Template talk:Infobox Artist Discography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Infobox Artist Discography: Fields
Can there be fields added for "Covers/Tributes" and "Soundtracks"? Also, is it possible to make the artist name have the option for an image so logos can be inserted (when not fair use). Image:FOBtourLogo.png, for example, is not copyrighted. Lara❤Love 05:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll get on it. --lincalinca 06:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. I also added a parameter for each line to allow the person to change the location where the diagonal arrow links to (I've taken the liberty of applying both of these functions already over at the Fall Out Boy discography, since you seem to be interested in that one). Let me know if that's how you wanted it. --lincalinca 11:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] B-sides
Why is there a B-sides field? What is that used for? -Freekee 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Some discographies list b-sides released by an artist, such as the John Mayer discography. I didn't implement it for that; I was asked to, so I just put it in there. --lincalinca 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Umm... I take issue with the inclusion of that classification. First of all, I don't believe there is a good reason to have a section for b-sides. But more importantly, in that article, the section is a catch-all. It might as well be titled "Miscellaneous," and I don't think we should have a "misc." in the template. Not only is it a mix of released and unreleased songs, but they aren't even labeled as to which are which. So I recommend the removal of the B-sides classification. An alternative would be to have an "Unreleased recordings" classification, but since this is a discography template, and those songs aren't actually on disc, I'm not sure about that one. I'm sure there are few examples of other categories that aren't included in the template, and I don't recommend including them just for one or two usages. -Freekee 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- But B-sides are released recordings? I suppose we should only indicate the list of songs used for B-sides, and seperately list rarities and other contributions of the like. The John Mayer example is probably a poor one, since that's only a list of info that was freshly dumped into the page without sorting or collation, other than alphabetical (where it should obviously be chronological). Maybe I should find a more organised B-sides listing that I could add in there to give you an example. Should we keep this in there, I'll explain that the pale blue colour I selected is the same colour as the general "songs" colour, to line up with the infoboxes used. Ok, I just found the Powderfinger discography, which hasn't got the B-sides added, but I'll add them in the way I believe is appropriate. --lincalinca 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mention the problem with that section at the article, because I suspected someone would fix it before too long. But I must ask why anyone would add a section for b-sides. If a song is released on its own, it qualifies as a released product, and goes into the discog. Likewise albums. But what about individual songs from an album? Album tracks are not listed in disogs because they're not products. Same for b-sides. As far as discogs are concerned, they're filler. And singles and albums chart, while b-sides don't. -Freekee 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a very valid point. I've just made a point of making a list of the B-sides for the Powderfinger discography in a framework I believe to be pretty basic and standard. To reference the validity of your comment, I do agree, however some B-sides mysteriously (well, it's mysterious to me) gain a greater degree of notability than the side tracks on the albums, especially things like remixes or live concerts (an example is John Mayer's "No Such Thing" which had a cover of Jimi Hendrix's "The Wind Cries Mary" which got to #97 on the charts here (Australia), higher than Jimi got it to over here, purely from radioplay, but it wasn' on any of his albums or even on any live recordings). --lincalinca 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that such songs are of note. They are perfect for including on the article about the single, or in a section in the artist's article, but it seems strange to me to have a section in the discography for songs that weren't released on their own, or weren't released at all. But if we do have such a section, what should it be called? -Freekee 03:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a very valid point. I've just made a point of making a list of the B-sides for the Powderfinger discography in a framework I believe to be pretty basic and standard. To reference the validity of your comment, I do agree, however some B-sides mysteriously (well, it's mysterious to me) gain a greater degree of notability than the side tracks on the albums, especially things like remixes or live concerts (an example is John Mayer's "No Such Thing" which had a cover of Jimi Hendrix's "The Wind Cries Mary" which got to #97 on the charts here (Australia), higher than Jimi got it to over here, purely from radioplay, but it wasn' on any of his albums or even on any live recordings). --lincalinca 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mention the problem with that section at the article, because I suspected someone would fix it before too long. But I must ask why anyone would add a section for b-sides. If a song is released on its own, it qualifies as a released product, and goes into the discog. Likewise albums. But what about individual songs from an album? Album tracks are not listed in disogs because they're not products. Same for b-sides. As far as discogs are concerned, they're filler. And singles and albums chart, while b-sides don't. -Freekee 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- But B-sides are released recordings? I suppose we should only indicate the list of songs used for B-sides, and seperately list rarities and other contributions of the like. The John Mayer example is probably a poor one, since that's only a list of info that was