Template talk:Infobox Album

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Infobox Album has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

For usage instructions, please see the template documentation.

Archives November 2004 – May 2006 May 2006 – February 2007

Contents 1 Help with Extra tracklisting template 2 Singles Section 3 Line break 4 New Template:Rating 5 New Album Type: Mix Album 6 Extra album cover 2 and Extra chronology 2 templates

[edit] Help with Extra tracklisting template

Could someone who knows all this estoric stuff add a Type field similar to this template to the {{Extra tracklisting}} template? I've asked for it to be done on that talk page and the one for Extra chronology, and there has been no response. Thanks. --Reaper X 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singles Section

Hey! I just created a page earlier today to list at the bottom of the infobox any singles released from an album: Template:Singles (talk, links, edit). Let me know what you guys think. It's to be added into the "misc" section, so here's to hoping it works. I've so far transcluded it into What To Do With Daylight and Albertine by Brooke Fraser and am going to give it a shot in some others I dabble in too. Again, any criticisms or adjustments, please feel free to do directly to the page there and note the talk page itself. I've made it allow up to 12 Singles. I think that should be more than enough, but does everybody agree? I've never heard of more than 12 singles being released from an individual album before (however I'm not sure this would be appropriate for anything other than general studio releases, rather than Greatest Hit mixes or Live albums unless the tracks were originally derived from the Live album or Best of, such as Recurring Dream by Crowded House featuring the songs Not The Girl You think You Are, Instinct (song) and Everything is good for you, but I'd include only those of the page there).

Anyway, let me know!

--linca^linca 11

16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I think this feature (after tweaking, if it needs it) should be included on the main template page as it's quite a useful tool. I've now included it on a few pages successfully: Room For Squares, Albertine (album), Heavier Things, Continuum (album), What To Do With Daylight and Recurring Dream and it seems to successfully provide a useful and concise view of the singles originating from the album. As to how this could be worded and where it should be placed, i'll leave that to the discretion o fthe person who places the feature on the main page. My suggestion would be with Extra Chronology section as it's an extra miscellaneous section.

--linca^linca 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} It seems quite elegant to me to use a second template for singles that can be included in the misc section of this template; it makes maintenance of this template easier. The examples you gave show that very nice results can already be obtained. I will resolve the editprotected tag for now; feel free to add another one if several editors agree that the two templates need to be merged. CMummert · talk 06:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks highly useful...I'll be working on using it on the various music articles I contribute to. In my mind, being able to summarize such information in the Infobox is almost always better than trying to do so in the main article (unless specific information needs to be presented in the album article about a specific single...which really should be rare). -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. It's useful, yes, but many album infoboxes are already pretty huge. This information really should be in the main article space. Just take Room for Squares. The article has a one-paragraph lead, the chart positions/certifications, and two track listings, yet the album infobox is almost as long as the article. ShadowHalo 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Room For Squares page in particular should really still have a Template:stub (talk, links, edit) marker, since its content isn't nearly sufficient for an album, especially one of its success. Generally a page shouldn't be ridiculously long, but should be long enough that the infobox isn't longer than the page itself. Anyway, the template's there (and has been vastly improved as far as the code goes, since I created it, though designwise it's identical) and I encourage those who wish to to use it where they see fit. It's not suitable for all albums, and I'm aware of that. That's the diversity of Wikipedia for you, though.

--linca^linca 12:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Line break

Is there a reason why there's a blank line after the "Next album" field? It seems to be taking up unnecessary space. ShadowHalo 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed some unnecessary whitespace in the chronology section. Could somebody fix this? Jogers (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem; can you give a link to an instance where this is broken? CMummert · talk 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See the first usage example at the template documentation. There is more whitespace in the chronology section than it used to be (for example in this revision). I don't know what causes this. Jogers (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jogers: ahem. :) Bubba hotep 11:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorted out. Sorry :-) Jogers (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}. Since no specific edit is requested, I am removing the EP tag. Please investigate the issue using a sandbox and add another editprotected tag when you have a concrete edit suggestion. CMummert · talk 12:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Template:Rating

