Template talk:Infobox Album

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For usage instructions, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums.

Archives
November 2004 – May 2006

[edit] Usage

[edit] Syntax

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

[edit] Example

The Eminem Show

{{Infobox Album <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
| Name        = The Eminem Show
| Type        = Studio album
| Artist      = Eminem
| Cover       = The Eminem Show.jpg
| Released    = [[May 28]] [[2002]]
| Recorded    = ?
| Genre       = [[Hip hop music|Hip hop]]
| Length      = 77:19
| Label       = [[Interscope Records|Interscope]]
| Producer    = [[Eminem]], [[Dr. Dre]]
| Reviews     = 
*[[All Music Guide]] (4/5) [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dg2vad1kl8w6~T1 link]
| Last album  = ''[[The Marshall Mathers LP]]''<br />(2000)
| This album  = '''''The Eminem Show'''''<br />(2002)
| Next album  = ''[[Encore (album)|Encore]]''<br />(2004)
}}

[edit] One more problem with the recent update

The infobox breaks when there are two exclamation marks one by one in a field (like at Mega!! Kung Fu Radio). Jogers (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have kludged this for now at that article. Jkelly 18:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Kludged? I've fixed this in the infobox, since it was making a real mess of !!!'s pages. Flowerparty☀ 04:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Kludge. Jkelly 05:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so wikipedia is a dictionary :) Flowerparty☀ 05:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audio engineers

Seeing the article Tomorrow (album), I wonder if it would it be possible to add an "Engineer =" line? Kingfish 18:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chart Positions

Do you think that it would be appropriate to add a chart position field for albums as well? 64.229.16.18 22:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A chart position field would make sense, you'd think. But these boxes can already be quite long, especially if there are a number of reviews listed. Personally, I'd prefer to do away with the reviews section and put the chart data in there instead, but I can't imagine that would be very popular. Flowerparty☀ 04:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I put charts and certifications at the bottom of the article (more or less) in wikitable format - see The Unforgettable Fire. Fantailfan 14:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Chart_positions has chart information for singles, the equivalent should exist for albums as well to maintain consistency. Sparkhead 23:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pl interwiki

{{editprotected}}

Please add Polish interwiki [[pl:Szablon:Album infobox]]. TIA, Яǿǿ⁷² ✉ 11:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please someone could add the Spanish wiki link [[es:Plantilla:Álbum]] thanks Clouded 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jkelly 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Electronic" genre

Any chance that the template could automatically make the link into [[Electronic music|Electronic]]? Otherwise, Electronic is going to keep climbing the WP:DPWL ladder. At least, could any editor who reads this please be aware of the issue and manually set the tag? Thanks. Tevildo 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it has to be fixed manually. Jogers (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

N/P - list is now clear. Let's hope that some people _do_ read this discussion page before using the template. :) Tevildo 20:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The other artist

When it can be done, I think this template should include a "cover artist" section : the name of the photographer, comic drawer, painter, etc. The reason is that it is fun to show the art without naming the artist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.72.115.229 (talk • contribs) .

The infobox is intended to provide the reader with essential information. You can always name the artist in the article. Jogers (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merging Template:Dual Cover Album infobox

could someone investigate in implementing that template's functionality in the main Album Infobox? Circeus 18:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue of handling multiple album covers was discussed at WikiProject Albums some time ago. You may also want to take a look at my recent discussion with Jerkmonkee who created the {{Dual Cover Album infobox}} template. The solution using {{Extra album cover}} template already became quite popular and I find it more elegant and flexible but if you don't like it for some reason I think it should be discussed again at WikiProject Albums. Jogers (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes by Ed g2s

Could somebody change:

{{#if: {{{Last album}}}{{{Next album|}}} |

back to:

{{#if: {{{Last album|}}}{{{Next album|}}} |

Some pages look weird now (for example Kill Bill Volume 1 (soundtrack)).

Fixed. ed g2s • talk 12:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think that this line:

| This album = {{{This album|{{{Name}}}}}}

is obsolete and could be changed to:

| This album = {{{This album|}}}

Jogers (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think using {{{Name}}} as the default for {{{This album}}} is intentional behaviour. Not sure if it's used, but it doesn't hurt to have it. ed g2s • talk 12:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Could it be italicized as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)? I mean this:

| This album = {{{This album|''{{{Name}}}''}}}

Jogers (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, wouldn't that italicize the year as well? –Unint 00:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. It's not how it works. It would only affect the infoboxes which don't have "this album" field at all so the "name" field is used instead. If you want to include a year of release in the chronology you have to use "this album" field (which is not italicized). Jogers (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Brain went blank while I was reading, it seems. –Unint 01:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please put future 'edit protected' requests at the bottom of the page as it was difficult to sort out this one from all the older requests in the same section. --CBD 20:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the changes I requested? I don't care too much about the second part but I don't really think that various artists albums etc should display the chronology section. Jogers (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The {Editprotected} category isn't monitored extensively by admins (it seems just me for the past week maybe). I don't really have the confidence to make the change, could you bring it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (or I was hoping Ed g2s would turn up).--Commander Keane 00:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal. I guess that the change was meant to visually tweak the template page and some infoboxes got screwed accidentally. Thanks anyway, I'll ask Ed g2s personally first. Jogers (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

While that's happening, could someone make a minor edit to make style="font-size=90%". A slight shrinkage in font reduces the liability of wrapping and generally improves the look of the infobox (IMHO). Cheers, DJR (T) 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I've just reverted a change User:Ed g2s made to {{Extra chronology]} because it broke a large number of pages using {{Infobox Single}} and other templates – Gurch 13:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't he just stop editing templates? All he ever seems to do is break them. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 14:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of getting angry and shouting at me on my talk page, you could better spend your time helping me to iron out any bugs there may be. We are all on the same team after all. ed g2s • talk 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand both my feelings and use of markup. I am not angry, just exasperated at the repeated breakage of this template by you, and annoyed by the arrogant attitude displayed on your talk page. Also as far as I am aware ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING, whereas I just emphasised text. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page. Unfortunately further changes have broken it again. I can't even find a version that works now – Gurch 17:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, it all seems fixed today. Thanks, let's try to avoid this in future – Gurch 10:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catalog number

I think this parameter should be added. Psychomelodic (people from Alpha Centauri think that I look like Zelig ^{write your own!}) 12:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it'd have to be an optional field... I don't see any harm in adding it though. DJR (T) 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be merged with the Label option. Psychomelodic (people from Alpha Centauri think that I look like Zelig ^{write your own!}) 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I just put the catalog number in <small> tags and parentheses after the record label--Surachit 04:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I do the same. --FuriousFreddy 17:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

This page seems to have been protected for a long time, but I can't find anything on the protection log or the usual pages explaining why. Best guess would be 'highly used template', but there are others in similarly wide use which are not protected and that practice has become less common since it was determined that the 'server load' concerns attributed to it were inaccurate. I'm going to unprotect for now and we can see how it goes. --CBD 20:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How about unprotecting {{Extra chronology}} as well? Jogers (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see how this one works out first. --CBD 23:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background

In reference to the table recently added to the main page which lists background colors to set for various types of albums - is this an accepted standard? If so, wouldn't it make sense to automatically set the background color based on the 'type' parameter? It would be easy enough to implement a change where the background color was set to the contents of the 'background' parameter, defaults for a recognized list of 'type' parameter values, or the '#dedede' default... in that order of precedence. --CBD 12:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the standard established at WikiProject Albums. I think it would make sense to implement the change you are talking about. It was discussed here and here some time ago. Jogers (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I created Template:Music color for this. Definitely needs to have additional 'types' defined, but should give a general idea. I also moved the logic of Template:Extra chronology into this one so that they could more easily share the same color logic and other parameters. I tested this with several pages prior to implementation and verified it against a dozen afterwards, but let me know if it produces any unexpected changes. Pages which previously had no 'Background' parameter set may get different colors now as the 'Type' parameter gets used to set a color. --CBD 14:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a color should be added for band videos, as it seems more useful than using the movie template (especially in cases when the the video is just a live performance), but that's just me. ~Anonymous

[edit] Certification

Should we have a field for the album's certification (gold, platinum, etc.)?--MistaTee 11:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no because this could end up being quite a long list, given that every country gives these out seperately. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I put them at the bottom of the page, in wikitable format (see The Joshua Tree#Certifications. Fantailfan 14:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] !!! (album) and Louden Up Now

Template breaks due to unique nature of the band's name. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I got it to work for now by changing the artist link to "!!!", but there might be some better way to do it –Surachit 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It has something to do with the {{!}} stuff in the infobox code. Does anybody have an idea how to fix it? Jogers (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want the {{!}}s out of the infobox, it will take some work. I can help if you wish. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The solution basically means writing a bunch of simple HTML. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A similar problem [1] was fixed before [2] so I thought that this could be fixed too without much trouble. Anyway, I don't mind getting rid of the {{!}} thing completely and using simple HTML instead if no functionality of the infobox is lost. Jogers (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I came up with a simpler way to do it using URL encoding. As to converting to HTML I am all for that. In fact the template used to be HTML (and worked fine that way), but for reasons unknown some editors would rather use wiki-syntax, even at the cost of breaking the template. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 15:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the HTML version much easier to understand. Jogers (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have created the HTML version at Template:Infobox Album/HTML with tests on the talk page. Please test with as many different infoboxes as you feel like, particularly esoteric and complicated ones. Note it also required the creation of Template:Extra chronology/HTML for infoboxes with extra chronologies in the Misc parameter. It currently works fine with both the !!! albums, a few I grabbed from "What links here", and a couple of complicated ones I created. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to work fine. Good job! Jogers (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Was this actually fixed and then re-broken? These two pages render incorrectly still. Daniel Smith 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox change coming

Today Sunday September 3, 2006, the infobox will be changed with the proposed infobox per consensus reached in the past months.^[3] The change should be done by 18 UTC. The implementation of the change should be as clean as possible, as the new infobox keeps backwards compatibility with the old one, and will allow us:

• To create new types easily
• Allow users to forget about choosing the background color by just selecting the type
• Add a new Longtype parameter for extra information for the album type.
• Modify colors if we have usability problems
• Classify any album with a non-standard type in a category. We will be able to study these types, and either implement them if they are useful, or fix them if they have an error.

If you have came here because the template did break something in an album article you were reading, please do not roll back to the previous infobox. Instead, add a small note below with one indentation followed with a small explanation of the problem and the link to the article itself, so that we can check the problem and fix the template, or revert to the original template.

Hopefully there will be no or very few reports. Thank you! -- ReyBrujo 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh... erm, it might be worth noting that I did something like that two weeks ago. Not sure exactly what you have planned, but the template already sets colors automatically by type. As you say, the change can be (and was) made such that nobody even noticed. You may want to use the {{music color}} template I mentioned above or clear it out if this is going to follow some other structure. --CBD 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. For colors we will be using {{Infobox Album color}} and for linking, {{Infobox Album link}}. We are also applying the new type creation/linking, and the automatic categorization if the type is not understood. -- ReyBrujo 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I have just replaced the infobox. Category:Non-standard album infoboxes reports around 4600 albums with non standard types, which is odd having around 29000 transclusions. Some articles with a unknown type will be displaying the Chronology background in grey, I am going to change this. -- ReyBrujo 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we have 5000 pages with a red category. Please don't add a new and undefined category to a high profile template, because this is going to confuse everybody. You can find exactly which pages link to the template using "What links here". So don't create a non-existing category especially not a page like this. KittenKlub 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to change the category, use a robot because nobody is ever going to edit 5000 pages. Category removed BTW KittenKlub 20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the category from the template. The idea is that the category will allow us to find out the templates that do not have a standard type. It will take some time for the server to update the template, though. The category wasn't created in case we were changing the category name. -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You were already quicker with the removal. From the pages which I've made, the problem is that it say [[Album (music)|Album]] which is pretty common. So there are different ways it has been identified over the years. I guess the first point is to identify the different spellings. KittenKlub 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the {{Infobox Album link}} template would recognize every type as non standard, because it wasn't configured to accept wikilinks (Type = Studio album, not Type = Album or any other variation). The discussion was started some minutes ago as to whether the link should be recognized or not, which links would be considered valid, and to request a bot to exchange the types that were not accepted into valid ones. -- ReyBrujo 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well most pages are created from another page, because that's the easiest way, so old systems get copied on many pages. Indeed a bot is the best way to exchange the different methods. So type = [[Album]] to type = Album; type = [[Album (music)]] to type = Album etc. But there are probably many systems still around. Just like Infobox album and album infobox are still both used. KittenKlub 20:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is to be able to check every non standard type to either correct it or add it to the accepted types. We will be also trying to create a template system to create new albums with a predefined format, to prevent these "historical" errors from expanding. -- ReyBrujo 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very minor "problem" with the recent update

The text at e.g. Nevermind appears a little bit lower that it should. As far as I remember, a single line between the template and the rest of the article didn't make any difference before the update. Jogers (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I think every infobox does that (I remember having to remove that extra space from games and character's articles), but I could be wrong. What I also noticed is that the "current" chronology is a bit higher than the other titles in the sequence. I will see if I can spot these two alignment problems. -- ReyBrujo 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox Single}} doesn't do that (see e.g. Two Tribes). I remember adding this extra line to make pages easier to edit while making some more substantial edits (and it didn't change the way the article was rendered) :-) Jogers (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Neat. It should be fixed now. The problem was the classification-part, the one adding automatic category, I had forgotten on adding a line break there. Once the types are standarized, we can add the category for non standard types again. -- ReyBrujo 22:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Jogers (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

I guess I haven't been following very closely, but I've been trying out the new implementation. One question: as far as I can tell, automatic background colour doesn't work if the Background field is typed in but left blank. Correct? –Unint 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is intentional. The opposite behaviour would be quite reasonable. Jogers (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... that is because Background is defined as nothing. I notice the chronology header goes grey, while the others disappear. What would be the best solution? I guess it could return the color as if Background did not exist, but it may be a bit complex. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another change

Today the type has been given more priority than the background color. In other words, the infobox now determines the color based on the type, and the background color is completely dismissed. Please report any problem (color mixtures, types not working correctly, etc) to see how to fix them. Later (maybe in a couple of days) we can reimplement the category for non-standard types. -- ReyBrujo 06:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No cover available image

Hello, I would kindly ask you to remove this image from the infobox because it looks really ugly and encourages new users, completely unfamiliar with copyright and Wikipedia policies, to upload cover images. What's the problem? Problem is that those are copyrighted images, that can only be used under fair use. Wikipedia fair use policy is very complex and it's growing only stricter. That means that new users won't follow it and images will get eventually deleted. Then again, "no cover available" image pops up and another new users will upload... and we have here a viscious cycle.

So sulution is pretty simple: remove image Image:Nocover.gif from the infobox. Renata 15:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging users to upload cover images is the whole point of nocover.gif being displayed by default. What is so complicated about the fair use policy regarding album covers? I usually just select "album cover" licensing from the pulldown list. Am I missing something? Jogers (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a discussion in the Fair use group about that, see here for that. In the case of covers, my position is to be more open, as it is supposed the source, nevertheless from where the image was picked, is the album or single cover. However, people may misunderstand this "exception", and begin uploading images choosing only a tag instead of adding the source and fair use rationale. -- ReyBrujo 18:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What's so complicated? Oh, well:

1. You have to state the source (i.e. website you got it from)
2. You have to state who owns its copyright (most likely it's not the website you found it on, usually it's artist/record label)
3. You have to choose the appropriate tag
4. You have to write up a detailed fair use rationale
5. You have to make sure the rationale is valid, that usually means:
   1. checking that it is really a "low resolution copy"
   2. checking that it is not used in an article about roses only because cover shows roses
6. You have to make sure it is used in some article

Also suggest reading up on Jimbo's view on image tagging. Renata 16:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Stating the source in case of album covers, what for? Does it make any difference from which website I get it?
2. {{Albumcover}} says that "the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the music or artwork in question." Do I have to repeat this?
3. Choosing an appropriate tag from the pull-down list at Special:Upload isn't very complicated.
4. Is it really necessary in case of cover image being displayed only in the article about the album in question? I always thought that what the {{albumcover}} template says is sufficient.
5. Fortunately most covers found on the Internet are of low resolution.
6. If somebody uploads an image because of the ugly nocover.gif it's because they want to replace it, right?

Were any album cover images actually deleted because of lacking points 1, 2 or 4? Regards, Jogers (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. It makes a difference. For one, you can check and verify if everything is true and ok. For two, decent websites (not run by fans) usually have more info on who's copyright holder, who made the pic and what are the licensing agreements. For three, the website actually owns the pic (i.e. the x kB of computer data). For four, it's a nice and right thing to do.
   2. Yes you do, but in specific terms: so which one is really the one owning copyrights: artist or publisher? And who is the publisher (i.e. what's its name)?
   3. You'd surprised.
   4. Yes. Missing fair use rationale is a speedy deletion criteria. No one seriously enforce that just yet, but a mere fair use tag is not enough. Fair use rationales must be specific, tailored and written for individual cases and not "en masse."
   5. Again, you'd be surprised what you can and will find on Wikipedia.
   6. Right. But somehow there are 100's of orphan images out there...
   7. And to the last point: yes. Hundreds. Daily. Especially for lacking point #1. Renata 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No offence but it sounds ridiculous. Looking at this discussion it seems that I'm not the only one who thinks that a simple template should be perfectly enough in most cases. Jogers (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest changes

Due the latest changes in the infobox, around 4,400 albums out of over 29,000 have been classified as non-standard and put into Category:Non-standard album infoboxes. Some albums may have been broken when they are using a non-standard type AND use a background color in hexa, in example, Team Invasion Presents Keyshia Cole. I am trying to fix this out without having to drop the Background parameter at all. -- ReyBrujo 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a more strict overhaul, and say that Type must be EP/ep, not EP etc.. _→AzaToth 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

For example I made a new version of link, found at Template:Infobox Album/link/temp _→AzaToth 16:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the original template was much more restrictive, thus you needed to use Studio album with no link. However, when I implemented the category for non standard types, 29,000 articles went there (all the albums), since all the current albums use non standard types. Thus, we modified the {{Infobox Album/color}} template to handle several variations of the type, to prevent having 29000 articles in a category. The idea is that these 4400 items in the category have non-standard types that are pretty strange (as stated in the WikiProject talk page). Once these are fixed, we will begin removing one of the extra types in the parameter (in example, removing the ORIGINAL STUDIO ALBUM), and fixing those that appear in the category, until we have fixed them all. A bot would be very useful here, for sure, but we also wanted to have real numbers, not just approximations. -- ReyBrujo 17:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Side Effects

I think the new colour changes are fabolous but I had several technical issues on a number of articles that I maintain, mainly problems with the infobox templates, for the article Live in Japan (Beck, Bogert & Appice album), the infobox will remain the same steel blue when I have darkseaturquoise defined as the album cover. On the album Blind Faith (album) the chronology of Eric Clapton remains in the original orange despite the rest of the infobox being steel blue. If someone would be able to fix these issues on these pages it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks - Patman2648 08:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

These kind of side effects will be common. Live in Japan (Beck, Bogert & Appice album) is apparently a live album, but its type is Album. Changed it to Live album, which fixed the problem. In Blind Faith (album), it was using the {{Extra chronology}}, which should be used only by the {{Infobox Single}} template. For albums, use {{Extra chronology 2}}, specifying the type. I have replaced the Album type with Studio album, which will in the end be the correct type to use. -- ReyBrujo 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New draft

have made a new template located at {{Infobox Album/temp}}, mostly I have removed the background and incorperated that chronology. _→AzaToth 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding of "This album"

Earlier, I added a bold typeface to the "This album" field. I realised that someone removed it and I understand that this is because edits made prior to the change won't appear correctly. I think if we can get a bot to find

'''''

in the field and replace it with

''

it should be fine. But I don't know how you do this. So if someone else could find out, that would be great - Ashadeofgrey 18:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

just wanted to say I'm extremely happy that at least there will be a nice colour in infoboxes instead of that terrible orange which drove me crazy every time I looked up info on an album... many thanks to those who finally decided to change this. – Alensha ^talk 11:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Last/This/Next Album" font size

The small font for the album chronology paired with italics makes the titles slightly difficult to read. Can we make these bigger? Pele Merengue 06:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.59.106.17 (talk • contribs) .

Sure, I increased it from 0.7 to 0.9em, that should be enough. -- ReyBrujo 15:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but 0.9em is just too big - especially in comparison with "Infobox Single". I think 0.7 perfect to read -- Noboyo 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, problems that had to do with the usability of the site take precedence. That is basically why we redesigned the infobox template, because someone may have a seizure due the bright orange. I will modify it to 0.8em, hopefully it will be small enough for us and big enough for our original poster. -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra album cover?

I have several albums which make use of {{Extra album cover}} - this template has no type; just a colour. Can the same "type" field be added to that template so that it can change with the rest of the infobox? Thanks. TheHYPO 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can use these instead:

| extra cover1 = Extra cover1.png
| extra cover1 upper = Upper caption (optional, default=Alternate Cover)
| extra cover1 lower = Lower caption (optional)
| extra cover2 = Extra cover2.png
| extra cover2 upper = Upper caption (optional)
| extra cover2 lower = Lower caption (optional)

_→AzaToth 18:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demo albums

It occurs to me that there are probably a number of albums that fall into the category of Demo CD. I don't believe this would be considered the same as EP... Perhaps "Demo" and/or "Demo album" could be included under Types, either as lightsalmon or lightsteelblue. Thoughts? (Note, I'm particularly thinking of Evanescence's Origin album here.) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 12:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion on the WikiProject Albums Talk page. --Reaper X 02:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improved Template:Infobox Album

Well, nothing serious actually, just:

• Changing cover size from 200x200 to 250x250px. The reason: gaining more of the template's space, making covers larger, and thus - clearer, for us, the Wikipedians.
• Changing the existent and pretty obsolete No Cover Available image: (Image:Nocover.png) to: (Image:Nocover.jpg), designed by me.

Example of that done!

I believe it's a pretty necessary improvement for Wikipedia's album-related articles. --Aston 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Image:Nocover.png and don't see any reason to change it. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I see a reason to remove the "No Cover Available" image completely. It adds nothing to the presentation, it isn't consistent with other infoboxes (which don't include an image if, for example in a person infobox, an image of the person isn't entered), and it isn't consistent with other missing entries in the template. If the Artist or Release field is left blank, there isn't text that states "Unavailable", it just doesn't show up. *Sparkhead 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums --Aston 12:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should there be a "no cover" image?

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Infobox Album: Should there be a "no cover" image? and please comment there. *Sparkhead 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image bug?

I'm having trouble getting Image:Courier.jpg to properly appear in the infobox at Courier (album). Another editor was able to force it to appear, but with some extraneous text. Any idea what we're doing wrong? -MrFizyx 04:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I've set the image code to how it should be, but image won't show up. I'm wonder if there might be a thumbnail caching error or something? This is very odd. Revert if you don't mind the garbage code showing up with the image, but hopefully it will resolve itself. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had issues when adding a new image. Sometimes it takes a while before it will consistently load correctly. Assuming it was sort of caching bug on the server side. I tried that same image on another album page and it has the same problem. Spark* 11:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A cache issue is what I thought at first also, then I waited several days with the correct format before asking around about this. Let me know if anyone has other ideas. I suspect we could fix it if we subst the entire code from the infobox to allow fine tuning (maybe drop the px setting), but I just can't figure why it doesn't work as-is. -MrFizyx 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

When you try and view the 200px thumbnail by itself, it gives this error:

Bad Title -- The requested page title was invalid, empty, an incorrectly linked inter-language or inter-wiki title, or contained [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)|unsupported characters]].

It appears that the file itself might be corrupted. Is it possible to force the server to produce a new version of this particular image file? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good catch. The problem is that the cached thumbnail is broken. See this thumbnail, the 199 pixel is correctly generated. However, this one, the 200 pixel version, is not. I will ask at the Village Pump to see if there is a way to regenerate the image. If not, it would have to be reuploaded. -- ReyBrujo 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reported here. Hopefully a solution other than reuploading the image is found. Not that I care about reuploading it, mind you, but I would not like _this_ solution to be applied when _this_ happens. -- ReyBrujo 04:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this; I'm still occasionally fuzzy on procedure. I imagine there must be a way to clear the image cache...the only problem would be to isolate those images that are experiencing problems so that all thumbs wouldn't have to be regenerated. However, this could be a symptom of a much larger issue...perhaps this should be tossed to bugzilla or somesuch if nothing is discovered at the Pump? It may be a relatively minor thing, but it still affects the usability of the 'pedia. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Following the advice in the Village Pump, the thumbnail has been regenerated. -- ReyBrujo 17:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks to all who helped. -MrFizyx 19:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [band]'s chronology

The singles infobox states [band]'s singles chronology, but the album equivalent is just [band]'s chronology. Shouldn't there be some consistency here? Apparently it's beyond me how to change this myself. - Dudesleeper 02:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In the album infobox, it's obvious that you're talking about album chronology. In a single or song infobox, you can mix in another chronology to show both single and album track chronology. Therefore, the differentiation is needed for songs. -Freekee 15:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday releases.

For holiday albums (particularly Christmas albums), should these not be filed as cover/tribute albums, as they are usually not considered regular studio albums? Has this already be discussed? --FuriousFreddy 03:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

I have just added a language field. I thought it seemed useful, so just added it. Anyone disagree? - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The vast number of albums here will be in English. I don't think a field that will only be used by a very small percentage (under 1% in my guess) is a good idea. I'm not firm about having it removed, but would just like to avoid field creep. *Spark* 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I think a considerable amount would have another language in addittion to English. I would also think that non-English albums would make up a larger portion than 1%. Any popular artist who sings in English, but didn't/doesn't always, usually has pages for the other albums (e.g. Gloria Estefan, Shakira - well Estefan actually only has one Spanish album page from what I can tell). It's not mandatory, so you could maybe use it only when the album isn't in English (i.e. in English unless specified otherwise). - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 11:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorizing templates without images

Need to change this line:

<!-- -->| [[Image:Nocover.png|200px|No cover available]]

to this:

<!-- -->| [[Image:Nocover.png|200px|No cover available]][[Category:Albums without cover art|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Thanks. *Spark* 13:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the clear instructions. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

There's an internal link to "External links on this page", and the external links section is no longer here! Can someone roll back to where they were and put them back in. Thanks. 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My error. Thought I caught all those when I transcluded the doc. It links back to the album project page which has a list of review sites. I've changed the section title there and fixed the link here. *Spark* 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change to cover art category

Would someone please change the line

<!-- -->| [[Image:Nocover.png|200px|No cover available]][[Category:Albums without cover art|{{PAGENAME}}]]

to

<!-- -->| [[Image:Nocover.png|200px|No cover available]][[Category:Album articles without cover art|{{PAGENAME}}]]

That will change all of the articles over to the new category, won't it? That one drives me crazy, because even though I know what the category is about, I still can't stop thinking, just for an instant, there are albums without cover art? ;-) -Freekee 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardised Date Format for 'Professional Reviews' Section

It seems to me that a standardised format is needed as many articles have a "Pitchfork Feb. 2002" and a "Rolling Stone 21 January 2003". It seems like the more abbreviated the better, as the format of the infobox lends itself to awkward line arrangements with long entries here. Furste 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)