freshly dumped into the page without sorting or collation, other than alphabetical (where it should obviously be chronological). Maybe I should find a more organised B-sides listing that I could add in there to give you an example. Should we keep this in there, I'll explain that the pale blue colour I selected is the same colour as the general "songs" colour, to line up with the infoboxes used. Ok, I just found the Powderfinger discography, which hasn't got the B-sides added, but I'll add them in the way I believe is appropriate. --lincalinca 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Umm... I take issue with the inclusion of that classification. First of all, I don't believe there is a good reason to have a section for b-sides. But more importantly, in that article, the section is a catch-all. It might as well be titled "Miscellaneous," and I don't think we should have a "misc." in the template. Not only is it a mix of released and unreleased songs, but they aren't even labeled as to which are which. So I recommend the removal of the B-sides classification. An alternative would be to have an "Unreleased recordings" classification, but since this is a discography template, and those songs aren't actually on disc, I'm not sure about that one. I'm sure there are few examples of other categories that aren't included in the template, and I don't recommend including them just for one or two usages. -Freekee 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unreleased songs? Rarities? B-sides often seem to fall into this collective also, and are often used as the term to categorise them, correct or not, it's the common use term, I think. --lincalinca 07:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Appearances on Compilations, 7-inches, and/or Variable fields
Excellent infobox! I think a useful addition might be a "Compilation Appearances" field or something like that. This tends to be a less-used section in more popular bands, but it would be helpful in the discographies of some lesser known bands (such as The Make-Up discography and Lightning Bolt discography). And howabout a "7-inch" field? On a related note, would it be possible to add variable fields of some kinda (which may take care of my suggestions above). For example, in the Nine Inch Nails discography, an important section is the "Halo numbers" section. Since this is the only discog that's going to have such a section, it might be nice to have an option of adding this to the infobox only for the one article. Does that make sense? Any thoughts? Drewcifer 14:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- So, are you suggesting implementing a customisable row, able to be uniquely set for each article it's placed onto? Yeah, that'd be pretty easy to implement, but as to whether I'd condone it, I'm just not sure. --lincalinca 12:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm suggesting. Discographies are pretty varied, so a variable field or two would go a long way. Just a few examples of types of releases the current template doesn't cover: splits, vinyls, bootlegs, remix albums, appearances on compilations, mixtapes, unreleased material, etc. You can find all of those in many discographies, including Featured ones. And although you could argue the applicability of some of those release types, that's more of a case-by-case thing. I'm suggesting a variable field (instead of a split field, a vinyl field, a bootleg field, etc), since these types of releases aren't as common, and more than likely wouldn't apply to 3/4 of the discographies we make. -- Drewcifer (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've just added one optional field, for a start. If there's a push for a second, I'll burn the bridge when it comes to it. Read the info, drew, and I'm sure it'll work for you. If you have any queries about it, just talk-page me. --lincalinca 03:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Great work! I think a second option would be nice though... Take for isntance The Make-Up discography and Lightning Bolt discography. Major portions of both lists are Splits and Compilations appearances, and it would be ideal to mention both. Though I'll let you be the judge of that. Drewcifer (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just to spoil for choice, I've added and tested having 4 options and it works a charm. I've restored the halo numbers, left in the remix numbers and added seed numbers to the NIN discog
- Sweet! One question, why is it that if you use none of or just one of the Option fields (such as Duran Duran discography, there's a big fat gap in the last box? Drewcifer (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just to spoil for choice, I've added and tested having 4 options and it works a charm. I've restored the halo numbers, left in the remix numbers and added seed numbers to the NIN discog
- Great work! I think a second option would be nice though... Take for isntance The Make-Up discography and Lightning Bolt discography. Major portions of both lists are Splits and Compilations appearances, and it would be ideal to mention both. Though I'll let you be the judge of that. Drewcifer (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've just added one optional field, for a start. If there's a push for a second, I'll burn the bridge when it comes to it. Read the info, drew, and I'm sure it'll work for you. If you have any queries about it, just talk-page me. --lincalinca 03:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm suggesting. Discographies are pretty varied, so a variable field or two would go a long way. Just a few examples of types of releases the current template doesn't cover: splits, vinyls, bootlegs, remix albums, appearances on compilations, mixtapes, unreleased material, etc. You can find all of those in many discographies, including Featured ones. And although you could argue the applicability of some of those release types, that's more of a case-by-case thing. I'm suggesting a variable field (instead of a split field, a vinyl field, a bootleg field, etc), since these types of releases aren't as common, and more than likely wouldn't apply to 3/4 of the discographies we make. -- Drewcifer (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Two more fixes needed?
Egad! This template could definitely use a image size attribute: diff. Also, why are many of the boxes in a bunch of discogs display with a bunch of space in them? Sorry for constantly asking for more to be done! Drewcifer (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- As to the big gap, I really don't know. I've been trying to get it fixed (I've asked for help in a couple of places, but haven't been answered). I can't seem to figure out how to restrict the height of the cells (or something). As to the image size, I was thinking about that. I'll see about doing that a little later tonight. I'll let you know if and when I do. --lincalinca 10:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if I can really help, but here's something I noticed: the template basically forces it's appearance to be 10 lines, even if there's only information for less than that. In other words, if there are 5 entries into the template, it will automatically add 5 additional blank spaces to produce 10 total. I think. Though I'm sure you already figure that out. Drewcifer (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you're half right. I've diagnosed, but not prognosed. My diagnosis is that when more than one item is missing from the sequence, it forces the line to double, when there's three in a row missing, it triples and so on. I just don't know how to fix it, though. I've tried a few things, in vain. I'll figure it out, but really don't know what else to try. --lincalinca 11:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if I can really help, but here's something I noticed: the template basically forces it's appearance to be 10 lines, even if there's only information for less than that. In other words, if there are 5 entries into the template, it will automatically add 5 additional blank spaces to produce 10 total. I think. Though I'm sure you already figure that out. Drewcifer (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Spacing fixed. Let me know if any transclusion looks worse off by my changes. –Pomte 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hilary Duff discography
Can someone please fix the link to 'compilation albums' on the Hilary Duff discography article? I tried but i couldn't ;/ — Jhn* 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
And there are also blank spaces under 'video albums' and 'b-sides' — Jhn* 17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed the compilation issue (it's like refereces, you need to shorten the word to "Comp link" not "Compilations link") and the second issue is an ongoing one I've been trying to resolve in the template itself, but so far to no avail. --lincalinca 22:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you! :D — Jhn* 00:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References and footnotes
What's the point? We don't need citations for the number of each type of release, as it's evident by the discography lists themselves. The table of contents, which links to the references footnotes section, is usually immediately to the left of this infobox. Is the intention to use __NOTOC__ on articles that use this parameter, to entirely replace the table of contents? –Pomte 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, it seems kind of redundant to me as well...Drewcifer (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, this is simply to link with the infobox to the references. Every individual piece of information on wikipedia is considered to be a "fact", however is considered to be a verified fact once it has a reference. This is an important section of the template and should be used. --lincalinca 03:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nice
To whoever fixed the ugly blank spaces - thanks! Looks a lot cleaner and tidier suddenly. Seegoon (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] links
Would it not be better to have the words linked e.g. Studio albums rather than the little arrow at the end ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- It'd take up too much space. The little arrow is for consistency and to make it clean. --lincalinca 03:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you click on "studio album" you might expect to go to an article about studio albums. -Freekee (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe not if the real table of contents is hidden, making this look like the actual table of contents. –Pomte 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Logos
There's been a long and rather contentious discussion lately at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos over the use of non-free logos in the infoboxes of musical artist articles. I think some of the consensus and opinions from there are pertinent to this template as well. Of all the uses of logos discussed there, the one on which there was pretty clear consensus was that non-free logos do not belong in the "Name" or "Img" fields of the infobox. In fact, the wording of Template:Infobox Musical artist#Name was changed to reflect that: "The name of the group or artist ("the act") in plain text only. Logos and other graphics are to be avoided in this field in accordance with WP:ACCESS and WP:FAIR. This field is mandatory." I suggest that it might be pertinent to leave the "Artist" field of the discography infobox as a text-only field as well, since giving users the option to substitute it with a logo image (as the template page currently does) seems to encourage the use of non-free logos as decoration, which is clearly not in line with the intentions of WP:FAIR and also goes against WP:ACCESS (the ACCESS reason being that screen readers, often used by disabled readers, start with the text at the top