Hey there. I've created a new template that hopefully supersedes the star rating {{Rating-3}}, {{Rating-4}}, {{Rating-5}}, {{Rating-6}} and {{Rating-10}}, since it unifies all these templates into one: {{Rating}}. Just write {{Rating|3|6}} to get , or {{Rating|2.5|8}} for . More examples can be found at the template page. Comments welcome. :) --Conti|✉ 02:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm all for rationalisation. I take it the other ones won't need changing over? Bubba hotep 07:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{Rating}} template is completely independent of the others, so a bot could theoretically run and replace the old templates with the new one. I'm thinking about implementing the "small" option automatically when the amount of stars exceeds a certain number, but I'm not sure what number that should be. 6? 8? 10? --Conti|✉ 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Six stars seems to fit okay, so I'd set the automatic function at seven and above. Let's just hope someone doesn't feel the need to use 15 or 20 stars :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that stars should be used for ratings of seven and above. It isn't very readable. Jogers (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the template accordingly. It's theoretically possible to use more than 200 stars I think, but I guess no critic uses a "X out of 200" system. :) --Conti|✉ 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note about not using star templates for numerical ratings - is it clear enough? - Alex valavanis 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Album Type: Mix Album

I've been having some problems lately determining which album type is appropriate for DJ mix albums. As of right now this album type does not fall into any that are already defined. A "Remix Album" is a collection of remixed songs where each track is distinctly separate from the other. For example: NIN - Further Down the Spiral, or Linkin Park - Reanimation. While many Mix albums contain remixed songs, I feel there is a need to differentiate them. A mix album can contain all non-remixed songs. I also do not feel that "Compilation Album" is appropriate either. A CD from the "Now that's what I call..." series is more appropriate for being labeled a "Compilation Album". Mix albums are distinct in that the track mixing is a crucial point. For most popular types of EDM the songs are typically beat-matched and mixed together to create one continuous piece of music, not individual songs (even though the songs are often tracked out). I propose that a new album type, the "Mix album", be added to the list. --MattWatt 05:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in part, but don't believe the volume is there to support it. I'd say we put it to the vote, though. I'm interested to see how many examples can be brought forward that support it. Offhand, I can think of only a small handful of remix albums (Love is one that readily comes to mind, as well as two by TobyMac and one by Plumb but otherwise, you've mentioned the only other two I'm aware of). In short, I'm for it if there's a volume to support it. I've offered a couple more, but can't think of any others that exist offhand. The reason I'm not jumping in and saying yes straight away is that the originality of the albums isn't huge. The only mashup or remix album that I know of that's yielded any singles is Reanimation (with the "Points Of Authority"/"High Voltage"-"Pts.Of.Athrty"/"H! Vltg3" EP and "Forgotten"-"Frgt/10" single and the inclusing of the "P5hng Me A*wy" version of "Pushing Me Away" on Live in Texas) and the two singles from Collision Course, and all of these singles are of course by the same group.

--linca^linca 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked it up and there's already a "Remix" option available (which is already in use for Reanimation), which colours in te same way as a compilation album. I'm not certain if this satisfies what you were after, but it's there to be used, and certainly is in use at present. Is it that you wanted it in a different colour from the other compilation albums? Because if this is the case, then I'm against the idea of it.

--linca^linca 09:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you re-read my proposal, I am not proposing a "Remix album" classification type. That already exists. If you go to the Remix album page it lists several examples and there is enough information to justify its existence. That fact I am not arguing.

