Template talk:Infobox Album/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 3 |

Archive 4

| Archive 5 →

Image frames in infoboxes?

Can't seem to puzzle this one out. I'd like to add a frame around the image for this album, since the cover art is a small strip of photo on a white background, it makes it look like the cover is just that small strip and not the whole white square. But adding extended image syntax is ignored by the infobox since (I assume) it interprets the piped additions like "|frame" as non-existent fields and ignores them. Tarc 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no support for adding a border to the cover in the infobox. The only way to get a border (AFAIK) is to add it to the image itself. Quite a few album covers have white backgrounds, and the cover images don't generally have any borders. I don't think adding a border is needed in general. (Note also that the infobox doesn't have a white background, it's actually a light grey color.) --PEJL 13:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that, I can tell where the border is. I'd say don't worry about ading a frame. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 14:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Using CSS, we could probably set it up so that an image casts a shadow in here, and turn it on or off using a yes or no option. It's be purely decorative, but it may serve in cases like these. I don't have enuogh experience designing esoteric functions on that scale, but I'm certain it could be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincalinca (talk • contribs).

There is the border template, but of course that cant be applied to the image field. We could somehow integrate it into the infobox, but I don't know if it's warranted. Looks okay to me. -- Reaper X 17:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Collapse

Can a [hide] button be put on the infobox to allow it to be collapsed? It's handy if an album is discussed in a section instead of a whole article. Thanks --Joowwww 10:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that album infoboxes should normally be used for a single article rather than a section. (See this recent change to WP:ALBUM#Article body, based on the discussion at WT:ALBUM#One album per article.) Given that, such a link would not be useful in a majority of cases. --PEJL 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Demo type

Is there any chance of adding another type to the infobox. There is a lot of resistance to changing demos to studio albums. They are different from studio albums and maybe deserve there own type. Dommccas 09:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to propose the same based on the same (justified) resistance regarding a different Metallica demo—No Life 'Til Leather. Let's do so. We only need to decide what color to use. The two options that make the most sense to me is either reusing the same color as for studio albums or creating a new color. As I think we should be restrictive with introducing new colors, especially with unusual album types (as colors are only useful to readers if easily recognizable based on having seen them many times) I think reusing the studio album color is the best choice. I've created change requests at Template talk:Infobox Album/color and Template talk:Infobox Album/link for this change, which can be converted into editprotected requests if this is considered acceptable. --PEJL 11:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, make the demo type and re-use light steel blue. I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. -- Reaper X 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've requested this change be made. --PEJL 13:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. good change. -Freekee 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just clarifying here that the change has been made. --PEJL 03:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been added, but I think it'd be better to distinguish if it were a different colour, as usually, Demos either don't include full songs, or are between the track amounts of real albums (usually, about 7-9 from my experience). I think it should perhaps be a slightly darker or lighter blue? What do you guys think? Or am I on this branch by myself? --linca ^linca 11:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I commented on the color choice above, and my conclusion was that it should be the same color, as it is too rare a type for most readers to be able to recognize the color and attribute it to mean demos, the way they currently can for example with studio and live. Note that compilation, greatest, remix and box all share the same color, presumably for this reason. I also made the same argument regarding the musical artist infobox in the lengthy thread here. --PEJL 12:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, what do you guys think about adding other types in a similar fashion, using already existing backgrounds? Like what about promos and mixtapes? -- Reaper X 04:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of notable albums of either type? --PEJL 05:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was just a suggestion. While I cleaned out Category:Non-standard album infoboxes, mixtape was the most common type that people put in instead. A lack of notability is a fair argument though. -- Reaper X 05:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

G-Unit Records WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject G-Unit Records. We are currently on demand for new members and we believe that the project could benefit from your contributions. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards

--The-G-Unit-Boss 20:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Formating

I know this doesn't seem to affect the outcome for the infobox, but it makes it hard on me as an editor, and doubtless the same applies to other editors too.

