Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Please see Template:Albumbox, Template talk:Albumbox, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Template test and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/archive 3#Albumbox template before going too far with this. Thanks. - 23:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

• Current edits are to deal with the fact that it's being used. iMeowbot~Mw 11:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums for guidance on styles and colors.

At the moment, reviews are not formatted the same way they appear when using the boilerplate from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. We would like to fix this without having to invoke multiple templates. A good solution for that hasn't yet been found.

• 2005.04.19 : I'm listing/proposing various alternative usages of the template, summarized in two new sections below the normal ones (it's also used live on Furious Angels): the pipes are less cumbersome and more regular at the beginning of lines than the end (the generated HTML code is identical); for multi-lines values, the empty HTML comments allows to replace a BR with a new line still aligned with the others values. Links to MetaCritic (or Buy.com) would be tagged "meta-link" instead of "link" (which are direct links to the review); the orders of parameters is slightly changed, based on the visual (cover= goes right after Name=); for the start of a chronology the first cell displays a visual " [ ", for the end of a live chronology it's a visual " . . . ", and for the end of a closed one it's " ] ". 213.228.60.174 12:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Normal syntax

{{Album infobox |
| Name        = The Eminem Show
| Type        = [[Album]]
| Artist      = Eminem
| Cover       = The Eminem Show.jpg
| Background  = Orange
| Released    = [[May 28]] [[2002]]
|[ Recorded    = ] (optional parameter)
| Genre       = [[Rap music|Rap]]
| Length      = ~77:00
| Label       = [[Interscope Records]]
| Producer    = [[Eminem]], [[Dr. Dre]]
| Last album  = ''[[The Marshall Mathers LP]]''<br />(2000)
| This album  = ''The Eminem Show''<br />(2002)
| Next album  = ''[[Encore (album)|Encore]]''<br />(2004)
}}
{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1Score = (4/5) [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dg2vad1kl8w6~T1 link]
| noprose = yes
}}

{{Album infobox |
| Name        = Dirt
| Type        = [[Album]]
| Artist      = [[Alice in Chains]]
| Cover       = AliceinChainsDirt.jpg
| Background  = Orange
| Released    = October 1992
| Recorded    = 
| Genre       = [[Grunge music|Grunge]]
| Length      = 57:35
| Label       = [[Columbia Records]]
| Producer    = Alice in Chains, [[Dave Jerden]]
<!--| Reviews     = 
*Q Magazine (2/5) [http://www.q4music.com/nav?page=q4music.review.redirect&fixture_review=121171&resource=121171&fixture_artist=146990  link]
*Robert Christgau (Grade B) [http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Alice+in+Chains link]
*Alternative Press (Favourable) [http://www.buy.com/retail/proreviews/product.asp?sku=60110766&loc=109&PageFormat=7 link]
*Vox (8/10) [http://www.buy.com/retail/proreviews/product.asp?sku=60110766&loc=109&PageFormat=7 link]
*[[All Music Guide|AMG]] (4.5/5) [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=UIDSUB040402061702081566&sql=A9bsxlfde5cqy link]
*Entertainment Weekly (Grade A) [http://www.buy.com/retail/proreviews/product.asp?sku=60110766&loc=109&PageFormat=7 link]
*Spin (Favourable) [http://www.buy.com/retail/proreviews/product.asp?sku=60110766&loc=109&PageFormat=7 link]-->
|
| Last album  = ''[[Facelift]]''<br />(1990)
| This album  = ''Dirt''<br />(1992)
| Next album  = ''[[Jar of Flies]]''<br />(1994)
}}

{{Album infobox |
| Name        = "Yesterday" ... and Today
| Type        = album
| Artist      = [[The Beatles]]
| Cover       = YesterdayandTodayalbumcover.jpg
| Background  = Orange
| Released    = [[June 20]] [[1966]]
| Recorded    = [[Abbey Road Studios|Abbey Road]] 1965–1966
| Genre       = [[Rock music|Rock]]
| Length      = —
| Label       = [[Capitol Records|Capitol]]<br><small>T 2553 (mono)<br>ST 2553 (stereo)</small>
| Producer    = [[George Martin]]
| Last album  = ''[[Rubber Soul]]''<br />(1965)
| This album  = ''"Yesterday" ... and Today''<br />(1966)
| Next album  = ''[[Revolver (album)|Revolver]]''<br />(1966)
}}
{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1Score = (3.5/5) [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:169sa9qgb23k~T1 link]
| noprose = yes
}}

Results of normal syntax

Untitled

Professional ratings

Review scores
Source	Rating
Allmusic	(4/5) link

Untitled

Untitled

Professional ratings

Review scores
Source	Rating
Allmusic	(3.5/5) link

A proposed alternative syntax

{{Album infobox|
 | Name       = Furious Angels
 | Cover      = (missing)
 | Type       = Album
 | Artist     = [[Rob Dougan]]
 | Background = Orange
 | Released   = 1-disc: July 2002
<!--         -->2-disc: June 2003
 | Recorded   = 1995, 1998–2002
 | Genre      = Dance/[[Trip-Hop]]/[[Classical music|classical]]
 | Length     = CD1: 71:10
<!--         -->CD2: 53:45
 | Label      = UK: [[BMG]]/[[Cheeky Records|Cheeky]]
<!--         -->US: [[Warner Bros. Records|Warner]]/Reprise
 | Producer   = [[Rob Dougan]]
 <!--| Reviews    = 
<!--       -->* Q Magazine (8/10) [http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/douganrob/furiousangels 2003 meta-link]
<!--       -->* Uncut (8/10) [http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/douganrob/furiousangels 2003 meta-link]
<!--       -->* Kludge Mag (7/10) [http://www.kludgemagazine.com/reviews.php?id=178 2003 link]
<!--       -->* DVD Fever (7/10) [http://www.dvdfever.co.uk/reviews/lcdougan.shtml 2003 link]
<!--       -->* PlayLouder (negative) [http://playlouder.com/review/+565robdougan/ 2002 link]-->
 | Last album = 
 | This album = ''Furious Angels''<br />(2003)
 | Next album = }}

Results of this proposed alternative syntax

Untitled

Empty syntax

Here is an empty syntax which you could use when starting your own article about an album:

{{Album infobox <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
| Name        = 
| Type        = 
| Artist      = 
| Cover       = 
| Background  = 
| Released    = 
| Recorded    = 
| Genre       = 
| Length      = 
| Label       = 
| Producer    = 
| Last album  = 
| This album  = 
| Next album  = 
}}

Empty syntax for proposed alternative

{{Album infobox|  <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
 | Name       = 
 | Cover      =       <!-- Image name only -->
 | Type       = [[TYPE]]
 | Artist     = [[ARTIST]]
 | Background = Orange
 | Released   = 
<!--         --> 
 | Recorded   = 
 | Genre      = [[GENRE]]
 | Length     = MM:SS
<!--         -->
 | Label      = [[LABEL]]
<!--         -->
 | Producer   = [[PRODUCER]]
<!--   1   -->*
<!--   2   -->* 
<!--   3   -->*
<!--   4   -->*
<!--   5   -->*
 | Last album = ''[[ALBUM]]''<br />(YEAR)
 | This album = '' '''THISALBUM'''''<br />(YEAR)
 | Next album = ''[[ALBUM]]''<br />(YEAR)
}}

Rateyourmusic.com?