What I am saying is that neither the "Remix album" or "Compilation album" classification types are sufficient for classifying mixed albums. I would argue that there are a lot more mix albums than there are remix albums, and therefore justifies it's inclusion. I propose a "Mix album" classification type to cover the scope of these DJ mixed albums. Examples of said albums would be: Paul Oakenfold - Tranceport, Sasha & Digweed - Renaissance Vol 1., and many of the pioneering Hip-Hop DJs mix tapes which pioneered the concept (redundant I know). I'm sorry if my original posting wasn't very clear. I feel that what I have said now should make my point much clearer. It would be helpful if the "Mix album" page contained more information about this album style and it's history. It does have a rich history, which unfortunately isn't currently on Wikipedia. I unfortunately don't have the time to work on that at the moment, nor do I consider myself an expert on the subject. There are many good documentaries and books written on the subject of DJ culture. But the "mix album" idea isn't limited to just DJs. I would go so far as to argue that Pink Floyd helped to pioneer the concept with albums like "Darkside of the Moon", as well as earlier artists such as Jean Michael Jeare and more. --MattWatt 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(Linking the relevant articles for your above comment, to demonstrate...)

I agree with this: I tried to propose a "DJ mix" classification quite a while ago, but I got no replies. (I suppose "Mix album" might be broader and more useful.)

In fact, I've considered proposing an optional field to indicate whether the tracks on an album are mixed or not; however, maybe the "Mix album" type could sufficiently cover all such instances. –Unint 19:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not being up on the "hip" music of today, can someone explain what the difference is (in less than 50 words) between a Remix album and a mix album or mix tape? I've come across mixtapes which I've had to type as "remix", but if they are sufficiently different, maybe they should have another type. If only to make my job easier! :) Bubba hotep 19:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that "Mix album" would be a better term, since not all mixes are necessarily by DJs. The problem I see is in strictly defining this album type. I do not feel it is impossible, but given recent advances and trends in music, especially in dance music, defining clear differences between this and other types could be challenging. For instance, take Sasha's "Involver" album, where he remixed other songs for his own purposes and mixed them together, not live, but in a studio. That's the great thing about music is that ideas are constantly being smashed together and merged to create new things. But something like that draws influence from "Live album", "Remix album", and "Studio album" types. Another thing which may cause confusion is what I feel is the inappropriate use of "mix" to refer to someone's personal "compilation" of separate tracks, which are not blended together for the purpose of creating a continuous music peice. I still feel that there is a very real need for a "Mix album" classification type. --MattWatt 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As a conclusion, I think the main distinction is in the product: songs mixed seamlessly into each other at track transitions. (The techniques used to produce Involver may be different, but I don't think it makes too much of a difference to the average listener.) There are also single-artist greatest hits albums that are indeed "mixed" in this manner.

With that in mind, though, there might be a distinction to be made between mixing and segueing, such as found on Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd (where there are still clear breaks between songs). –Unint 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely familiar with that album, but I believe I understand what you are saying. That is one of the "gray" areas in defining the "Mix album". I believe long ago, Pink Floyd pioneered that style of segueing from one song to the next (or at least gave it more notice), and it was called a "concept" in the rock world. I believe that "concept album" idea is what influenced DJ culture where it was taken further. Whether those should be lumped together under the definition of a "Mix album", I am not sure. I know in DJ culture the focus is on beatmatching and the overall arc to the mix (i.e. the journey). Careful thought is given to the placement of the individual songs and how they will be "mixed" together, often for the purpose of "telling a story", similar to how classical symphonies contain many movements. So it seems that there is a need for a distinction between this construct, and the idea of simply segueing between tracks. But where to define the line, especially when incorporating more than just DJ mixes, I am unsure. I will have to ponder on this some more. I am enjoying this discussion. :) --MattWatt 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra album cover 2 and Extra chronology 2 templates

I made a change to Template:Infobox Album/doc to refer only to {{Extra album cover 2}} and {{Extra chronology 2}} and never to {{Extra album cover}} or {{Extra chronology}}, after bringing this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, not realizing this talk page was also active. Another change that I'd like to make is to change this: Caption allows an optional header to be inserted, with an explanatory label. to this: Upper caption allows an optional header to be inserted and Lower caption allows for an optional explanatory label. since there is no Caption field. Anyone object? --PEJL 07:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)