This is what I'm talking about:

{{Infobox Album |
  Name = |
  Type = |
  Artist = |
  Cover = |
  Released = |
  Recorded = |
  Genre = |
  Length = |
  Label = |
  Producer = |
  Reviews = |
  Last album  = |
  This album  = |
  Next album  = |}}

Two things here: is there any issue with articles that use the infobox like this? I find it frustrating and inevitable reformat all of them like this to make them more easy to edit. The second thing is that they omit the "" section at the top.

My question is: Is this acceptable? Can anything be done to bot the change to format these correctly? --linca ^linca 12:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this format too. I once tried to make a set of regular expressions that would allow to convert it automatically but I run into so many special cases that I gave it up. Perhaps I could do it if I knew how the MediaWiki software parses template parameters. Jogers (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that reformatting articles to use the canonical format from WP:ALBUM#Code is good. I use a set of regular expressions to do this when I edit articles. They handle most of the pipe-last uses, but there are some edge cases I haven't bothered fixing yet (because I only run these manually). I can post them if there is interest. --PEJL 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like that, thanks! --linca ^linca 11:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, here are the regexes I use to reformat album infoboxes. I've converted these from another format manually, so you'll want to test them before using them. --PEJL 12:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

s/(= (?:[^\r]*[^\|\r ])?) *\|+ *\r *(?:\| *)?/\1\r| /
s/{{(Infobox Album|Album infobox|Album infobox 2) *\|?( *<!--[^-]+-->)?\r *\|? *Name/{{Infobox Album <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->\r| Name/
s/\s*\|\s*Last album/\r| Last album/
s/(\| Next album *= *[^\r]+)\s*\|\s*\}\}/\1\r}}/
s/(\| Type *= *)(?:\[\[Album\]\]|Studio album)(\s*\|)/\1studio\2/
s/(\| Type *= *)(?:\[\[Live [Aa]lbum\]\]|Live album)(\s*\|)/\1live\2/
s/(\| Type *= *)(?:\[\[EP\]\]|EP)(\s*\|)/\1ep\2/
s/(\| Type *= *)\[\[Cover album\]\](\s*\|)/\1cover\2/
s/(\| Type *= *)\[\[Compilation album\]\](\s*\|)/\1compilation\2/
s/(\| (?:Last|Next) album *= *)'''''([^\r]+)'''''/\1''\2''/
s/(\| [A-Z][^=]{10} =) */\1 /
s/(\| Label       = )\[\[([^]|]+) Records\]\]/\1[[\2 Records|\2]]/

Image size

At the moment, the documentation says "Ideally the image should be at least 200px wide (it'll be resized to 200px wide for display anyway)." This encourages people to upload high-resolution non-free media. If there are no objections, I'll change this to "The image should ideally be 200px wide as this is the default display size. However, it must be under 300px wide to satisfy the fair use criteria." Papa November 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. -- Reaper X 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree in general, but would soften "must" to "should", as 300px is more a guideline than a recommendation. --PEJL 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made the change with the above amendment. I'll keep watching this discussion for objections. Papa November 14:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking to add cover (again)

User:PEJL/Template:Infobox Album test Reviving this topic, it turns out we could get rid of the blue "i". (It appears to have been supported all along, and thinking it wasn't possible seems like an oversight on my part.) That means the problems which kept this from being implemented have now been resolved. Therefore I propose we make this change, which restores the nocover image (both for empty Cover parameters and parameters with Nocover.png) and links it to Template:Infobox Album/No cover, which in turn links to Wikipedia:Upload. Any objections? --PEJL 15:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea very much. We could even use an alternative version of special:upload with detailed instructions analogous to these at fromowner upload page. Jogers (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's do this. --PEJL 13:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding maintainance categories

Please make this change, to add maintainance categories, per WT:ALBUM#Cfd:Albums without cover art. --PEJL 13:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately Category:Non-standard album infoboxes was also removed, which means that category is now broken. --PEJL 01:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify that this was fixed here. --PEJL 02:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No Cover Available