Guero has a rating from rateyourmusic.com in the Reviews section of the infobox. That's not really a professional review, is it? It's no more a professional review than what it might get on Amazon or any other site where the public is allowed to post reviews. Either the infobox should be changed, or amateur reviews should not be considered (especially as they can change over time).

I think the idea of an RYM rating under "reviews" seems more palatable because it's an aggregate of several (or, in the case of popular albums, hundreds) of individual ratings. As such, you get a more balanced approach than from a single review, professional or amateur. --Jacj 01:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think non-professional reviews should be categorically ineligible for inclusion here – partly because, as stated above, the rating is liable to fluctuate over time leaving the infobox perpetually out of date – but mostly because they are almost entirely useless. The people who frequent rateyourmusic (and amazon and all the others) are looking up albums they own and presumably that they enjoy; rarely are you going to get a disconnected view of the album. In my experience, people who give less than three stars on those sites are considered to be committing an act of high taboo. And a simple rating doesn't really tell you anything much anyway, given the arbitrary nature of the system, so all you're left with is a link to a page for fawning and generally uninteresting fan-speak. Admittedly, there are occasional submissions from fans that cover a topic better than the professionals, I've even referenced one on John Lennon's Jukebox, but those are exceptions; in general fan reviews are not encyclopedic or noteworthy and should not be linked to from the article. Flowerparty ^talk 17:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Album Artwork, Photography, Design credits?

Judging from how fast my template edit happened I have to infer that nobody is going to get any credit for Album Artwork, Photography or Design here on Wikipedia. Whatever.

It's not relevancy that's the issue here, I think. It's more that there was no discussion (that I saw) and so no consensus before you added your (doubtlessly well-intentioned) section to the template — which instantly outdated hundreds of albums entries. Curt Woyte 07:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

So where is the fellow who created the template? Is he not watching it? He felt confident enough in building it that he knew what he was doing, along with everyone else who's edited it since. This confidence should have forseen this, or at least not censored the extension to the template. And whoever felt comfortable enough to censor it almost instantly ought to come up with a way to correct the original shortcoming, and get involved in a discussion here. This is the place for it, but where's the entry from the person who decided that the template should not have a design, photography or artwork credit? Is it the case that it never struck anyone that giving credit for album design, photography and/or artwork was relevant? Honestly, what's to discuss. Let us all know what your objection, if any, is to this information being included in the template. Let's not have a triumph of form over substance here. I didn't break the template - I extended it to accomodate a design shortcoming that should have been fixed long ago.

That information would be better suited on the image description page of the album cover or the personnel section of the article.—jiy (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics

Is it possible to add a lyrics tab at the infobox? That way the reader can easily jump to an external link to a lyrics page the editor needs not add an external link section. --DB0 22:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Record companies have been know to take action against people publishing lyrics to their songs. ed g2s • talk 18:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Timings

I've just left the following message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):

A problem has cropped up regarding how timings (for albums, tracks, and singles) should be expressed. At the moment there are various styles, the main three being:

• 45 min 34 sec
• 45:34
• 45' 34"

The first is used in the Template:Album infobox; all three are used by various editors in various articles.

The first seems to be to be odd: the Wikilinking is surely unnecessary, the abbreviations (lacking either plural or fullstops) are incorrect, and I've rarely if ever seen it used elsewhere.

The second is often used on album covers, etc., but it's the same form as used in Wikipedia for times of day, and thus could conceivably cause confusion.

The last is pretty standard, being used not only on many album covers, etc., but in other contexts too.

OK, my preference is pretty clear — but I'd rather that one of them were chosen as the recommended style even if it weren't my preference than that we continue with the free-for-all we have now. I was certain that I'd seen something on this in the MoS, but I can't find it; is there anything? If there isn't, shouldn't there be?

Mel Etitis and I just had a brief discussion about this on our talk pages. It is Mel's understanding that the middle option (xx:yy) is the one demanded by WP's Manual of Style, and that the template should be altered accordingly (and that there is no objection to this). It's my impression that nothing about the album length happens on the back-end of the template, and so changing it shouldn't break anything. Is there anything we're missing here? Jkelly 18:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where in the MoS does it say this? Nevermind, found it. Yeah, a standard would be preferable. I'd like to chime in that the second one is also used for song times, so that could cause some confusion with itself and the first format (I suspect that is the reason the first format was brought about in the first place).--Weebot 19:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

But it's consistency between two sets of timings that pushes me towards the second option (though I actually prefer the third, personally). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Table you will see that the table style given to us by album project includes the first style and I believe it looks the nicest. Surely unnecessary linking but it gives the template more balance. You might want to discusswhatever changes you're planning on at albumproject too since they style suggests option one. gren グレン 21:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've tried, but got no response (besides, they have it because it's here — or vice versa; I don't want to get into chickens and eggs...). I must admit that I don't see the balance thing, but in any case we shouldn't go against the MoS (and internal consistency) for the sake of a minor aesthetic point, I think. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that nothing is going on at the back-end as far as template variables are concerned, so there's probably nothing to change on this template page. Instead, the change would be to the instructions at WP:ALBUM. I just dropped a note at User:TUF-KAT's talk page, as he seems to be the most active editor for the project page. Jkelly 00:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I think the balance comes in when everything has a longer line and is wikified and then you have time with 42:34 and it's short. Honestly the majority of boxes I've seen use 42 min 34 sec and I don't see where in the manual of style contradicts that usage so I surely wasn't trying to go against it. I also don't know why they've been saying 42:34 is the majority use since it doesn't seem to be so. I do agree on consistency's importance though. gren グレン 00:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is the link to the relevant MoS section. Jkelly 01:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I like #3 the best. Like everyone else apparently, I don't really care so much as think it looks nice -- the important thing is that they should all be consistent. Tuf-Kat 01:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My worry is consistency within articles (track timings are given as mm:ss) and with Singles articles (also mm:ss). The MoS also says that standard abbreviations should be used, which in this case should be "minutes": "min.", and "seconds": "s" (not "sec."). Finally, overlinking is deprecated, and minute and second have no relevance to these articles (any more than does Autumn, December, etc., also often linked). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we've had as much discussion as we're going to. My impression is that there is no objection to changing the infobox instructions at WP:ALBUM to reflect the MoS. Those articles that use the wikilink standard (option 1) which is currently being promoted on that page will have to be changed by hand, unfortunately, but we'll eventually become consistant with track timings and WikiProject:Songs. I'm going to make the change. Jkelly 02:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What I fail to understand is the assertion that ?? min ?? s isn't the majority... becuase... it seems to be. I haven't really seen mm:ss anywhere. In any case I don't suppose it matters. gren グレン 03:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was clear. The reason that the xx min yy sec is prevalent in articles is because the WP:ALBUM page has that format as part of its instructions. That's precisely what we're changing. The conversation here wasn't about what is most common in WP articles, it was about whether there was enough of a reason for those instructions to be given, and what consensus about consistency and following the MoS was. You'll see mm:ss on track listings in the album articles and on the singles articles that follow WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 03:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

is it also the consensus for mm:ss for long albums like Two Letter Words? would we go with 119:02 [rather than 1:59:02]? my preference is for the former. — R7 00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same because I've started to change the date format to mm:ss on all articles using the album infobox...--Fritz S. (Talk) 08:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep anything below ~80:00 (which is approx. what fits on a regular CD) in mm:ss, and write everything above that as h:mm:ss. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Album artwork image border

