Template talk:Track listing/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

No quotes option?

I see that quotes are applied automatically. When there is a deluxe edition of an album that includes a DVD, the name of the DVD segment isn't always a song name (ex. Interview, Backstage). Can something be added to overwrite the auto-quotes when quotes are not necessary? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just use |note1= instead of |title1=. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Then it appears: Untitled (Interviews). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

i would suggest making another tracklist with DVD in the headline. and jsut number them accordingly to the tracklist.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The template is programmed to put the quotes when there is something in the title= and to put Untitled when there is nothing. I was hoping a tweaking of the code might address my issue? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok isee what you mean. . I also thought this would be something unnecessary, considering if there is quotes within the tile, the name would look more complicated.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So what should I do? How do you guys deal with extras that are listed as part of the track listing of an album? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ordering songwriting credits

There seems to be some ambiguity with regards to how this is done. Should they be alphabetical i.e. (Lee/Lifeson/Peart or Lennon/McCartney); exactly how they appear in the liner notes (which may indicate one writer, regardless of alphabetism, having composed more of the song); or is there simply no hard and fast rule for it? I prefer alphabetical ordering myself, but I'd like to hear others' take on it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

nl.wiki

Please add nl:Sjabloon:Tracklist to the links. Thanks. Grashoofd (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, although you could've easily done that yourself. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tracks, consisting of several parts

{{edit protected}}

Please add parameters to display tracks, which consist of several parts.

Examples:

1. "Track Name"

   1.1 "Part Name"

   1.2 "Part Name"

   1.3 "Part Name"

1. "Track Name"

   A. "Part Name"

   B. "Part Name"

   C. "Part Name"

See, for example, MCMXC a.D.

James Michael 1 (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

merely requesting it isn't going to be easy. i'm sure this was requested before and wasn't able to be placed. but we'll see if it can. though it seems like the tracklist is getting a lil too detail. and for one article, it seems unjustified. What other albums do you know of that have several "parts"?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now:. I've disabled this request as premature. First you need to get consensus for the edit, then you'll need to code it in the /sandbox. Then reactivate the request. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad quotation marks

{{edit protected}} The quotes should be “normal”, not "programmers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwayer (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done WP:PUNCT. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually do believe that quotation marks should be removed as some titles have them and it makes it difficult to accurately put them in without the default quotation marks affecting them. I also don't think WP:PUNCT is valid in this situation. As it's meant for articles, not templates. For a tracklist template, i dont think we should put unnecessary quotations. especially if it affects the song.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This template creates a table that is used in the article, what it outputs should adhere to WP:PUNCT nonetheless, also, what Softwayer referred to as "normal quotes", a.k.a. the curly ones, aren't normal at all were I'm from. Removing the quotation marks is an entirely different discussion and would be inappropriate as it would require someone to go through every transclusions of this template and re-add them manually, all 17815 of them. A secondary |RTitle= para without the quotes would be a more suitable way to achieve this. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

that's not exactly what i meant. i'm saying WP:PUNCT affects punctuation where it truly matters such as sentence structure. not when it can. Tracklist is exactly what it implies a list of tracks, i doubt punctuation is needed listing titles, the wikitables don't do it either. And how is it a valid reason to keep quotations just because they aren't normal where you are from? I don't think it's inappropriate. i think it's completely valid because various tracks have quotation marks aswell.

And unless i'm missing something, whatever we edit this the rest of the articles that use this template will be updated aswell. So unless i'm wrong in this situation, making another parameter would be much more difficult and would require a bot to update all of the old articles that use that parameter.Bread Ninja (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You're mixing two entirely different discussions.

WP:PUNCT is about which type of quotes we use. There are typewriter style ("") and typographic style (“”). This is were 'my normal' comes in, were I'm from typographic style is unusual (and only used for pull quotes in magazines, or for artsy stuff), and everyone uses typewriter style in regular text. Saying that typographic quotes are "normal" is not true for everyone. Anyway here on Wikipedia typewriter style is preferred. I'm not even sure how you pulled that out what I said, but that's all kinds of weird. This is what Softwayer wanted to change, from the type prefered on Wikipedia to the type not recommended, the user said nothing about removing them altogether.

