Template talk:Extra track listing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] edit question
There's an edit here that says this is meant to be used with Template:Song infobox. It's not. That template already had a chronology for album tracklistings. I originally made this template to compensate for the fact that Template:Infobox Single didn't have this function. The new settings of same colour for everything look, quite frankly, stupid. To give an example, One (U2 song) was set to have this box twice. Once for Achtung Baby (a studio album) and once for The Best of 1990-2000 (a compilation). The colours were set for corresponding album types as in WP:ALBUM#Type_and_color but now they're both the same and confusing. I'm going to revert them back to their original purpose. --Thetriangleguy 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I've changed my mind about editing since i can't find a good place to revert to. Could someone please have a look at it for me? --Thetriangleguy 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- This template is used in both Single and Song infoboxes, which use different colors. Therefore, we need to allow for the color to be specified. —taestell 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The template is a section of the Song Infobox, hence it makes sense for it to be the same colour as that.--Ashadeofgrey (talk · contribs) 19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I've alredy change the color. There won't be more confuses. And Ashad, please understand that the Song Infobox alredy has the track listing option. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is that before you could define the background to what sort of album the track listing was from so it was the same as the colour of the album infobox. Now it is the same colour everytime.--Thetriangleguy 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've alredy change the color. There won't be more confuses. And Ashad, please understand that the Song Infobox alredy has the track listing option. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
Heavily discouraging that this has gone dead but...could someone add a field to this so you can define what type of album the track listing is from (EP, compilation etc.) similar to {{Extra chronology}}? -- Reaper X 19:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Use?
Does the song/single articles need this IMO I think this template is useless, why do we need to add a template in a single article just to put what the number is it on the CD and what the next song is, while there's a tracklisting in the album article and how about the other songs that don't have an article and this template don't really give much info. And the Infobox is already big no need to complicate it more.--HW-Barnstar PLS 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I, too, don't really see the sense in this template when the track listing can be viewed on the album article — unless, perhaps, every track on an album had a separate article. If we're going to include this template, though, I'd like to know what guideline (if any) there is regarding remix and compilation albums (and similar releases) — some Mariah Carey songs, appear on as many as three such albums, and that's in addition to the studio album track listing and the singles chronology. I'm sure there are many acts who've released many more albums and whose songs appear on several of them. I'm worried that people are using the template in this way to include information that isn't really relevant and wouldn't fit elsewhere in the article, thus making the infobox bigger than it needs to be and essentially converting it into a substitute for the article. Again, I'm not talking about albums of newly recorded material. Extraordinary Machine 03:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Propose renaming
I propose this template be renamed to Template:Extra track listing to use the standard phrase "track listing" rather than the non-standard "tracklisting". Any objections? --PEJL 09:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I object: I don't see any bother in moving it. I say it's fine as is. -- Reaper X 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I had forgotten about this. I do still think moving this would be appropriate. Any time we use a phrase other than "track listing" we make it more likely that someone will make a mistake about which phrase to use. I don't see much bother in moving it either, so I'm going to do so. (Existing uses will continue to work fine of course, via a redirect.) --PEJL 07:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Extra row?
I just noticed this behavior, which I think may be a mistake, but I am not sure. If you use the template like this:
{{Extra tracklisting
| Album = album name
| Type = studio
| Tracks = Tracks here}}
It expands to this:
|- ! colspan="3" scope="col" style="background:lightsteelblue;" | ''album name'' track listing |- | colspan="3" | Tracks here |-
Note the trailing "|-" which follows the "Tracks=" content and starts a new table row. I don't think that should be there. Can anyone explain why it is there? Can it be removed? John Cardinal 17:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've again rennovated the code to remove this problem and the second coloured bar when this template is used with the {{{altAlbum}}} field. This came about after a discussion with User:PEJL. Please feel free to revert or fix if a code problem crops up, but I believe I've tested every variation without incident. Documentation updated as well to show instances of the {{{Tracks}}} field. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Extra gray line at top
The extra gray line at the top is back. It's ugly and unnecessary and should be removed. I've removed it once. Someone put it back so I figured I'd raise the issue here. John Cardinal 05:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