What about adding style="border:1px solid black;" or something to the image section of the album infobox template in order to eliminate the need of adding the border into the image directly? It seems than most of cover images in wikipedia are borderless. Mykhal 15:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for an image border. Unless the album's cover is mostly white (as in The Beatles) then it adds nothing to the image and to me looks rather untidy. Flowerparty 18:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• There is no need to add a border to an album cover, directly or indirectly -- jiy 22:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Multiple producers and labels

Not that big of a problem, but shouldn't we think of multiple labels and producers by making it Producer(s) and Label(s) or add an option in the template to make it plural or not. not that important but still... WB 11:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Genre (s)

Can anyone point me to a discussion which said it was OK to change Genre to Genre(s). It looks messy and it's inconsistent with "Label" and "Producer" (see wb's comment above). Flowerparty ^talk 20:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a discussion. I would like to see this reverted again. Teklund 07:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Chronology

The Beatles chronology
Rubber Soul (1965)	Revolver (1966)	Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)

Would it be possible to have the chronology links as thumbnails of the coverart? Something like: {{{2}|1{{{lastcover={{{alt}}}}}}}|[[image:{{{lastcover}}}|50px|{{{lastalbum}}}]]<br>{{{lastalbum}}}|alt={{{lastalbum}}}}}

--Tokle 08:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I like that, we should do that. --SoothingR 15:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have created a template called Album infobox 2. The only thing you need to change on each page is, to add the number 2 in the template name and to add the two parameters ((Last cover)) and ((New cover)).

I did it this way to avoid disruption in the many pages already using the infobox. The ifdef template I qouted above wouldn't work.--Tokle 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Album---> Album (music)=

Right now the link for Album in the infobox is directed to the Album disambiguation page. It should be linked to Album (music)... Cheers. --Madchester 04:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This will need to be changed on each page that uses the template. ed g2s • talk 13:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Conversion

I had briefly discussed this and and made Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox conversion and also added a section for it to Template:Album. As I said I don't know if it's bold or stupid but I think it's a good idea. Uniform style is important... and, it doesn't matter if it uses the template or raw code... it should have the same style. Thoughts? Want to add to the list? Want to VfD the list? who knows... gren グレン 15:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

multiple artists

What would u do if an album was by two artists? How do you include both artists chronologies in the infobox? Jobe6 19:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Certain parts not showing up

i used this template for Hidden Vagenda by Kimya Dawson, but the producer field and the previous album in the chronology are both not showing up. can someone fix this for me or tell me how to fix this? -Nathew 23:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Use the right variable names, and separate them with pipes. ed g2s • talk 23:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Automatically add to artist/label category

Could the template be modified so that it would automatically add the article to the appropriate category for artist, record label, etc? This ought to make discographies quicker to produce. I'm interested in working on the Frank Sinatra discography. Could a field be added to specify the principle arranger for that album, as that's one of the major proporties of albums of this type. Cheers Cdyson37 | (Talk) 11:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This could easily be done by adding [[Category:{{{Artist}}} albums]], and any other category you'd wish. I can't see how this would be any problematic at all. --Tokle 14:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm highly against this idea. I don't think it's good or flexible enough especially when things start to change. Adding normal category syntax isn't hard and should just be done I believe. gren グレン 16:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, [[Category:{{{Artist}}} albums]] would give you all kinds of crazy results. On Disraeli Gears, for instance, you'd get [[Category:[[Cream (band)|Cream]] albums]]. :S Flowerparty■ 20:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Touché! --Tokle 22:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that, it seems, is that. Thanks for the quick replies people. Cdyson37 | (Talk) 23:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Catalog Numbers

I've been putting the catalog number of the album in my album articles in the body of the article. I find knowing the catalog number very helpful since it is generally the simplest and surest way to find out about an album whose name is not natively Roman script when searching the internet. Many music store sites use the catalog number as a search key, as well, so it's a good piece of information to have, especially for people who have interest in purchasing the album

However, it seems out of place and not particularly encyclopaedic in the body of the article. I think a better place would be in the albumbox itself, just below the Producer field. Every album has one, and the only problem I see is that the number will change for (for example) preorder versus standard runs of the album.

Any thoughts? Coach Z Ale 07:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I had some discussion about this with Cbing01... We agreed that catalog numbers would crowd up the infobox and came up with a table to go at the bottom of the article in a section called Release details. It's used on Let It Be... Naked and Demon Days for example.--Fritz S. 09:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

redundant parameter

The "this_album" parameter is redundant, we already have the name and release date parameters. I propose that we just use those 2 and drop the usage of the this album. The parameter would not have to be removed from existing entries, it simply wouldn't be used. In stead we can just put {{{name}}} and {{{release}}} in the space there. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the Release field has all sorts of variations on the date, and we just want the year in that spot. Slicing 05:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Open Databases

I would like to propose a new section be added to the album and single infoboxes for links to open music databases, such as MusicBrainz. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? Is there something encyclopedic at those sites that we cannot incorporate into our articles? Jkelly 01:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

On a technical level, yes. MusicBrainz has a large amount of metadata about any given album (based on use contribution of course), that for practical reasons wikipedia cannot use. In addition, musicbrainz lists ALL artists, no matter how small their body of works (even the guys with one song). That's my mini-rant-reply to that question. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting a little wikiproject who's goal is to link to MusicBrainz and maybe other databases in the future. Info on it is here and here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Singles

I think it might be a good idea to include a place to put a list of singles from that album. Anyone else think so? - _TALK ®€Ð¦-¦0† ^TALK 18:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In the infobox? That could add a twelve-item list to some infoboxes. Jkelly 18:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's enough to mention them in the lead. --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Linking to disambiguation pages

As mentione above about the album part of this template the chronology section also automaticlly generates links that should be going to the bands page but is (probbly a majority of cases) going to disambiguation pages. I am all for automatically filling in data so that it need not be entered mroe than once. But in this case the only solution is to put the artest and album into the template as wikified links which then propagate and light up the info box with every instance of them being wikified. See Prism (album) for an example. Dalf | Talk 10:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Optional Recorded parameter

I have been working with the infobox and the "Recorded" parameter is a confusing parameter. As far as I can tell it is meant to list the studios where an album is recorded. On many pages it is a question mark. On the albums I tried to enter it was listed in the booklets but often in a very small font (one time white foreground on yellow background which means that the label wasn't that concerned whether it could be read or not) and often containing many different entries. Yesterday I've created Try Again and there is no mentioning whatsoever on the CD itself. I think it's a parameter which may be nice in some cases, but in most cases it's irrelevant. I think it would be better to leave the parameter optional. KittenKlub 14:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Strike this remark. It is optional in album box, but it wasn't optional in single box. I've added it as an optional parameter to single box. KittenKlub 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Stars

Template:Stars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Stars. Thank you. —Cryptic (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

On top-left of page?!?