Is there a way to over-ride the "No Cover Available" function? The default image is disruptive to some articles, mainly the ones I've been working on to add soundtrack album information to film articles. The current sentiment of editors on WP:FILM is that film articles should have a soundtrack section instead of a separate soundtrack article. There are exceptions, where the soundtrack album has taken on a life of its own, such as Saturday Night Fever, Pulp Fiction or O Brother, Where Art Thou? But generally the soundtrack articles do not become more than stubs with few wikilinks other than from the film article itself. Also generally, the images on the soundtrack albums are duplicative of the film poster, so the general sentiment is to not upload the soundtrack album image, since the rationale for fair use (identification purposes) would be weak. I guess this is a case where the infobox template is being used by another project, and its usages conflict with that of the main album project. I'm a member of both projects and come here first in search of a solution. Maybe WP:FILM should develop its own infobox soundtrack? — WiseKwai 00:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable request. We could add a separate parameter or special parameter value for this purpose. Another method is to use a special 200x1 transparent image, like the one I just uploaded to Hidecover.png. See example of this to the right. The disadvantage to using this image is that the white region is slightly larger than it previously was without the cover. BTW, do you have an example of such an article? --PEJL 01:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What about just using override_cover=yes? Also, would anyone have an objection to me removing all of the empty HTML comments? --MZMcBride 02:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A parameter would indeed be a better solution. We should try to find a shorter parameter name though. For consistency with WP:ALBUM#Advanced usage (and keeping in mind that Compiled by will likely be renamed Compiler), we want something no longer than 10 characters, like Cover hide=yes. My preferred solution would be to reuse Cover size with Cover size=0. I assumed the HTML comments served some special purpose, in relation to MediaWiki's special handling of spaces. Feel free to remove them if you feel confident they serve no purpose. --PEJL 02:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything should be fixed now. I added a new parameter called "Cover hide" which can be set to "yes" . Additionally, I did a little code cleanup, which reduced the template by about 200 bytes. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think Cover size=0 would be better than Cover hide=yes for the following reasons:

"Cover hide" is ungrammatical. (Yes, I know I suggested it.)
We don't use =yes parameter values anywhere else.
We may still want to support Cover size=0, as people may use it. (Currently it generates a redlink to the existing image if Cover is specified, which looks like a MediaWiki bug, and does nothing if Cover is not specified.)
It makes the documentation slightly shorter.

As such I propose we apply this diff. --PEJL 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Cover size 0 works great. Some examples: the Coen Brothers films (The Ladykillers (2004 film)#Soundrack, Intolerable Cruelty#Soundtrack, Blood Simple#Soundtrack, Raising Arizona#Soundtrack, etc) and Robert Rodriguez films (Spy Kids#Soundtrack, Desperado (film)#Soundtrack, etc). — WiseKwai 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Header alignment

Did the title area recently get changed to left-align, or has it always been that way? Regardless, I think this looks worse and doesn't correspond to the formatting for Template:Infobox musical artist. I think all header fields should be center-aligned. Thoughts? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should check your browser settings, because it's still centre aligned and hasn't been changed. Maybe your browser's going off and doing its own thing? Otherwise, is there an example of it doind this, because I double checked (just to make sure) and it's not been changed and I've checked a few articles and they don't show it on the left. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincalinca (talk • contribs) 04:49:08, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Weird… here's a partial screenshot. I don't think I've changed any browser settings but I'll take a look. Thanks for the response. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems your browser is only responding to explicit citations of "text-align:center;". Without that explicit code, your browser isn't interpreting <th> tags as centered, even though going back to basic HTML, <th> tags are traditionally centered and bold unless specified otherwise. Your browser is looking for a CSS declaration. The code used in this template is similar to code used elsewhere. It seems to be a problem on your end. Somehow, your browser is being told to interpret <th> tags differently. --MZMcBride 05:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it is—Internet Explorer is just fine, but Firefox is crapping out. It's also suddenly not displaying certain sites. Something's very wrong over here… well, thanks for the help. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 05:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It was just a corrupt browser. A reinstall fixed everything. Thanks = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 05:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We should make this template consistent, either always explicitly center-aligning <th> elements or never doing so, to not rely on web browser's default styles. I'll look into that. --PEJL 05:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Anyway it turns out that it wasn't my browser's fault; it's just that this only happens when I'm logged in. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed this, and made some other changes summarized here, which I'm requesting be applied. The changes include:

Formatting changes, per above, as well as other non-visible changes for consistency and better use of HTML/CSS
Dropping support for the undocumented parameters "extra cover1" and "extra cover2", for which all uses have been converted to use {{Extra album cover 2}}, see here for proposal
Adding support for "Compiler" as an alias for "Compiled by" (which will be deprecated), see here for background

Don't forget to restore {{pp-template|small=yes}} if you copy from the later version. Thanks in advance. --PEJL 10:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Any reason for including scope? Haven't seen that used anywhere else here. --MZMcBride 15:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Accessibility. See for example the HTML spec. --PEJL 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} All headers in the <th> tags are left for me! Please place the "text-align: center" in the style field so that this is not browser dependent. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Check your browser though. Happy‑melon 10:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Current album" titles to be in italics and boldface

Has anyone yet explained why the "current albums" in the album chronology section of the infobox are supposed to be in boldface? I recently received a notice that the following is the correct format:

| Last album = ''[[Album 4]]''<br />(1994) | This album = '''''Album 5'''''<br />(1995) | Next album = ''[[Album 6]]''<br />(1996)

The only problem I have with this format is that it doesn't appear to do anything. The text in italics without boldface looks exactly the same to me as the text with boldface. I think it might have something to do with the size of the font? Is something wrong with my browser? I have trouble seeing the importance of formatting it this way if I can't see a difference. Pele Merengue 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. It is possible your font is corrupt or just very limited. Bold text should definitely look bold. Restarting your computer may clear up font corruption issues. --PEJL 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This happens on my work computer, its just your browser. If its formatted for bold, its bold. Grk1011 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick fix requested

{{editprotected}} There is an extraneous instance of "{{{Compiler}}}", causing that text to be displayed when the "Compiler" field is active. –Unint 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see what's going on—both the new "compiler" and the old "compiled by" parameters are both getting displayed. If we wait until Cat:Album articles with infobox field compiled by is cleaned out, then all the stopgap code could get cleaned up at the same time. –Unint 19:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I notice this was just implemented yesterday. I suppose maybe the category hasn't been filled completely yet. Removing editprotected notice for the moment. –Unint 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I intentionally added support for "Compiler" in addition to "Compiled by", with the intent to remove support for the latter only when the category has been emptied, to allow those articles to be seamlessly upgraded. Hope that clears this up. --PEJL 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh! Now that I was going to actually start emptying the category, I see what you mean: {{{Compiler}}} is actually visible on articles that use "Compiled by" (and vice versa). Please change {{{Compiled by}}} {{{Compiler}}} to {{#if:{{{Compiled by|}}}|{{{Compiled by}}}}} {{#if:{{{Compiler|}}}|{{{Compiler}}}}}. Sorry for the mistake. --PEJL 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Should work now. --- RockMFR 02:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested change: Remove support for "Compiled by"

OK, I've updated all uses of "Compiled by" to "Compiler". Please apply this version, which does the following:

Makes the protection conditional on being the live template, which makes it easier to apply changes from sandboxes in the future. See non-diff.
Removes deprecated support for "Compiled by". See diff.
Changes to output "Language" instead of "Language(s)", for consistency with other fields which may contain multiple info ("Genre", "Producer", "Compiler") and to the label column less wide. See diff.

Thanks in advance. --PEJL 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Update from sandbox

Please update the template from the sandbox. For reference, the sandbox contains the following changes:

Outputting "Untitled" (unitalicized) for an empty Name parameter value (instead of a lone apostrophe) or a missing Name parameter value (instead of {{{Name}}}).
Reducing code duplication (by using {{#switch}} instead of {{#if}}
Special-casing the Cover parameter value ???, per a possible interpretation of the recently restructured Template:Infobox Album#Details
Adjusting the method used for specifying the widths of the columns (but keeping the widths roughly the same) to avoid rendering anomalies in Safari and Opera
Adding some conditional code to allow the template and sandbox to be identical

--PEJL 17:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Text alignment problems

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but I recently noticed that the text portions (released, genre, label, etc.) of the info box are all crammed to the right, and single words get stacked upon each other, while leaving a big gap between the left-side bolded text. Maybe it's my browser, but the boxes never looked like this before. Ebonyskye 11:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes recently that were intended to fix some text alignment issues in certain browsers (Safari). Can you tell us what browser you are using and give an example of an article that shows this behavior? --PEJL 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it using IE 5. The text appears this way in all music album info boxes, but looks fine on the band info box. It also looks fine in NS7. Must be a browser issue. Didn't look like this in IE5 about a month or so ago. I can't really remember exactly when I noticed it. I took a snapshot of the screen (which I hope can be deleted later without issue).Ebonyskye 07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I just tested stand-alone IE 4, 5 and 5.5 on a IE 7-native WinXP and IE 5 on Win2000, and the text alignment looked fine in all cases (although I did notice various other problems, such as boldface not working in the chronology, as can also be seen in your screenshot). What operating system are you using? Also try clearing your browser cache. --PEJL 08:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the peach color?

The peach color at the bottom of the color key, what's it represent? Lara❤Love 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For when you don't put in a type. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 00:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So could that be used for things not listed? Like B-sides? Lara❤Love 05:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Peachpuff is used to highlight mistakes. All of the different types of albums are covered in the template. When you enter one of them in the blank for type, it displays the correct color. If you fill in a type that results in peachpuff, you've either mispelled it, chosen the wrong type, or used the wrong template. For example, B-sides are songs, and would use the song template. (Singles use the single template. Non-single songs use the song template.) See Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. -Freekee 05:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And even if you can think of an album type that isn't listed, you shouldn't invent it. Unknown album types (resulting in peachpuff) get added to the maintenance category Category:Non-standard album infoboxes, where they are addressed. --PEJL 10:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. Lara❤Love 17:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that category got renamed Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. --kingboyk (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested change: Apply sandbox

Please apply the current sandbox to this template. This will add support for video albums, as discussed at WT:ALBUM#Video infobox. (Specifically this involves tweaking the chronology heading for video albums and adding support for a "Director" field. See Template:Infobox Album/testcases#Video parameters for an example.) --PEJL 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Fl owerparty^☀ 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please apply the current sandbox to this template. This will make the font-size in the caption consistent with the font-size in the chronology, and more importantly decrease the line-height in the caption and chronology sections. See examples of the changes here and here. --PEJL 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You removed a {{!}}, are you sure that is ok? If so, I will apply the changes. -- ReyBrujo 04:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. (The new code puts the cover and the caption in the same table cell, to decrease the margin between the two.) --PEJL 08:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a change to treat "single" as an inappropriate type value, per WT:ALBUM#Make Type=single generate peachpuff. Please apply the current sandbox to this template. --PEJL 17:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I usually wait for confirmation to apply changes in this template because it generates a huge job queue and changing it often is not recommended. -- ReyBrujo 17:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please apply the current sandbox to this template. This will make the template use HTML instead of wikicode, to fix the issue noted at WT:ALBUM#Possible Infobox Glitch, and will also avoid populating some categories on Template:Infobox Album/testcases. --PEJL 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I made a mistake and forgot to update the sandbox with the changes to the live template, so we'll need to restore those. Please apply the current sandbox. --PEJL 13:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --ais523 13:37, 16 November 2007 (U T C)

Coding help - {{Infobox Artist Discography}}

Hey Guys! I'm trying to fix {{Infobox Artist Discography}} in the graphical sense, but can't seem to figure out how. What I'm trying to do is make sure the rows all appear as the same heigh, but every so often, the lines get blown out in size (see some of the articles that links there to see what I'm talking about). Anybody know how this can be fixed, retaining the knockout function (i.e. the way that it doesn't show unnecessary lines). I'm asking here because, well, this seems to get a little more trafffic than some other places. Help here would be great, especially considering the increasing number of discogs this is being used on (not to mention, the increasingly higher profile artists' discographies having it placed in them). --linca linca 13:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Split album

Is there a need for a new type, Split album? Some of the titles mentioned on that page have articles already. --Theodore Kloba (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While creating a new type shouldn't be a problem, I don't quite see why one is needed. If it's a split single, label it single. If it's split studio album, label as studio. Etc, etc. The only occasion where I can see this new type having use is when each part is a different form of album (studio/live mix, studio/ep, etc)...in this case, could compilation substitute? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly compilation could substitute; A split album is really a special case of a compilation. I thought since Split album merited its own article, it might merit its own type designation here. --Theodore Kloba (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit request for image border

{{editprotected}} I would like to add an optional parameter to the infobox to enable borders to be placed around album cover images that may blend in with the back of the template. Adding border to the image link would add a light, 1px border around it, just to distinguish its edges. A good example would be the cover of U2's Boy, or The Beatles' White Album, which is seen below.

Without border (current)
[[Image:The White Album.svg|200px]] With border
[[Image:The White Album.svg|200px|border]]

–Dream out loud (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have written the code for the new parameter, and tested it successfully using {{X2}}. Below is a copy of the first several lines of the template, with my additions in large, bold text. The parameter "Cover border" must be added to the template code in the article, with any type of text, such as the word "yes" → | Border = yes .

<includeonly><table class="infobox vevent" style="width: 20em;">
  <tr>
    <th colspan="3" scope="col" class="summary" style="background: {{#ifeq:{{Template:Infobox Album/color|{{{Type|}}}}}|khaki|{{Template:Infobox Album/color}}|{{Template:Infobox Album/color|{{{Type|}}}}}}};">{{#if:{{{Name|}}}|''{{{Name}}}''|Untitled}}</th>
  </tr>
{{#ifeq:{{{Cover size|}}}|0||
  <tr>
    <td colspan="3" style="text-align: center;">{{#switch:{{ucfirst:{{{Cover|}}}}}|Nocover.png|???|=<imagemap>
Image:Nocover-upload.png|200px|No cover image exists
default [[Template:Infobox Album/No cover|Click here to upload the cover image]]
desc none
</imagemap>
|#default=[[Image:{{{Cover}}}|{{min|200|{{{Cover size|}}}}}px|{{#if:{{{Border|}}}|border{{!}}}}{{{Name}}} cover]]
}}

–Dream out loud (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm worried about users who try | Border = no or | Border = false. They'll get the wrong effect. Would you object to having the code be explicit to "yes"? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think it should be mandatory to set the parameter to "yes" for it to work. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not done yet - so what would the code be? Neil ☎ 11:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Replace {{#if:{{{Border|}}}|border{{!}}}} in the previous code with {{#ifeq:{{{Border|}}}|yes|border{{!}}}}. Ms2ger (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's the new code, thanks to Ms2ger:

<includeonly><table class="infobox vevent" style="width: 20em;">
  <tr>
    <th colspan="3" scope="col" class="summary" style="background: {{#ifeq:{{Template:Infobox Album/color|{{{Type|}}}}}|khaki|{{Template:Infobox Album/color}}|{{Template:Infobox Album/color|{{{Type|}}}}}}};">{{#if:{{{Name|}}}|''{{{Name}}}''|Untitled}}</th>
  </tr>
{{#ifeq:{{{Cover size|}}}|0||
  <tr>
    <td colspan="3" style="text-align: center;">{{#switch:{{ucfirst:{{{Cover|}}}}}|Nocover.png|???|=<imagemap>
Image:Nocover-upload.png|200px|No cover image exists
default [[Template:Infobox Album/No cover|Click here to upload the cover image]]
desc none
</imagemap>
|#default=[[Image:{{{Cover}}}|{{min|200|{{{Cover size|}}}}}px|{{#ifeq:{{{Border|}}}|yes|border{{!}}}}{{{Name}}} cover]]
}}

