Pop music Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

	Leona Lewis NA‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Leona Lewis, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Leona LewisWikipedia:WikiProject Leona LewisTemplate:WikiProject Leona LewisLeona Lewis articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Shall I create a Leona Lewis singles template?x Jagoperson (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, what would be the point in that? anemoneprojectors talk 22:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could I change it to look like Alexandra Burke's? By this, I mean list the singles next to the album they were released from. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly either way. I don't think she has enough singles for it to be particularly necessary but don't have an issue if you want to. Sanders11 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OKay thanks :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it the way it is, I don't like the layout of Alexandra's template. Especially as Echo only had two singles. –anemoneprojectors– 12:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put "Colorblind" first because it was on Hurt: The EP, which came out before Glassheart. –anemoneprojectors– 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the acoustic version though, which was released as a promo from Glassheart. AARON• ^TALK 20:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it was still on Hurt first, and charted because of that. Not because of a free download, because free downloads don't chart. –anemoneprojectors– 13:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the order of the songs is odd in the new template layout. Single release order would be better, but then not all the songs with articles were singles. To be honest I think I prefered it before. I don't think it was "awful and bitty". I don't really know why we can't just a line for albums, a line for singles and a line for other songs like we used to. There would be fewer lines, and since this is for navigation and not information, it would make more sense. But chronological order would definitely aid navigation better than what we have now. –anemoneprojectors– 19:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because then there are random songs for random things. Having singles would look too empty. This isn't any different to Rihanna's template. At least all songs from each album are together. This makes more sense, as people looking for songs from Spirit for example will find all of them next to Spirit, not some in the singles line and some in the other songs line. The order of the songs is in tracklist order, nothing odd about that. AARON• ^TALK 11:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still think chronological would be better. The different versions of Spirit have different track listings, for example, the North American version's order would be "Bleeding Love", "Better in Time", "I Will Be", "Forgive Me", etc, which is different to the template. Rihanna's template doesn't even have her singles in it, which is a bit silly, so that's not even comparible. I would always expect to see the singles in chronological order. –anemoneprojectors– 12:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But she is British, so we use a British layout for things on her articles. Rihanna's template does have her singles on it, they are mixed in track list order with other songs. It's better to have all songs from each album together, otherwise the template just looks sparse. AARON• ^TALK 12:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Rihanna has a separate template for her songs. I've never seen the point in that but anyway. I suppose having track list order is the best option actually, since there are singles mixed with non-singles, and the navigation template is to aid navigation and not necessarily to give information (one could argue that putting them in release order is giving information on release order! conversely one could argue that the current template is giving information on what songs appear on what albums but that could always be argued for any navigation template). So I think I can accept the template as it it. It does seem odd seeing "Collide" after "Trouble". And I suppose b-sides would go alongside "I See You". –anemoneprojectors– 12:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can't do single order because some are not singles. At least this way "Collide" can be categorised as it wasn't an album single or an other song, but a version of it was on Glassheart, so it does give some more clarity. If a B-side has it's own article then I suppose so, yes. AARON• ^TALK 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]