Untitled

Why does this appear on the top left of the article, and not the right? Because the infobox is there, the actual words of the article are pushed down below the infobox. Please fix this, if possible. --G VOLTT 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, now that I see it, nearly all of the templates are f'ed up like this. What happened? --G VOLTT 00:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• • ?? I still see the box on the right. I took a page from your history and it is on the right as well and the template itself hasn't been changed for a whole year. Do you have an example? KittenKlub 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Could this be a result of using alternate wikipedia skins? I've seen no problems like described. Dan, the CowMan 03:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

New stars template

Since Template:Stars was TfD'd, I have been working on a new star template. It is now ready for use as Template:Starsx. Usage instructions here. The reason for the "x" in the name is that Template:Stars, in its current degenerate form, is still used in a number of articles. Once these have been converted to use the new syntax, the old template could be deleted and the new one moved over it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the new template to the name Template:Stars. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Plural(s)

I think that Genre and Label should appear as Genre(s) and Label(s), since albums often fall under more than one genre, and many are released on more than one label.—thegreentrilby 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm indifferent about Genre, but Label should stay singular as the infobox should refer only to the first edition of an album (see Wikiproject Albums) and that usually has just one label.--Fritz S. (Talk) 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

interwiki

Maybe this NL interwiki link can be added ? nl:Sjabloon:Muziekalbumtabel --LimoWreck 18:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Template:Editprotected to request the addition of this interwiki link -- 213.84.36.227 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 00:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Section titles alignment

Why are they all alingned to the left, instead of the center, like it use to be? Roda 13:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, why are the chronology titles now aligned to the left? It looks really bad. Chairman S. ^Talk 22:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

disabling professional reviews and chronology fields for certain albums

Is it possible not to include these sections in the infobox? Chronology isn't especially useful if certain artist released only one album and is not likely that they release another one. Proffesional reviews section doesn't look very nice when there are none of them and some albums are not likely to receive any so-called "proffesional" reviews at all. It holds especially true for old, non-english language albums. Jogers 10:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Some albums, particularly those that were not released (widely or at all) in the English-speaking world, have no useful reviews to link to. ProhibitOnions 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

chronology

can someone please alter the source for the chronology - the font size needs to be "small", not "smaller"; otherwise the page becomes very messy when viewing on a high-resolution screen. Cheers, Deano (Talk) 16:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Is it possible to make the Profesional Reviews section hidable using class="hiddenStructure{{{Reviews|}}}"? --Salix alba (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I second that. I'm almost positive it was untill recently, not sure when or why it got moved, but the same with {{{Last album}}}. bmearns, KSC_(talk) 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeating the name

Can we fix it so it's unneccessary to enter the name of the album twice? Currently, you enter it once in the beginning of the tempate for use as the title of the info box, and then you enter it again at the bottom for the "This Album" field. Further, would it be possible to make the italicts and bold-italicts around the album names in this bottom "nav" section automatic? This might require making their years seperate fields, which I wouldn't object to either, so we don't have to enter the <br/> ourselves either. Am I incredibly lazy or what? bmearns.....(talk) 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

Can the code from User:Locke Cole/Template:Album infobox be copied into this template? It removes all uses of hiddenStructure, and also addresses one of the requests above (making professional reviews optional). Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it allow for the different infobox colours per WP:ALBUM? Jkelly 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it uses a different default background color (to show where the background color would be used), but you can try it (for example at Amarantine) by replacing the call to {{Album infobox}} with {{User:Locke Cole/Template:Album infobox}} (just preview and you can see if it breaks or not). I've tested it in a bunch of albums (using "What links here" from the toolbox to the left from the main template page), but obviously if you want to try it as well, be my guest. The more eyeballs the better. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I did something wrong. Can you tell me why Album infoboxes (such as the one at This Is the Sea) got stretched so as to not wrap their lines? Jkelly 23:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking a look, will reply shortly. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's fixed now. There was no closing quote on the style attribute at the top. :( I've added your test case to User talk:Locke Cole/Template:Album infobox if you'd like to see it working before trying again. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The new version seems to have a few problems. Why does it use html table code? can you convert it. The little arrows are making the chronolgy section very long on pages like Sgt Pepper's, do they need to have width 20%? And I believe the use of 'N/A' is frowned upon these days. It's also leaving three leading apostrophes in the current album box, for some reason. Flowerparty■ 00:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That didn't show up on the testing I looked at. I will revert the changes again. Jkelly 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the arrows altogether and also removed the 'N/A'. If people like the arrows, we could give 30% to each of the fields (prev/current/next) and then give 5% to the arrows; that could address the spacing concerns. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the extra apostrophes? Jkelly 01:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed as well (assuming the only extra apostrophes were the ones in the album chronology area anyways). =) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is everything sorted now? Are we waiting for more comments? Jkelly 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can chronology field be made optional as well? It doesn't seem very useful if an artist released only one album. Jogers (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope so? =) I edited it to make the chronology field optional, but if you want to try it with the chronology field, use this version. If you want to try it with the chronology field made optional (per Jogers suggestion), use this version. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done! I have one more suggestion. Perhaps nocover.gif could be displayed by default, when the cover parameter is left blank? Jogers (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, if this is acceptable to everyone else, you can get the code for it from this version. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a rundown on the various incarnations you can choose from:

• [1] — With chronology field mandatory and image optional (this most closely mimics the current behavior)
• [2] — With chronology field optional and image optional
• [3] — With chronology field optional and image optional (but defaults to Image:Nocover.gif).

Anyways, as you may or may not be aware, I'm currently leaving the project, but I'm trying to tidy up any loose ends before I leave for good. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! There is one problem with the last version, however. If the cover parameter is simply left blank (but not cut out completely), it displays the text [[Image:|200px|Album cover]]. I've tried to fix it so it displays image:nocover.gif in both cases [4]. Jogers (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've updated it again, and everything seems to be working ok. I think it's also fixed so that the list in the reviews section works without the <nowiki></nowiki> business. Flowerparty■ 07:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Given this, and the fact that Jogers has been going around removing them, I've just gone through this page and removed all usages of <nowiki></nowiki> in the examples above. (Also, took the opportunity to line up all the equal signs in the empty templates.) Unint 04:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If there any chance someone could change

|then=[[Image:{{{Cover}}}|200px|Album cover]]</td>

to

|then=[[Image:{{{Cover}}}|200px|{{{Name}}} cover]]</td>

— Ian Moody ^(talk) 16:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Jogers (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gflores ^Talk 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Album" vs. "Album (music)"

It seems that as of October of last year, "album" is no longer a disambiguation page but an article on the musical kind of album (which is probably what "album (music)" used to be, but which now redirects to "album"), and the disambiguation page has been relocated to "album (disambiguation)". The template should be updated to reflect this (i.e., the syntax on the top of this page). JJBunks 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The consensus on the page move was reached here. I've updated the syntax on the top of this page and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums page as well. However it shouldn't be changed on every of several thousands articles that use the template (see Help:Redirect). Jogers (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Spinoff infoboxes

With the recent updates, are there plans to update the code for other album infoboxes that use the old code, such as Template:Album infobox soundtrack and Template:Various artists album infobox? In fact, Template:Infobox Single and Template:Song infobox are also closely related. Or is the synchronization of infobox code a priority right now? (Or perhaps the question is, is the code currently considered stable enough for such an update to be useful?)