–Dream out loud (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Gimmetrow 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Covers

I was wondering if it's possible to have more than one Alternative covers on one article as the extra album 2 template just replaces the old one and displays the latest album cover. I am trying to put two alternative covers on the article Iowa (album) but I'm not sure if it's possible with this template. Here it is in my sandbox: User:Rezter/Sandbox. So is it possible any other way? Rezter (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Try this:

| Misc = {{Extra album cover 2 ... }} {{Extra album cover 2 ... }}}}

-Freekee (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you that worked a charm! Rezter (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

chronology

Wouldn't it be more useful if the link in the "artist chronology" field could link to the artists discography? And to the artist if no link is given? Somethingvacant (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

Since some bootleg albums have articles (such as In My Ghetto), that type of album should be added to the album types. The colour should be the same colour as the video album code colour is. This should be done or the articles about bootleg albums won't have a skin for their own. Rappingwonders (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films for further input on this. As it's a fairly intricate template, more input would need to be given. SkierRMH (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The infobox color for bootleg albums should be the same as the color for video albums? Why? — Mudwater 02:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that colour is the best of all in terms of how it looks. Rappingwonders (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that no new type need be created. Even if a bootleg, it will still fall under one of the existing categories...the above mentioned album is placed into "studio". Also, colours are used just because they are pleasing to the eye (though pleasing colours schemes were a factor in their use), but because they can link similar types together visually. If such a type is created, I would suggest that the colour be green, since that is sort of a catch-all for the more disparate types. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Certification

Is there a place for certification in the infobox, ie. platinum? I know that the singles infobox has a spot for it.Grk1011 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Is this not doable? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Professional reviews link

The template says a piped link to the year is preferred for reviews. But what's wrong with inline citations? Surely either format is acceptable as long as the article is consistent. Dedication 2 uses inline refs and it looks just fine. Especially when the infobox reviews are later used as references anyway (likely in a "Critical reception" section), inline refs seem more flexible. Spellcast (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Either are fine, in my experience; inline citations are generally for backing up specific statements made while the infobox section is for a quick look at general opinion and links. I think it would be acceptable for the same links to be in both. Just my opinion/experience, though. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 05:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering what other editors thought of inline refs. Albums with critical reception info use the same reviews in the infobox. So I thought it was unnecessary to have 2 separate links to the same review. As long as no-one is an instruction creep and cites this template saying reviews must be piped, it should be ok. Also, I don't ever recall seeing inline refs for infobox reviews (except for the one above). Spellcast (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I see what you're saying. Yeah, it would definitely make sense to cite reviews in the infobox rather than link them. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 06:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Release date

Ongoing discussion here touches on an issue covered by this infobox. The release date section is currently in fairly wide use for future albums. So, an article might read "Released: March 25, 2008" today (February 28, 2007). I started to remove some of these, enduring that the date, if sourced, was in the body of the article, for reasons detailed in the admin note referenced above. I also indicated some other possible solutions to this that I feel are warrented. I am inviting the editor from the admin notice and one other to join this discussion. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like your suggestion of changing it to "Release date." Alternatively, you mentioned adding "(scheduled)" along with the date. Of course, we could just say in the documentation to leave the field blank for unreleased albums. But we might also ask if it is a problem to have a date there. You suggested that the info might not be kept up to date, if it changes, or even when the record is released. I'm not sure that's a big deal. And I think it's obvious to any reader that even though the field is past tense, if the date is in the future, the album hasn't been released yet. In any case, I would support a change to "Release date". -Freekee (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a minor issue of grammar and affects a tiny fraction of articles for only a couple weeks at a time. It doesn't cause any factual information to be incorrect. I don't see it as an issue, but if it was going to be changed, "Date of release" is my choice. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While it may impact few articles, the results are pretty obvious when it goes awry. Take And I Love H.E.R.: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack.

17 December 2007 "It is expected to be released on January 22, 2008." Infobox provides the same (actually, it gives three dates, but that's a different problem).

18 January 2007 "It was originally expected to be released on January 22, 2008 (see 2008 in music), but has been postponed for various reasons." Infobox still says Released: 21 January 2008.

Until just now, the article said it was scheduled for release on 22 January 2008, but wasn't released... except that it was released 21 January 2008, 22 January 2008 and 29 January 2008.

At this point, I'm heavily leaning toward adding "(scheduled)" or somesuch to avoid that kind of thing.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. It shouldn't be difficult to add a field called "scheduled_release" or just "scheduled" for these circumstances. As for the above issue, I would favour "Release date" over "Date of release" simply for brevity's sake, but in any case agree that the change may be a good thing. Is there any reason why the longer format with 'of' makes it any more correct or proper? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, "Date of Release" seems to imply a past event, "Release Date" is at least weakly more accurate. If I see either one listing April 1, 2008 after that date, I'd tend to assume the album was released, though the date might have been put there far earlier and the release may have been delayed or cancelled. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please direct any further comments on this issue to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Release_dates_listed_pre-release. I am individually inviting the editors in this discussion to join the discussion there. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

speaking of release dates

The documentation requires that the start date template should be used for the release date section; however, it is rarely used, even though it should be. I suggest placing an empty start date template in the code for people to copy and paste. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It does? I never noticed that. How long has it said that? How important is it? I think you have a good idea, but I wonder if people are going to understand the template without having to look it up, which is annoying. -Freekee (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I have no idea how long it's been that way. You're right, though; it's not incredibly important, and some people would be confused by it, but I was just throwing that out there. Though it's not a complex template by any means. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

'Singles' sub template and other skins

The Singles sub-template appears to be specifically crafted for the Monobook skin. It is way too full of "line height = 11px" and related stuff and breaks horribly under other skins. View A Rush of Blood to the Head in Classic skin to see what I mean. Needs fixing. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox album location

Any reason why album article's infobox are turning on the left hand side of the page now rather than the right hand side as is the norm. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it still doing it for you? Everything looks fine on my side, so it may have been a temporary parser error or other minor screwup. Nothing has changed on the template itself. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Video albums

Could someone add the ability to IMDb and AMG references to video albums. I mean, television shows have IMDb references in their infoboxes, so why not video albums (ie music DVDs etc). Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was under the impression that with IMDb anyone could make an account and edit those pages as if it were a wiki, so shouldn't that not be used as a source? Grk1011 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The last time I checked, IMDb does not work like a wiki. Rather, users can submit edits and other changes, which the editors either accept or reject. However, it appears that there is very little fact-checking going on, and thus IMDb should *not* be used as a reference. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, shouldn't IMDb be pulled out of all wiki templates? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. They are perfectly valid external links which do provide additional or more detailed information than what we provide. They simply are not valid for use as references. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I mean the imdb_id parameter that can be found in film infoboxes, would be useful for video albums. I can't put in an edit as this is locked. Is this not a good idea?? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Like this Template:Infobox Film. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So you just mean you would like to see an IMDB link in the infobox, not that you want to use IMDB as a reference? Even then, I don't see why such a link is justified in the infobox, when it can just as easily be placed in the External links section. It makes sense for a film infobox, but the primary focus for this box, in my mind, is music, not video.

I'd be really swell if we could get additional comments from others... — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think his point is that if this box is to be used for video albums, it should have capabilities appropriate to videos. But personally, I don't see a place for it here, even for videos. I don't see the point of having it in the film infoboxes, either. -Freekee (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Freekee. I am not being petty, but IMDb can give just as much misleading information for films as music videos. However, take Tenacious D - The Complete Masterworks, this could be enhanced by having a IMDb link in it. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that we're an encyclopedia, I think it would be strange to post a link to another source of information in a place so conspicuous as the infobox. Everyone knows what IMDb is, and they would have gone there first, if that's what they were looking for. -Freekee (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Providing links is fine, I just don't believe the infobox is the right place to do it. If you want a link to IMDb, just use the External links section, as you are doing now. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Template talk archives