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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No problem, I think it is the only sensible choice.
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.
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.
I think the main problem here is that it’s not “just” that. Especially as the Wikidata people see it, and especially as regards their future plans.
However, I don’t necessarily think that should (by itself) preclude us from using Wikidata links as just-Wikipedia-aggregators. But in that case, I think we should update the link type on MB (or at the very least our documentation) to signify that that’s what we’re using the links for.