I'd also like to propose another new type of album infobox based on the current code, but I'll wait to see the situation with regard to this first. –Unint 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Album infobox soundtrack and Template:Various artists album infobox are not widely used. Since the chronology field was made optional in Template:Album infobox they seem to be obsolete now. If you mean any particular changes to the Template:Infobox Single and Template:Song infobox let's discuss them on their talk pages. Jogers (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think Various artists is probably redundant now (I notice you've put it up for deletion). As for the concern over its automatic categorization into Category:Various artists albums...

Well, here's my proposal. Various artist albums generally fall into one of three categories — compilations, soundtracks, and tribute albums — and, to a lesser extent, original cast recordings for musicals (though I'm hard-pressed to find any for inclusion into Category:Cast recordings). (Please, someone correct me if I happened to miss something here.) Of these, I've thought about their respective needs:

	Compilations	Soundtracks	Tribute albums
"Album type" bar	Needs to say it's a compilation. Also, if part of a series, volume number and series name might be useful.	"Soundtrack to {{{film}}}" is probably appropriate, as seen in the soundtrack infobox right now. Also, some soundtracks are by one artist, others are not.	"Tribute album to {{{artist}}}" is probably appropriate. Also, some tribute albums are by one artist, others are not.
Fields	"Recorded" and "Producer(s)" are less relevant here. A "Compiled by" field might be useful when we know who compiled the album.	"Recorded" and "Producer(s)" might be relevant, depending on what kind of soundtrack. The "Artist" field from the soundtrack infobox might be useful.	"Recorded" and "Producer(s)" might be relevant, depending on what kind of project.
Chronology	A series of compilation albums might require a chronology for the series. Some series of artist-compiled albums currently use the chronology of each volume's respective artists; this is less than ideal, I think.	No chronology needed.	No chronology needed.
Current examples of articles	Hôtel Costes, Vol. 7 ("Various Artists chronology") Late Night Tales: Air ("Air chronology") Mystera (all albums on one big page, no infoboxes)	Forrest Gump (soundtrack) (soundtrack infobox) The Next Best Thing (soundtrack) (artist infobox, Madonna chronology) Top Gun (soundtrack) (Various artists infobox)	Community: A NewOrderOnline Tribute (two various artists infoboxes) For the Masses (various artists infobox) Dub Side of the Moon (album infobox, but with a single attributable artist)

I'm presenting all of them here, though I was only really thinking about compilations to begin with since it seems to require the most retooling. However, now that I look back at all of it, it seems like there aren't that many more fields involved here. Indeed, it might be feasible to roll the fields needed for all three (four?) album categories into one "Miscellaneous album infobox", or possibly even to put them into the album infobox itself. (That's a bit drastic, probably.) The issue of automatic categorization might just be made nearly impossible by something like this, but, frankly, I don't think we're losing anything by that.

So I think that's enough from me right now. Please, if any of this is patently ludicrous, speak up. (Maybe there's someone out there who'd really like to AfD all tribute albums, say.) –Unint 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that using separate templates for different types of albums is the best thing we could do. The standard Template:Album infobox is pretty flexible now and it can be improved further. What about adding some guidelines on how to format compilations, soundtracks and tribute albums using the Template:Album infobox on WP:ALBUMS? We could discuss the issue and add some optional fields to the Template:Album infobox when necessary. I agree that automatic categorization is no big deal. It would be good if album articles were automatically added to the proper categories ([[Category:{{Artist}} albums]]) but I'm not sure if this is possible. Jogers (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, if we want to dream there's also the possibility of automatically categorizing by year...

Anyway, if we're just adding fields to the Album infobox then here are my ideas:

• Series: If part of a series of compilation albums, the name of the series.
• Volume: If part of a series of compilation albums with clearly defined order, the volume number. (Note that for some series the volume number is part of the album title, while for others it is not.)
• Compiled_by: If a compilation album, the person(s) who compiled the songs (if known).
• Film: Directly from the soundtrack infobox, if soundtrack to a film, the name of the film.
• Tribute_artist: If a tribute album, the artist being tributed.

Additional formatting to consider:

• In the bar below the cover image, by default have "Album by {{{Artist}}}".
  • If the Film field is defined, override all of the above with "Soundtrack to {{{Film}}}", and if artist is also defined, add to this so it says "Soundtrack to {{{Film}}} by {{{Artist}}}". The soundtrack infobox did it by displaying Artist among the fields below the bar, but it seems like too much hassle making the infobox conditionally display the same field in one of two different places.
  • If the Series field is defined, override all of the above with "{{{Series}}} series", and if Volume is also defined, add to this so it says "Volume {{{Volume}}} in the {{{Series}}} series". (The only problem here is that this seems kind of asinine for cases where the volume number is already part of the title.)
  • If the Tribute_artist field is defined, override all of the above with "[[Tribute album]] to {{{Tribute_artist}}}", and if Artist is also defined, add to this so it says "[[Tribute album]] to {{{Tribute_artist}}} by {{{Artist}}}". (Given the occasional cases where one artist records an entire tribute album to one other artist.)

• In the bar above the chronology, if the chronology fields are defined:
  • If the Artist field alone is defined, have "{{{Artist}}} chronology".
  • If the Film field alone is defined, override all of the above with "{{{Film}}} soundtrack chronology" (for the cases where there is a series of soundtracks; see the FLCL soundtracks and the Trainspotting soundtracks), and if the Artist field is also defined, add to this so it says "{{{Film}}} soundtrack by {{{Artist}}}", for the extremely narrow cases where there is a series of soundtracks by specific artists; see the FLCL soundtracks again).
  • If the Series field is defined, override all of the above with "{{{Series}}} chronology".

To avoid general confusion, all of these fields, in practice, should probably be grouped after all the standard fields. Are the if/then conditional tests in infoboxes dependent on the order in which the fields are defined, by the way?

Also, there is currently a lot of linking to the various artists article in articles for these types of albums. Do we want to preserve these links by any chance? –Unint 04:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

All sounds monstrously complicated, but I like the sound of it. Have you tested out any of these ideas? And no, it doesn't matter which order the fields are defined in. Flowerparty■ 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Originally I thought I wouldn't be the one to put these changes into code since I've never worked with an infobox before, but it was surprisingly easy to embed some {{qif}} templates within each other. So, yeah, the code is at User:Unint/Template:Album infobox params test and the tests are at User talk:Unint/Template:Album infobox params test. I did find some new consequences I haven't considered before, though.

• Not all soundtrack articles are for film soundtracks. See Chaos Theory - Splinter Cell 3 Soundtrack, which I used for my first test. I have subsequently changed the Film field to Soundtrack_to.
  • This introduces another problem: previously people were able to link to film soundtrack rather than soundtrack if they so wished, by manually defining the Type field. The autonomous nature of this new implementation always links to soundtrack. I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to conditionally link to the film soundtrack article by detecting some kind of positive flag for film, much less make people type in such a field; besides, other types, like videogame soundtracks, do not have their own article.
  • The Splinter Cell 3 soundtrack is by a specific artist, but is not part of a series of soundtracks. In fact, here is a case where it would be more appropriate to have the standard artist chronology. I can't quite think of what to do about that right now.

The other two tests seem to display no problems. However, I can't say for sure if I've missed any. Plus, the code has some seemingly unavoidable multi-line wrapping, but otherwise this should be almost a completely functional implementation, from what I can see. –Unint 05:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've fiddled with it a bit, as you may have noticed. I think it looks even more complicated in real life, actually, but I suppose since all it does is to add a few optional bells and whistles most editors would remain happily oblivious to the changes. Flowerparty? 01:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fiddled with it a bit more. All the bugs seem to be gone, at least. However, check out what are now examples #1 and #3 from the top of the page: they have the same fields set (Soundtrack_to and Artist), but #1 wants an artist chronology, and #3 wants a soundtrack chronology since not all the "artists" featured here are on all three volumes of the soundtrack. (Vol. 1 has compositions, Vol. 2 has compositions and cast recordings, and Vol. 3 has neither.) It seems like a narrow case, certainly, but if there's been one there'll be more. (Probably I just haven't found them yet.) Still not quite sure what to do.

By the way, I've been editing around the clock for a while now. This has led me to impose a self-enforced break from Wikipedia, effective starting right now. So, if I disappear completely (hopefully, anyway), just carry on as usual. –Unint 02:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Two more things:

• Need to check Category:Comedy albums at some point. Only immediately obvious possible location of albums with special infobox needs I can think of.
• As far as a solution to the problem described above, I just remembered that I made some suggestions for chronology fields independent of artist fields at Template talk:Infobox Single#Suggestions for new features a while ago. Possibly what's needed is the ability, on both infoboxes, to define chronology fields independently like this. –Unint 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this, it just seems as if we're getting bogged down trying to think about every possible permutation of artist/type/chronology, etc. Do you think it might be easier to make 'artist' and 'chronology_artist' two independently declarable parameters? And maybe we could provide a means to let users type in for themselves "Soundtrack to the film Wonderwall by George Harrison", or whatever? Flowerparty? 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... It's getting too complicated. I've just started to test the ideas here and I figured out that there is no need for Soundtrack_to parameter. I most cases, I guess, the name of a film, a game or whatever is included in the {{{Name}}} field (so there is no need to repeat it). If it's not, there is a workaround. Users can type "Soundtrack to the film whatever" in the type parameter and the rendered effect is exacly the same. Jogers (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of automatic categorization was discussed here some time ago and I don't think it's a good idea anymore.Jogers (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the things I tried to implement mainly boiled down to trying to eliminate text like "Album by Various artists" and "Various artists chronology". Manually defined, overriding fields probably are the simplest solution here, though.

Also, looking at Jogers's implementations, I'm starting to think that "Album by Various artists" isn't that bad. We probably should keep an indicator there when there are, well, various artists on the album, and trying to break the "foo by bar" syntax like I did probably isn't very helpful. Just a single additional field, then, to override the chronology with a series title? (And the same for the single infobox?)

However, I would still like to advocate the Compiled_by field. –Unint 22:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Compiled_by field seems useful. Jogers (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just figured something out. I've made the "by" word in the "foo by bar" phrase below the cover image optional so it doesn't show up when the {{{artist}}} parameter is left blank [5]. So, all non-standard stuff like tribute to, soundtrack of, Volume 20 in the Back to Mine series or whatever can be just typed in the {{{type}}} field. How do you like the idea? Jogers (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also possible to declare a new parameter, with a more descriptive name, with the text to be displayed below the cover when both {{{type}}} and {{{artist}}} parameters are left blank. Jogers (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I also made an additional parameter which I called {{{chronology}}}. I'm not sure if this is what you meant but you can see the effects here. Jogers (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

All right. That chronology field is exactly what I meant, and it does seem more intuitive to simply let Type take up the entire bar if Artist is left blank. You could have anything in there, for all kinds of weird contingencies.

I guess you did chronology in the same spirit. Are there any situations where we might want the text in the chronology bar to end in a word other than "chronology"? The way it is now, we'd allow more unusual scenarios, but at the same time also require more typing of the same word (and potential typos...).

Speaking of typos, one possible result of more freedom in defining these fields manually is the need for Wikipedia-wide sweeps to standarize format in the future. However, given that a lot of other things cause such sweeps all the time, and the fact that there are relatively few cases where manual definition will be needed in the first place (for now, anyway), it seems to me that it's worth it. –Unint 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the bar should always end with "chronology" or not. Perhaps Whatever series is descriptive enough? Jogers (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps {{{Soundtrack_to}}} and {{{Tribute_to}}} fields can also be useful? What do you think about this? Jogers (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a reversal on the way the soundtrack infobox had it. I guess the question now is how we want to format that top bar. (Is this latest change a conscious move back towards the "Type by Artist" format, by the way?) So now the options are:

• Show extra information in the bar
  • The title of the soundtrack source, or the name of the artist being paid tribute to, feels somewhat more like "vital statistics", to me, right up there with album type and recording artist name. But that's just a gut feeling.
  • If, say, 1 in 100 album infoboxes have an additional field in that white space, might people used to the standard ensemble of fields miss it?
    • I'm not sure what you mean here? Jogers (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Show it in an additional field in the lower space
  • This allows us to enter the data "properly" like everything else, now that we've moved away from my last approach. And there's still something to be said for storing information by some standard.

It comes down to how vital you feel the information is, I suppose, unless someone is planning to have some bot scour all the infobox fields in the future to compile some kind of database. And as for the chronology...

• If we have "Foo chronology" and "Foo series" side by side... Well, maybe we don't need "Foo series" or "Foo series chronology". "Foo chronology" alone works just as well when it's a series name instead of an artist name.
• Someone on my talk page just brought up the issue of entering an artist name in the chronology different than the artist name up top. So, for those situations, we'd at least want "chronology" at the end as usual.

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a situation where we absolutely wouldn't want "chronology" appended to the end. –Unint 08:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know which approach is better. I like the "{{{type}}} by {{{artist}}}" format because it's compact (usually fills only one row) and makes the infoboxes more standarized. I think it's also more intuitive to fill an additional field with a descriptive name than to use {{{type}}} field for adding extra information. This way we're not "getting bogged down" with thinking of every possibility. As you may have noticed I placed these additional fields right below the bar so perhaps the issue of their importance can be addressed this way?

You're right about "chronology" thing. I've changed it so the word "chronology" always appear in the bar. Jogers (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, adding these additional fields ware just a proposal. The previous approach is also good. I think that this revision brings nothing controversial and we can request to update the infobox code with it. Jogers (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's just about ready. One more recent development: User:Locke Cole has come up with a separate chronology template to handle chronology display for {{Infobox Single}}. (See the code at the bottom using the chronology template directly, plus a Misc field for inserting additional chronologies.) The album infobox could use this as well. –Unint 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Finished

Okay, to cap off the above discussion, I think the current version at User:Jogers/Template:Album infobox has everything we want now. Jogers has already approved:

• The option to leave out {{{Artist}}} (which will require a guideline for describing the album in more detail with {{{Type}}})
• The {{{Chronology}}} field
• The {{{Compiled_by}}} field

And I've added, since then:

• The new {{Chronology}} integrated, with room to add more instances of the template

Locke Cole has already added that to {{Infobox Single}}, so adding it here seems reasonable. (Jogers hasn't been around, but I want to get the ball rolling since this page is still pretty quiet.)

The only code that doesn't synchronize between that and the current infobox is the edit someone just made with the cover image code. Could someone have a look at that? It doesn't seem to be working as intended. –Unint 07:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The edit you're talking about screwed up a lot of infoboxes. I have no idea how to fix it without using parser functions so I guess we can just update the code with User:Jogers/Template:Album infobox. By the way, the chronology template looks great! Jogers (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Which pages got screwed up? An example helps a lot here. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 10:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes with the cover parameter left blank, most notably the example infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums :) Jogers (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahha, yeah, I realize what's wrong now, and it's impossible to fix. The code that was inserted/replaced by Ed g2s (talk · contribs) was broken. :P Coincidentally, this is why I hate protected templates... the code at User:Jogers/Template:Album infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) will fix that and add all the stuff that's been discussed above. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but isn't it a bit confusing to have a chronology field and then start using another template which is also called chronology? Flowerparty☀ 11:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On User talk:Locke Cole there was some discussion of using another name that was less generic, but nothing seemed to really fit the dual usage of the template (as it's used in both {{Infobox Single}} and in {{Album infobox}} (well, so the hope goes). I suggested ArtistChronology, but obviously a musical artist is just one kind of artist (though we could be more specific; MusicalArtistChronology?). I'm open to ideas here. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How about renaming the field in the infobox? I think I originally suggested Chronology_artist somewhere, but any name, really, just so long as it's different. Flowerparty☀ 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In the longterm I think we should move {{Chronology}} to something less generic (more specific). That would free it up for a template that actually does a generic chronology. But, barring that, I guess there's no problem changing the parameter/field name in the infobox, but I'll defer to Unint or Jogers on that. =) (Actually I'd welcome their input on a suggested name for {{Chronology}} as well, but barring good ideas there, your idea of renaming the parameter should be considered). Something tells me I could have worded this response as just "let's see what everyone else says" and the effect would have been the same. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 19:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Chronology_artist sounds good but isn't it too specific? It can also be used for series like this. Jogers (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost forgot about that, despite having used that example in the first place. Yes, the plan is to use it for things other than artist names as well.

Seems it might work well to keep the field named "Chronology"; first, the word "chronology" is what people will be seeing every time in the output, and therefore works well as a visual cue, and second, making it longer would mess up the alignment of the big row of equal signs we use right now. (A vain concern, yes.) As for the template... "Record_chronology"? "Recording_chronology"? Heck, "Chronology_record" in keeping with the majority of infoboxes at Cat:Infobox templates? And I keep thinking about the other infoboxes that this might be compatible with.

• We already have cases like One (U2 song) where people are using a custom-defined version of the exact same thing for album tracks.
• Hey, look: {{DVD infobox}}!

So... I'm prepared to let that be my last word on the field naming, at least. Let's try to get the second one sorted out before I apply the chronology to too many articles... :) –Unint 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, fine, you win, we'll keep {{Chronology}}. =) With that in mind, I suggest we implement Flowerparty's idea of changing the Chronology parameter to {{Album infobox}} to Chronology artist (note the lack of underscore from the original suggestion; sadly parameter names are not like article names, if a parameter name has an underscore in it, IIRC, it must have an underscore in it when used (where article links with or without underscores in them work, the software handles it)). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what? I was saying to keep the chronology parameter (the point is that it will not always be an artist) and rename the chronology template. –Unint 18:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

*facepalms* I read that totally backwards. I saw the link to {{DVD infobox}} and figured renaming {{Chronology}} to something more specific to {{Infobox Single}} or {{Album infobox}} would make it difficult to use with DVD infobox. I guess I'd support moving Chronology to Chronology record though. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about renaming {{Chronology}} to 'Release chronology'? or even 'Extra chronology', since that's what it is. Flowerparty☀ 01:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need to change anything? If we do I also agree that the template should be renamed, not the parameter. I'm not particularly good at naming so I guess I just let you decide. Jogers (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not good at naming here either. :P We should just stick with how it is now: update the template, and we can always move {{Chronology}} later (and the automatically created redirect will keep this template from breaking). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Let's do it I can't wait :-) Jogers (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We're updating? Excellent. Of course, one thing that does break when changed is field names, so we'd better have the last word on whether we actually want to switch to the more expandable "Last entry", "This entry", etc. This should probably be done soon as possible if it's going to be done at all, because "What links here" cannot be used to track which articles use Chronology directly (where field names would break after such an update), and which use it "patched" through Infobox Single itself! –Unint 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have a better name, I'm all ears. :P Otherwise I don't think there'll be a problem moving ahead: Special:Whatlinkshere may not tell us which uses use the old names or the new names, but an automated bot doesn't care. And, if we do choose new names, we can simply include the old names (until a bot can be run) like so: {{{A|{{{B|default}}}}}} (where A is the old parameter name and B is the new parameter name). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, the template is updated. I've moved {{Chronology}} to {{Extra chronology}} - of course, feel free to move it back, or elsewhere. All done? Flowerparty☀ 22:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Extra chronology}} is now a high-use template. ;) While I detest full protection of any page, if we're going to have this template protected, we may as well protect that one as well. Also, I note you left this template pointing to the old {{Chronology}}; I'd suggest changing that (otherwise all it'd take is someone vandalizing the redirect at Chronology to muck up Album infobox). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Update: struck my comment re: Chronology in this template, it was Infobox Single that was using it still. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that. Seems a shame to lock you out of a template you created, but I suppose we'd better. Flowerparty☀ 22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've migrated all pages save for talk pages to the new template name, if only to generate a list of pages where I've used the template to date.

I still have strong feelings about changing "Last single/album" to "Last entry", etc. As I've said, there are non-single, non-album situations where this template is applicable right now. –Unint 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely! Also, if we want to use this template in different situations maybe we shouldn't set the default color to yellow? Jogers (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Can this:

{{{Type}}} {{#if:{{{Artist|}}}|by}} {{{Artist}}}

be changed to:

{{{Type}}} {{#if:{{{Artist|}}}|by {{{Artist}}}}}

It makes the artist parameter optional. Thanks to User:Unint for pointing this out. Jogers (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

done. Flowerparty☀ 12:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Update to use #if

I've updated the code in this template to use #if (see m:ParserFunctions for details of the new syntax). My code is available at User:Locke Cole/Template:Album infobox (and the request is that the code there be copied into this template; no visual changes were made, only the methods used were modified). Samples are on the talk page there. If there's any problems, please note the articles affected and report them here. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Seems to be working correctly, but is it just me or has it made the gaps bigger around the image? Not that it matters a great deal. Flowerparty? 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Weird, I didn't think that would affect the appearance. I've fixed it at User:Locke Cole/Template:Album infobox. Sorry about that. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, was that all. Done. I've obviously been looking at too many of these things to even notice. Thanks for that, then :) Flowerparty? 04:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Category

Can someone add [[Category:Templates using ParserFunctions|{{PAGENAME}}]] inside a NOINCLUDE please? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Flowerparty☀ 00:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Weirdness...

Something odd is happening with this template on The Song Is You. A line of code is apparent at the top of the page, and I haven't been able to find anything odd in the markup to warrant it. Thoughts? --Yossarian 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No background variable. I fixed it. Jkelly 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That was confusing. There was a minor bug in the code which I've now fixed, I think. It looked like something had gone wrong with the infobox, but it was just a missing pipe in the article[6] Thanks for pointing it out. Flowerparty☀ 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Flowerparty, Just curious, why'd you revert this edit you made to the template? If it doesn't cause any problems, I'd strongly suggest including the that so there's at least a default background color. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Confused! :S See above. Flowerparty☀ 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Future albums?

Is it proper to use this template for an album which is not out yet, but information is known about? Joltman 15:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So long as the information is WP:V and all other conventions are followed there should be no problem. Dan, the CowMan 18:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You also might want to add {{future album}} at the top of the article. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the main thing that was holding me back was the release date on the template says 'Released' so even if there is a release date set for an album, wouldn't it be kind of wrong to put it under 'Released'? Joltman 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as you add the future album template (which clearly states that the article contains information of a speculative nature) and make it clear in the article's lead that the album hasn't been released, I think there shouldn't be a problem. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Extra chronology template use

What about not using the Template:Extra chronology to handle the standard chronology? What I mean is to change:

{{#if:
  {{{Last album|}}}{{{Next album|}}}
  |
{{Extra chronology
| Artist = {{{Chronology|{{{Artist}}}}}}
| Type = 
| Background = {{{Background|#dedede}}}
| Last album = {{{Last album|}}}
| This album = {{{This album|{{{Name}}}}}}
| Next album = {{{Next album|}}}
}}
}}

back to:

{{#if:
  {{{Last album|}}}{{{Next album|}}}
  |
<tr>
<th style="background: {{{Background|#dedede}}}; text-align: center;" colspan="3">{{{Chronology|{{{Artist}}}}}} chronology</th>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align: center; font-size: smaller;">
<td colspan="3">
<table style="width: 100%; background-color: transparent; margin: 0px;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 33%;">{{{Last album|}}}</td>
<td style="width: 33%;">{{{This album|{{{Name}}}}}}</td>
<td style="width: 33%;">{{{Next album|}}}</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>

This way no functionality is lost but the Template:Extra chronology could be unprotected (as it would no longer be a high use template) and finding out which articles use additional chronologies would be easier (what might be useful if we decide to make significant changes to Template:Extra chronology) Jogers (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer keeping the appearance stuff centralized. Otherwise if we want to make a change, we have to change two places or else have out of sync styles. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I see the point but the appearance of the chronology section hasn't changed much since it was adopted, I guess. Anyway, I trust your judgement and I don't mind keeping it this way. Jogers (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-breaking space in Compiled by field

Can anybody add a non-breaking space to Compiled by field like this? Jogers (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Flowerparty☀ 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Broken

Something User:Ed g2s did has broken part of the infobox. The artist name now appears outside the box. Demo:

Untitled

BigBlueFish 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. ed g2s • talk 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed g2s edits: Reviews

Seems like the edits by User:Ed g2s also changed the template so that the reviews section requires <nowiki> </nowiki> up front again, as the list is now broken in articles that don't have it. The Grey Album for example. Maybe somebody could fix this. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And also, infoboxes with the cover parameter left blank got screwed again (like in the WikiProject Albums example). What is this {{!}} stuff for, anyway? Jogers (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think everything should be fixed now. {{!}} just replaces '|' so we can use wikisyntax, but it is a bit cumbersome. Flowerparty☀ 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Jogers (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image size parameter

Can this optional parameter be added?

{{#if:
  {{{Cover|}}}
  |[[Image:{{{Cover}}}|{{{Image size|200}}}px|{{{Name}}} cover]]
  |[[Image:No cover.png|200px|No cover available]]
}}

See my discussion with Ian Moody about this. Jogers (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps {{Cover size}}? I'm open to ideas about the naming. Jogers (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This would allow the image to be bigger than 200px as well as smaller. I quite like the way all the boxes are of uniform width at present. Can we not find a more suitable image for this Rules of the Game? Flowerparty☀ 05:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

{{#if:
  {{{Cover|}}}
  |[[Image:{{{Cover}}}|{{#ifexpr: {{{Cover size|}}} < 200 |{{{Cover size|200}}}|200}}px|{{{Name}}} cover]]</td>
  |[[Image:No cover.png|200px|No cover available]]</td>
}}

Would fix the bigger problem, I believe. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 10:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Flowerparty, it's good that there is a uniform look throughout all articles. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem of a single article. Sometimes proper resolution images are hard to find and these smaller than 200px look just awful when scaled up. They are still better than no cover at all, though. With the code that Ian Moody proposed the cover size parameter would be ignored if greater than 200 so the width of the infoboxes couldn't be changed. Jogers (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't working properly. If 'Cover size' is not defined the image is rendered at its default width (see the penguin example at User talk:Jogers/Template:Album infobox). I'm not sure of the vagaries of this #ifexpr, but it seems to work if you embed the expression inside an #if, like this:

{{#if: {{{Cover|}}}
  |[[Image:{{{Cover}}}|{{#if: {{{Cover size|}}} | {{#ifexpr: {{{Cover size}}} < 200 |{{{Cover size|200}}}|200}} | 200}}px|{{{Name}}} cover]]
  |[[Image:No cover.png|200px|No cover available]]
}}

But this looks messy. Is there a neater way? I don't think we need the </td>'s, by the way, since they're not in the template at the moment and it looks ok. Flowerparty☀ 03:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It indeed works with what you proposed. Well, I don't know why but gaps around the image appear to be bigger without these </td>'s (See this revision). I wouldn't even know how to fix it but I remembered that it happend before and this is how Locke Cole dealt with an analogous situation. Jogers (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a change which allows an image size to be specified with 'Cover size'... defaulting and limiting to 200px. It shouldn't change the box width at all. --CBDunkerson 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's much neater. Good work! Flowerparty☀ 10:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've figured out what was wrong with these </td>'s. Sorry for the confusion. Jogers (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page

I guess it's high time to archive this page. I'm not sure what to do with the "proposed alternative syntax" stuff, though. Should it be archived or left with the "normal syntax" as usage instructions? Jogers (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cover caption parameter

Does anybody else think that a cover caption parameter may be useful in some situations? I mean something like this. Jogers (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the code:

{{#if:
  {{{Cover caption|}}}
|<tr style="text-align: center; font-size: smaller;">
  <td colspan="3" style="text-align: center;">{{{Cover caption}}}</td>
</tr>
}}

I don't know how to make it consistent with the rest of the infobox code using this {{!}} stuff. Jogers (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We didn't do that yet? In the intervening time, the more I've thought about it, the more I think it's useful. In fact, I'm going to test it out with {{Infobox Single}}, where I think it can potentially be even more useful. –Unint 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the two templates have fallen out of sync again. I'm wondering what else needs to be carried over. –Unint 22:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to tack on a second edit request there. If the Chronology field is entered but left blank, the chronology header bar doesn't display. (I should be able to pinpoint the cause of this, but I have to leave right now.) –Unint 22:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. It doesn't happen with the User:Jogers/Template:Album infobox. The only difference is that the template in my userspace doesn't use the {{Extra chronology}} (what I think is better). Jogers (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This should address both issues. I've renamed 'Cover caption' to just 'Caption' so it doesn't stick out as being longer than the other parameter names, is that ok? Flowerparty☀ 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Thanks. Jogers (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)