WP:MOSTITLE is about what is quoted (and what is italic), short works, like songs are quoted. Since this template is designed for songs, having it auto-quote it is not surprising or weird in any way, as it is the standard. Now there are exceptions, some lists also contain non-songs, which should not be quoted. It is far more logical to make an exception for the exception than the opposite. Wikitables can contain all kinds of information, it is also not a template, it has not special focus, or special markup to coincide with that. But when someone makes a wikitable with a song in it, it should be quoted; when they put a movie in it it should be in italic. If you were to remove the quotes, you would need a bot to add them back everywhere, and then you need a person to remove them were they shouldn't be; if you add a new parameter you only need the person to remove then were they shouldn't be. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

my mistake for number 1. but might as well talk about it and 2 is more used when using in sentences. i dont think they actually want us to use quotations every time it is unnecessary. this template separates each one in it's own column so it's no worry if they were removed.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Section parameter

i think we need to add a section parameter. I'm not good with editing the template, but i was wondering if this can be done. A section parameter would be good for whenever an expanded version of the album what been released under the same name. Or whenever there are tracklist that add their own sections that make it difficult to put in the tracklist template.

Now this shouldn't be used when the tracklist changes. such as it starts at 1 all over again. usually when theres more than one side or disc. what do you think?Bread Ninja (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So are you looking for something like what I asked about/proposed a couple years ago? See Template talk:Track listing/Archive 4#Album Sections – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

well, if you want credit, you can have it. But the point is, i think it will benefit alot of tracklist that have their own tracks thata re complicated enough to have a tracklist tempalte.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

nbsp

Non-breaking spaces should not be used as place-holders as in Template:Track listing/Track where they serve no constructive purpose. Each instance of same should be replaced by the null string. ―cobaltcigs 06:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Track listing/testcases3

Template:Track listing/testcases3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 10:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

writer parameters

I have been trying to use writern to clean up the mess on this page: Kum Back.
But I am getting no output. Are those parms active? Varlaam (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Track 0

I was wondering if it would be possible to add the ability to add track0 (and related 0 info), for albums that contain a song in the pregap? I know it's not a very common thing, but it happens often enough that it might be handy. Currently either you add the track info in the note parameter (which makes this really long note), or add some sort of note at the bottom of the tracklist or somewhere else mentioning it. Any thoughts on this? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could, but should be noted that track0 should only be added if noted to be "0".Bread Ninja (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

can somebody actually add that? Pale2hall (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

References in writer credit parameter

I know this is minor – lord above is it minor – but I have a quick suggestion. Sometimes you'll want to include a citation in the all_writing field. This displays, as it stands, with the reference preceding the full stop. Ideally it'd be the other way round, according to the MOS. Is this feasible? Is it even worth discussing or thinking about? Dunno. Thought I'd air it regardless. Sterling work and all. Seegoon (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a little trivial, but you would be right in that it doesn't adhere to the MOS. I don't think it would be a bad idea to add a reference parameter for other fields aswell. Such as Title or Note so that you can have the citation follow the quote or parenthesis. The template used for TV seasons (Episode list) has a reference parameter for the titles for that reason (RTitle). So on some of the pre-formated fields, there could be an (for example on the Title field) "title_ref1=" or something of that nature. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 02:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess this discussion didn't go anywhere? At Autograph (album), I have a citation in the all writing field, but the forced period ruins the formatting. I get that I can move the sentence down, but I really don't enjoy being limited by a template simply because of a full stop. Can this full stop be removed? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You know what? Nevermind. The full stop being removed would be great, but would probably wreak havoc on thousands of articles, and my solution is easily done by not being lazy. Carry on... – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Foreign language in track listings

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Foreign language in track listings on which fields to use in this template for original language scripts and unofficial translations into English. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Width issues with infobox present

