere in that page?

It even comes right before the table you mention.

Or maybe I don’t understand English, good enough…

Please read again my previous post with a link to their guideline (that page) saying that Wikidata Composition item should be linked to Wikipedia Single, when, as most often, it in fact develops around the A side, mostly.

It says that a Wikiepdia article that is mostly about the composition should be linked to the Wikidata item for the composition, and if it is mostly about the single release it should be linked to the Wikidata item for the single. That’s a sensible choice if you are limited to choosing exactly one Wikidata item.

But in no way does it say that a Wikidata entry of typer “composition” is a single release, or that a composition should be linked to MB release groups.

Wikidata also has a clear distinction between a musical work/composition and a single, the latter being a special type of a release (which is described as “publication of a musical artist’s creative output”).


The “single” wikidata page, is just a Wikidata that links all the Wikipedia articles about singles. I don’t think it has anything to do with Wikidata type rules or anything. But I’m done with this. I’ll never link another single release group again until Wikidata allows Wikipedia links about singles to also be linked to the work if the Wikipedia page is about both.

1 Like

No problem, I think it is the only sensible choice.

[Woops, I did mistakenly read Wikipedia in quote above instead of Wikidata! Striking through my mistakes, sorry.]

IMO, it is not a mess and it should stay like that: Comprehensive interesting Wikipedia articles, with all the declinations of the work (writing, recording, release, reception, cover versions, legacy), etc.

If we begin to split everything (work, track, release, cover versions, cover version tracks, cover version releases), we are making at least 3 dull short dictionary-like separate articles instead of one enjoyable article, worth of an encyclopedia.

You should not let the database model dictate your editorial policy.

Just my advice, as a music article reader. :wink:

And for the MB/WD/WP link issue, I will also stop linking MB singles to WD.

I will just continue linking MB artists, albums and works to WD artists, albums and works.
And still no WP links by any means.

1 Like

Just to reiterate: Wikipedia ≠ Wikidata :wink: