Template talk:Infobox song/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Problems with images appearing in Infobox Song

File:Screen Shot 2014-04-06 at 12.15.jpg

Further to discussion at Village pump (technical), I'm thinking we need to restore the resizing function in this template. Although I'm told it's not an issue related to the new typography, it seems a WP Music edit proposal has generated the change in the template as a result of encyclopedia-wide changes post-2 April.

My issue with the template is in situations where an album track was released as the B-side to a single – so it's not applicable to use Infobox Single, as we would for non-album B-sides. We need the option to reduce the image size because, certainly in the case of face labels from singles (45s), they often look way too large, filling the infobox window. It's different with a sleeve image which covers an entire disc, but in the context of a label (being merely a central portion of the whole – half the diameter of an old 45 perhaps), I believe they always need to be reduced slightly. Or at least, we need the facility to be able to do it if we think it's needed. Even when the full disc is shown in Infobox Song, there are problems – it just looks gigantic.

The first screenshot I've included here shows how Infobox Song images that carry formatting text (to reduce size) are currently appearing. The song article in question has just recently had the formatting text removed, with the result that the face label now fills the box – here's the result, Māya Love. Too big, would you agree?

(Incidentally, although I'm sure it's obvious from the shot, I've gone for the Preferences → Gadgets → Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin) option that a couple of people suggested at the Village pump discussion.)

File:Screen Shot 2014-04-06 at 9.51.jpg

ATMP song

Then take All Things Must Pass (song), which currently has that "[[File …" formatting text visible on screen. The second screenshot here shows what happens when the text is removed. Is it just me or does that disc image look way too large – compared with the text, and bearing in mind its context?

With other B-side label images that I've scanned and uploaded personally, I've deliberately included white space (well, grey really ...) either side of the label, to ensure it appears slightly diminished in the box. Miss O'Dell's one example; that looks pretty good, imo. Perhaps I could do that with Maya Love and others, but obviously I'd rather not have to re-scan. And besides, that won't solve the problem when the label's come from a Discogs listing, nor in the case of that ATMP (song) example.

So, even allowing for the reason behind that change undertaken at WP Music – a valid one, I'm sure – is it not possible to reinstate the resizing function? Having that "[[File: …" text appearing is obviously not good at all; but personally, taking the Māya Love before-and-after, I think it's actually preferable to the oversized image. JG66 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There used to be a |cover size= parameter which allowed sizing, but it relied on the |Cover= parameter holding a bare image filename (i.e. |Cover=Māya Love single face label.jpg), and not the full image syntax. It was removed with this edit which fixed the width at 235px; it was increased to 250px less than two hours later. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Edit Proposal: Increase Image Size in Music Infoboxes to Compliment the New Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The single and song infoboxes did not have the same functionally as that of the album infobox. What I did was use the style used in the album infobox for the single and song infoboxes, and add a 250px size, per the discussion on the talk page. I will revert the changes to the infobox, so we can discuss further the best way to go about this. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That's good news. Thank you. JG66 (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Intent to request an edit for this protected template

Apparently, the "Cover" parameter can only accept image names, and it will break on pre-formatted markup (although this isn't explained in the doc) -- see the above section. I think a further switch (within the default branch of {{#switch:{{{Cover|}}}) is needed, to check if the two left-most characters of {{{Cover|}}} are "[[", in which case use the parameter value as-is, and don't format it anymore. I haven't yet looked into how this can be done (i'm pretty confident it can be done), but if you need me to then just send me a message via my talk page and i'll start digging into it. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can come with a solution, please try it out on the sandbox and then if we can agree that it is the best solution, I will implement it. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that there is a discussion about bringing back the original font style. Maybe we won't need this change after all. I'd say we just wait a bit and see what happens. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, i've changed the sandbox, and added to the test cases. So now regardless of the overall result on the typography change, this will be able to handle most inputs. -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

One more thing: it appears either of the two revisions of the sandbox (603038844 and 603036230) work just as well. So we can keep the old "#invoke InfoboxImage..." or switch to the alternate "[[File:...", whichever is decided upon. -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Nevermind, i wasn't purging the "testcases" page, so i wasn't aware it actually wasn't working... Because the StringFunctions extension is not implemented in wikipedia. Guess the status-quo will have to remain, until another answer comes up. :-| -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Got it to work, now that i found {{str left}}, which does the same thing as #sub:...|0|2, and boasts that it is "inexpensive". Hopefully that claim is true, since i imagine this template will be used quite a lot. :) -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

To the point "this isn't explained in the doc" - the |Cover= parameter is neither described nor mentioned in the documentation for {{Infobox song}}. The documentation does state "Unless otherwise stated here, refer to Template:Infobox single for guidelines on how to use parameters that it shares with Template:Infobox song.", and at Template:Infobox single#Parameters we find "Cover ... Enter the file name only into the field: <Image Name>.jpg." I would say that it's working as documented, and that attempting to use full image syntax goes against that documentation. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, i missed that bit... sorry, and thanks for clearing it up. But still, the current code (that was in effect until the recent change) didn't and doesn't reject them, so my point now shifts to settling on a version that allows more freedom with the input. Though i can understand that this might lead to rampant dis-uniformity, so i would welcome further input on this. -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jokes Free4Me: Great job buddy! @JG66: Try replacing the Infobox song to Infobox song/sandbox on All Things Must Pass (song) and let us know if you're pleased with the outcome. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So whats the prognosis? Are we shrinking the album covers back down to the smaller size pre-font face changes? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } -

I'd say All Things Must Pass (song) looks pretty good as, in fact. (Without needing to replace the temp with Infobox song/sandbox. The reduce-size formatting text is obviously being read and understood now in Infobox song. is that right?) As another example, Hari's on Tour (Express) is also good: the "[[File …" text no longer appears on screen, and the resize parameters are being followed. Māya Love still looks too big, but that's only because the "[[File …" text was removed and needs to come back in.

As a for-instance with ATMP song, if I go full screen on the song article, the bottom of the green disc image is in line with the final line of text in the Lead paragraphs. Which is far better than in that screenshot above – where the size of the image meant the disc dipped down way below that level.

So from what I'm seeing, it all looks fine – and thanks very much for your efforts, Status, and everyone else too. I hope I've not misunderstood something here: was there another reason for swapping over to Infobox song/sandbox? JG66 (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In the sandbox, Jokes_Free4Me made the change so that the default size is set to 250, but you can also adjust it however you may see fit. This is what it looks otherwise (with the original formatting); you see the whitespace and that the cover doesn't fit the whole infobox? That's what we're trying to get rid of. I made that change, but as you noted above, said change made changing it in specific cases impossible. As Redrose64 pointed out, however, the documentation doesn't state that it should be resizable. Now that we have a way to make both possible, we now need to discuss whether or not it should change. — Status (talk · contribs) 11:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused, here as above (when you said "Try replacing the Infobox song to Infobox song/sandbox on All Things Must Pass (song) …" – I can't work out what you're asking me to do). Aside from that, though, what I'm saying is, the issues I'd first identified appear to have been resolved. At full screen, All Things Must Pass (song) looks much better (again, compared to that screenshot I add above); other examples – Hari's on Tour (Express), also World of Stone – all look okay now. In that, instructions to show at a smaller size are being followed. Is this something that Jokes_Free4Me has seen to? – I'm not clear.

I've just added "/sandbox" to the 4th line of ATMP song (and, almost for the sake of it, reduced image size to 170px). But again, as of 05:08, 7 April, everything seemed to be okay with the actual Infobox song template in place anyway.

Anyway, trying to answer your last question: in the instances I've mentioned, mostly with face labels, we do need to be able to resize as and when – yes. That's because the image shows just a portion of the product and filling the available window is just overkill, imo. I feel there's the same OTT factor with a full vinyl image, in fact, yet with something that's specifically designed to be viewed in its entirety – like a picture sleeve for a similar-sized disc – it's logical to have it at the full available size. To me, it's a question of aesthetics: sometimes the image deserves to be shown off, so to speak (as in cases of an actively designed sleeve); other times, it doesn't merit such a grand presence on the page. Does that make sense? JG66 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, I think I've got it. Those examples (ATMP song, Hari's on Tour etc) have all looked okay since, and because, you undid the change you made to the template ... I've just resized Māya Love, adding "/sandbox" to line 4 also.

The relevant test cases look good, from what I can see – in that they clearly allow for an image to sit at reduced size within the infobox window. Thanks, and to Jokes Free4Me as well. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

For completeness' sake, i should mention that the sandbox also adds the option to use "???" and "blank" as values for the |Cover= parameter, while the current code of the template just interprets those as image names (which doesn't look all that good, as can be seen on the testing page).

However, there's one more isssue to be decided upon: the original code (which is now reinstated in the template) uses a rather fancy {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{cover|{{{Cover|}}}}}}|size={{{cover size|{{{Cover size|}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|alt={{{alt|{{{Alt|}}}}}}|border={{{border|{{{Border|}}}}}}}}, delegating to the powerful Module:InfoboxImage "LUA-style template" (which i believe knows how to handle both cases, it just needs the "250px" value in |sizedefault= ).

While the change that Status did, in order to enlarge the images to the infobox's increased width, (and which is currently part of the sandbox code) used a pretty basic [[File:{{{Cover}}}|frameless|250px|alt={{{Alt|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{Border|}}}|yes|border}}]]. The fact that this doesn't handle pre-formatted images is moot, since a check can be added for that case (and indeed such a check is now in the sandbox).

I'm slightly inclined to go with the former option, but it's probably just my "programmer's gut" feeling, and neither option is really "clearly better". Fwiw, if there's ever a need to change that "250px" value, both options will require an edit request, so that's another tie. Would anyone know what other criteria could i look at to choose which of the two to recommend? -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

International Standard Musical Work Code

We should add an International Standard Musical Work Code parameter. It is likely that this UID will also be added to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, done, as |ISWC=, the standard abbreviation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Writer(s)

Are there agreed-upon guidelines about who gets credit in the infobox, such as cases when an artist gives away a credit or after litigation?
Ulmanor (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Language field

Per Template talk:Infobox single#Language field not added and Template talk:Infobox single/Archive 7#Language field is there any support here for addition of an optional language field to the infobox song template? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I support that, with the caveats I raised in the earlier discussion, which don't yet seem to have been addressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, I share those caveats, and a shorter version of the main points could be added to the template documentation. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox song}} has a language field; see this example. {{Infobox single}} doesn't, however, and I support its addition. Adabow (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The implementation in {{Infobox song}} doen't address any of the points made in the earlier discussion, and the example uses "English", which we should never need to do, as that;s his Wikipedia's default language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the documentation won't address points about language markup in the underlying HTML. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 August 2014

Hi,

I'd like to suggest adding a parameter to this infobox template. That parameter being: 'Performer'. There is a line for 'Artist', yes, but in some cases, the 'Artist' is not the same thing as the 'Performer'. E.g. When a song from a musical has been recorded as part of a soundtrack album, if the person who sang the song on the recording is listed as the artist, the header of the infobox says that the song is "by" the singer. In pop music, the convention is often that the song is considered to be "by" the performer, but in some cases such as this the song would be considered to be "by" the writer. So, if the parameter 'Performer' was included, then in such cases, the editor of the page could put the writer of the song under 'Artist' (so the header would say [Song] by [Writer]), and then further down in the infobox, the performer could be listed, in the same way the writer is currently.

I hope this makes sense! Thanks. Ben wren (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: – The convention is that the song is "by" the "performing artist", and the "artist" param is short for "performing artist". There is a "writer" param that can be used when the writer is different from the performing artist; however, the song is conventionally considered "by" the performing artist, isn't it? Just trying to understand why you feel the convention should not be followed in the case of a soundtrack album. If you could give an example or two, this might become clearer to me. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paine Ellsworth - sorry, I didn't see this reply until now! Ok, a couple of examples would be: A) Do You Want to Build a Snowman? where the infobox says it's a song "by" the actors in the film - Kristen Bell, Agatha Lee Monn & Katie Lopez. The song would not be considered to be "by" any of them - they simply perform the song on the recording. The song is "by" the writers Kristen Anderson-Lopez Robert Lopez. Example B) I Dreamed a Dream - the infobox says the song is "by" Rose Laurens. Again, it should say that the song is "by" the writers (Claude-Michel Schönberg/Alain Boublil/Herbert Kretzmer). It makes even less sense in this case, because the article isn't even primarily about a particular recording of the song, it's about the song in general. The song is no more "by" Rose Laurens than by any other performer who has sung the song. Rose Laurens is herself a songwriter as well as a performer, so someone could easily be confused as to the origin of the song. Plus, many more performers of the song are listed under "cover versions" (which itself is not really the appropriate terminology - it would make more sense for that list to be titled "recorded by", or better still, to have a section in the article which lists the notable recordings of the song). The convention is only true in the case of pop music, that the performing artist is considered to be who the song is "by". For musicals, and standards, the convention is that the song is "by" the writer. Actually, here's example C) Fly Me to the Moon - the song here is listed as being "by" Kaye Ballard, when surely the most famous version of it is performed by Frank Sinatra. This could lead one to assume that Kaye Ballard is the writer and Frank Sinatra the perfomer... except in fact Bart Howard was the writer, and Kaye Ballard only the first performer to record the song. How could anyone consider the song to be "by" Kaye Ballard rather than either Sinatra or Howard? It makes no sense. Yet the song isn't really by Sinatra either - his version is just the best-known. For standards like Fly Me To The Moon, again, the convention is that the song is "by" the songwriter.

I hope I've managed to convince you!

Thanks Ben wren (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ben wren – yes, that was very educational. My interest in music lies almost entirely in the listening. Rarely do I get into the details of the standards of the music business – when I do it is the occasional help with articles about for example Cat Stevens and his songs, or Arlo Guthrie and his songs, you know, songs where the performing artist and the writer are usually one and the same person. So unfortunately, I am still unclear about how your suggestion would best be implemented. Would it be better to change the "artist" parameter, or change the "writer" parameter, or add a new parameter, and so on. In light of this, I will reopen your request and see if there is another editor who is more knowledgable about all this. Thank you for the learning experience! Joys! – Paine  03:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: before actioning this request, I'd like to see the proposed code put on the sandbox and a bit more input from other editors about whether this is a good idea. (Adding fields to infoboxes is frequently controversial.) Perhaps you could post at a relevant WikiProject to ask for comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Track listing

Hi, I was wondering how a semi-hidden track listing can be created/edited (ex. the track listing on the "A Day in the Life" infobox.) Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Bug?

Can anyone work out what's going on in the infobox at Bad Guy (song)? I'm seeing the 2 closing bracket above the song names in the track listing section. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: The {{Extra music sample}} template was in the |next_no= parameter, but should have been in |Misc=; fixed with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah I missed that. Thanks! Sam Walton (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Infobox standard

I have a concern with the number of fields for artists. The merged template retains the Infobox standard's fields for original_artist=, recorded_by=, and performed_by= in addition to the Infobox song's Artist=. For Infobox standards, this resulted in long lists of miscellaneous recordings and performances. One of the reasons I supported the merge[1] was to get rid of these easily abused fields. There may be other concerns as well. I've added a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs for input. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate |language=

Please remove the duplicate output of |language=, preferably the one at |label10=/|data10= which unnecessarily links the term "Language". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Alakzi (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Syntax for chronology parameters

please see Template talk:Infobox album#Syntax for chronology parameters. Frietjes (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)