When this template is placed directly underneath an infobox (such as in a stub article or a section with little text), it can force the template to appear underneath the infobox, leaving a huge amount of white space. This happens in some browsers, or if (like me) you have set a larger default thumbnail size in preferences. For Koyaanisqatsi#Music I actually had to create a table to fit in the infobox, the text, and the three track list templates. I shouldn't have to do that just to make it render properly. There should be a setting where the width can be changed or it should be set to automatically fix its width if there is another template or image present. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The width should be unspecified. By default, the browser should automatically resize the width of a table. 100% width is extremely unoptimized for wide displays and for the case mentioned above. To optimize, this template should not specify width in style to let the browser optimize the display. --Bxj (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the problem with this is, if the width is not specified, most/all browsers don't shrink it to fit next to an infobox... instead, they "mesh" because the infobox is floating. The Track listing/Infobox table conflict is something that has been discussed before and several of us have tried to find a "one size fits all" solution, but no 100% working prototype has been presented. Currently, it's set to work correctly with the standard size thumbnails and most browsers. Better than nothing. Other peoples opinions is that this is an article issue and not a template issue as this generally only occurs on stubs and thus the recommendation is "improve the article." If you can find a working solution, then go ahead and present your prototype, otherwise... I don't see anything changing. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think nothing is superior. Even in the case where there is no Track listing/Infobox table conflict, if the width weren't hard-coded to be 100% in this template, tables won't have to be ridiculously and unnecessarily stretched across the screen of large displays. To optimize, removing width settings should improve layout. The other option is to have a version 2. We have version 2s for many templates on Wikipedia already.--Bxj (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

From my only one look at this issue, I agree that "less is more": I have just fixed this page on the fly by removing "width: 100%;" on all tracklist tables using a browser-embedded debugger. And this page is not a stub; the problem here seems to be the presence of a second infobox (Album ratings).– Juanmamb (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Favorite Weapon - Brand New is an example of a non-stub that looks awful due to this issue. Pale2hall (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just a note that I guess may be to do with these recent changes - the "collapsed" parameter no longer seems to work. Miremare 23:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, scratch that, I should have looked at the history first. Seems to be my browser playing up. Miremare 23:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I also have this problem with Opera 11.52, logged out or in. With the collapsed parameter removed, Firefox 8.0 formats it nicely however. I posted a request for help at Template_talk:Infobox album#Use in sections if anyone could find a better solution. -84user (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed the page layout issue and found that sum of all column widths is simply more then 100%. Template specifies width of columns using percentage calculating the number of columns used (ranges from 100% to 20%). Unfortunately, it doesn't calculate with columns for track number and length that have fixed width (2em or 4em respectively). I would recommend to remove width specifications at all or decrease them a little bit to allow browser engine to render page layout correctly. Eternal-doubts (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Simply wrapping the template with <div style="width:95%">TEMPLATE GOES HERE</div> would instantly solve this problem. Try it for yourselves with any transclusion of the archive where the infoboxes are pushing the tracklist way down. Just wrap the div right around the Tracklist template on any article, hit preview. --87.78.138.80 (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for that workaround, I've used it at Minecraft#Soundtrack and it works. Could someone incorporate this fix in the template itself? -84user (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And applying it at Knowing (film)#Soundtrack worked as well.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Suppressing quotes on track titles

I know this has come up before (most recently, I think, here), but could we have an option not to have the track names be put in quotes? I know the quoting makes sense in most cases, and should be the default, but there are some cases where quotes are not appropriate. The discussion above notes one, and it gets pretty weird with some classical album tracks. TJRC (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Name & Artist Headers

Previous discssion was sidetracked by red herrings; but I'd like to develop this template by including optional album name and artist table headers. It can then be made to emit the hAudio microformat. For example, in this template's own documentation, "Greatest Hits by Queen" would be part of the template and thus within the resultant HTML table. That would also improve the HTML table's accessibility. Any questions, or suggestions as to how best to do this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Two extra columns

Is there a way to make two "extra" columns? I'd like to do this on Common Thread: The Songs of the Eagles since each track has a different artist and producer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Column scope

The column headers for "No.", "Title", and "Length" should be given the {{{1}}} attribute to improve accessibility, in line with WP:DTAB. The relevant table row should look like this:

<tr>
<th scope="col" class="tlheader" style=" ... ">No.</th>
<th scope="col" class="tlheader" style=" ... ">Title</th> ... 
<th scope="col" class="tlheader" style=" ... ">Length</th>
</tr>

--RexxS (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done I note that the page you link implies that these scope attributes should be used all the time, while the linked WCAG recommendation calls for them only when (as here) the <th> tags are not the first row/column. That should probably be clarified. Anomie⚔ 16:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The tech note is already out of date, as HTML5 deprecates the scope attribute for the TD tag, so it is sensible now to only use scope with TH. The tech note (in its resources section) links to "Assistive technology reading tables" which illustrates the value of scope in certain cases even when headers are identified. Since using scope with TH (even in the first row or column) never worsens the accessibility and often improves it, it was felt simplest to give the guidance to editors to always scope the row and column headers. The point is that examples are often copied and sometimes modified by editors who may not be aware of particular nuances. I hope you'd agree that any guidance hedged around by conditions is much more likely to lead to a decrease in clarity rather than the opposite. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, "This is not necessary when all <th> tags are in the first row/column of the table." isn't terribly complex. But this isn't the place to discuss it, and I don't feel like wading into MOS talk pages, so I'll leave it alone. Anomie⚔ 19:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Header thingy

When did it change from '''{{tracklist''' to '''{{Track listing'''? I've been using the former since 2008, but a recent edit on one of my created album articles had it changed to the latter. Something I should know about? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

About two years ago. TJRC (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like I missed the boat there.. Must not have been paying attention. In which case, might there be a WP tool I could use to make automated edits of specifically selected album articles on my watchlist? As in, something where I could pinpoint the obsolete '''{{tracklist''' and replace it with '''{{Track listing'''. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

[1] indicates that there are no pages that transclude {{Tracklist}}. I wouldn't worry about it even if there were. TJRC (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Track 0 with title0 field

According to my quick Archive search, this issue hasn't been raised before?
This album, Origin (Evanescence album) has a track 0.
There is that LP from the 1970s – I can't think which at the moment – which begins with the sound of someone putting on an LP. Maybe its timing counts toward Track 1, or maybe not.
I just tried using "title0" in case it is supported but undocumented.
Field title0 is ignored.
I can't believe there is much demand for a 0^th field but it should at least be logged.
Bruckner does have his symphonies 0 and 00.
Varlaam (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Support I'm tired of it being request, and obviously doesn't do any damage. We could add a note saying we add a track 0 when its listed as "0". Other than that, someone can just add the parameter. i dont see why it's an issue. There's plenty of demand but the issue isn't that it doesn't have enough demand, but enough demand all at once. every other month its almost the same thing.Lucia Black (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as an engineer, I would tend to support it without documenting it.

It's not significant enough to document thoroughly.

My own software can have a feature that's latent. A client asks for it; I tell him how to turn it on. Then I don't need to support its man page if I have better things to do. And the client feels honoured, like he's privy to something cutting edge.

If title0 had simply worked when I tried it, I never would have come over here.

And, stating the obvious,

The full field set will be required.

Varlaam (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not really an issue. There are multiple tracks without the complete numbers (due to no breaks in the tracklist). So a track 0 being required. wouldn't be an issue.Lucia Black (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. I haven't worked on the code for a while, but I suppose it should be easy enough to implement and without interfering with more regular use. A few things worth pointing out:

• The track zero row would use the alternate (darker) background color, as this is hardcoded line-by-line and alternating the colors differently for this rare use-case would just be overkill.
• We might want to leave track zero out of the presets, for the convenience of most editors who use them. Mentioning the feature somewhere in the doc should suffice
• The doc should also encourage editors to add a note (via note0 or below the tracklist) on how that track might be accessed.

I might not find the time for thorough sandboxing and testing myself, but by all means, give it a try! :) – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 13:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It my opinion, the template is too constrictive in this department. I've always thought it would've been a better idea if the approach was more in line with the Episode list template, thus being a little more free-form when it comes to the track numbering. It would've allowed "Track 0" entries as well as allow cases like "bonus tracks" (that aren't specifically numbered, like when it's via download as opposed to on the CD) as it seems common practice with the wiki-table or text list approach to list them as "*" or otherwise.

However, I realize that the ship has pretty much sailed on that idea, seeing as the template is already contained in some near 29,000 articles. That said, if there's no harm to be done by adding in a "Track 0" field, then I don't see why it shouldn't. Though as Cyrus says, it should definitely come with a note. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this would be very useful, I edit several articles that could take advantage of a track0 field. I agree with all the pointed out things from Cyrus XIII, and don't see a problem with any of them. If someone can implement this and mention it here, that would be awesome. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's too subjective to give track 0 a different color. give it the same pattern as the others have it.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove "width: 100%" from table style

Please remove "width: 100%" from table style. Maybe also remove 21em padding in div above too. If infobox has width more than 21em (for example, when it contains a 300px-wide picture), 100% table doesn't fit, so it's moved down the infobox. This happens on every second page and that's strange someone didn't fix it earlier.

Screenshot of the problem, Firebug box, With "width:100%" removed by Firebug

When width is removed, table tries to get all possible space (less than 100% ok) and fits fine. -- Serguei Trouchelle 04:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)