of the page--the infobox--and will not translate image code into the name of the artist). --IllaZilla (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds fair enough to me. I only really did that to make it easier since people would quite often foul up how they did it in the artist articles, so I figured if it was an alternative to listing the text based name, it'd be easier to make it that way, but if the consensus is geared against it, I'm not against its removal. I don't have time to do it, but feel free. Just check the articles which use it now to make sure they don't get screwed up by it. --rm 'w avu 10:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Drewcifer (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are a few relevant policies & guidelines here too: WP:LOGO: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." Obviously in a discography no one is going to be discussing the artistic merits of the logo. We're just listing the band's releases. So this kind of decorative (aka promotional) use is against the spirit of WP:NONFREE. Then there's the issue of minimal use, per WP:NFC: "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Of course a logo isn't necessary in a discography; if it has some kind of significance or notability then it belongs in the main article about the band and only in that article. In a discography they clearly serve only decorative purposes, so they shouldn't be there. Since there seems to be agreement on this issue, would it be alright if I modified the template page to remove the option of inserting a logo, and made the "Name" field a text-only field? --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with you doing it, but I have to say that not all logos fall under nonfree, such as Maroon 5 or Fall Out Boy, since theirs fall under "commonly replicable logos" under the copyright infringements act, meaning that they're too similar to non-copyright fonts to be able to secure copyright. Nevertheless, it does kind of give licence to having nonfrees in there, which we don't want. --rm 'w avu 09:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- True. I looked at both those examples and thought about them before bringing up the issue here. I don't mean to exclude free images, but of course the majority of logos being used are non-free, and being able to change the field does give license to having non-free images in there. Thus it incindentally encourages the use of superfluous non-free content on WP. I wish it were the reverse case, where most logos were free images, but unfortunately it's not so I'm erring in favor of being conservative. And of course there's the access issue. I'll probably get on making the changes later today. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with you doing it, but I have to say that not all logos fall under nonfree, such as Maroon 5 or Fall Out Boy, since theirs fall under "commonly replicable logos" under the copyright infringements act, meaning that they're too similar to non-copyright fonts to be able to secure copyright. Nevertheless, it does kind of give licence to having nonfrees in there, which we don't want. --rm 'w avu 09:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are a few relevant policies & guidelines here too: WP:LOGO: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." Obviously in a discography no one is going to be discussing the artistic merits of the logo. We're just listing the band's releases. So this kind of decorative (aka promotional) use is against the spirit of WP:NONFREE. Then there's the issue of minimal use, per WP:NFC: "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Of course a logo isn't necessary in a discography; if it has some kind of significance or notability then it belongs in the main article about the band and only in that article. In a discography they clearly serve only decorative purposes, so they shouldn't be there. Since there seems to be agreement on this issue, would it be alright if I modified the template page to remove the option of inserting a logo, and made the "Name" field a text-only field? --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Drewcifer (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I made the changes today. I also added a section on "Fields" explaining the usage of the fields in basic usage. Some of this language was taken from Template:Infobox Musical artist, specifically the part about having the name in plain text. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting in firefox?
Perhaps this is something specific to my computer, but it appears that in the latest version of firefox (but not internet explorer), the name of the band can overlap with the word "discography", as in NIN discography. Do other people get this problem? If so, the template probably needs to be fixed, as firefox is a fairly common browser to view wikipedia.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also have noticed that changing the size of font in firefox (Ctrl++ / Ctrl--) and then changing it back seems to fix the problem, but whenever the page is loaded again, the problem occurs again. This could potentially be an issue with firefox, not the template, but I don't know enough about this to say. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which version of Firefox exactly? I'm using 2.0.0.14, and it looks fine. Drewcifer (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14" - seems the same to me. It may just be a firefox issue, the code in the template looks fine. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which version of Firefox exactly? I'm using 2.0.0.14, and it looks fine. Drewcifer (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
