Template talk:Tracklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Excellent!

Awesome template, thank you! ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seems good

It looks decent. Easy enough to use. I think it will help make formatting more consistent. Like, I won't have to remember whether to use an endash or an emdash (if I remember at all). Saves having to put quotes around the songs. I would prefer having no pound sign over the number column. It looks a little weird, and there's really no need for it. Could there be a way to shut off the "hide" button? I like having the option, but I don't like having the link showing if I've decided not to use the option. I used the template at Hallowed Ground. -Freekee (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I see things I don't like. The main thing is that the writing credits appear in a column on the other side of the time. I think the author should always appear in parentheses directly after the song title. Also, the table is of fixed width. Is there any way to make it wider if more columns are added? Now the problem with having the composer directly after the song title is that if you have "notes", it gets really messy. See User:Freekee/Sandbox. Would it be possible to have the title/author separated from the notes by a line break? Like this :
1 Manic Depression (Jimi Hendrix)
  • Performed by Seal & Jeff Beck, produced by Jeff Beck, Eddie Kramer and Seal
 5:09
2 Hey Joe (Billy Roberts)

Performed by Body Count, produced by Ernie C

 4:28
With our without the bullet. I can see there would be technical difficulties, but I really dislike the composer column. Is there anything you can do?-Freekee (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, now I thought the composer column was the best part, I know of many various-artist compilation albums where that will be useful too. Maybe you can choose to omit that parameter when you use the template. And IMO your example doesn't look messy to me - I think it looks fine. Just one gal's opinion. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I'll just try to address some of the topics you have noted. As for the fixed table width there were several reasons why we decided to use it that way.
- If the table becomes wider it's likely that it would collide with album boxes at the right side, at least at lower resolutions (Which would even include 1024*768, which is still seen as a standard in many places)
- Multi disc albums (like our Beatles example) would probably jump in cell width which would destroy the consistent look of the track list (which was one of our main priorities)
If someone knows a possible solution or workaround for this problem I'd be more than happy to hear about it.
It would be possible to shut off the hide button though I guess an extra option would be appropriate for this case, since "collapsed" is actually taken as a state from the collapsible table
I'm note quite sure about the linebreak for writings and lyrics. It could help clean up some templates while in other cases might just blow up the whole track listing. At the moment it's position was also decided upon consistency. I guess I will try out changing it in my sandbox and get some opinions on this matter. FjtDo (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to concur with Cricket02 and FjtDo; providing separate columns for songwriting credits was part of the whole point of having a table, in order to provide a more ordered appearance, rather than cramming all information in a single column all over again and just have the track lengths line up more nicely. Removing the column for overall songwriting would also bear the question what to do with the more differentiated ones for lyrics and music. Putting "(Lyrics: John Doe. Music: Charles Smith.)" behind each track of a list appears to be another step backwards. Also, while introducing a "collapsible" option is probably relatively easy to do, it too would promote inconsistency.
But I do see a point in having credit information appear more closely to the titles, by moving the Length column all the way to the right (like the All Music Guide does it). This would also provide a more rounded look overall. If there are no objections, I'd implement that change right away, it would break none of the current options, just the presets in the documentation should be re-ordered. Another idea I've been toying around with (see my sandbox) are notes in smaller font, but I'm not too sure about that myself and would appreciate more opinions on it. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel like changing font sizes of notes is a good idea, since it accents the actual title and prevents the overall cluttered look which comes with identical sizes. That way the notes are just seen as what they are: small notes which shall help the actual title.FjtDo (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all, for your comments. Before I read Cyrus's paragraph, I thought of moving the writer credit column inside of the time column, and it's definitely an improvement. The smaller font size for the notes is also good. I'm not generally a fan of making information small, but it makes it more readable (at least for people without vision problems). Just for reference, here's the original article. The track listing looks messy there too, but it's always title, performer, time (author), and producers on the second line. That help its readability. I do see that, for better or worse, composers can be put in the notes area, if one prefers.
What happens when the table collides with the infobox? Will it just be bumped downwards, or do bad things happen? I don't think bumping is an awful thing. FjtDo, I don't know what you mean by "Multi disc albums (like our Beatles example) would probably jump in cell width..."
Did anyone else have thoughts about removing the # above the number column? I probably should even suggest it be removed, since the track listing guidelines at WP:ALBUM specifically say to use it. But we can change that if it looks good. And speaking of that WikiProject, since album articles and their track listings fall under their auspices, please bring this up there at some point. When you're ready to go live, at the very least, since they're the ones who will implement it broadly. :-) -Freekee (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One other thing. If a song title happens to begin or end with quotation marks, there should be a space between them and the quotes that go around the whole song. There's probably not a way to support that, but I thought I'd mention it. -Freekee (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar typographic choices like that may be negligible, given our general approach towards stylized text formatting per WP:MOS/WP:MUSTARD. A related example would be the article move of "it's a small world" to It's a Small World. I believe the jumping issue FjtDo is referring to is the fluctuation in width of consecutive tables, that would occur if they were not fixed - another break in consistency. A "bad thing" that may occur on low resolutions is overlapping with the infobox, which is certainly less desirable than the list just being bumped down. I have put in for help with this at Wikipedia:Requested templates, with any luck, it will be resolved soon and then an announcement at WP:ALBUMS will probably make more sense (let's discuss the "#" then, since the project's guidelines mention it). In the meantime, the Length column has been moved and the notes now appear in a smaller font. No parameter names were changed, hence no template breakage. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool. One more thing. I came across the template in an article last night, and the row height seemed a little cramped. It's probably a pixel or two smaller than regular text. And maybe it seems smaller, given the alternating background colors. Would you consider bumping it up a little? Maybe make it a couple of pixels larger than regular text lines? Thanks. -Freekee (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw Cyrus's request for help with this template:

  1. The issue with overlapping is the same issue that was plaguing {{Ambox}}. This is a problem (with tables on almost ALL browsers btw.) that stems from setting the width to a fixed 65%. I have taken the liberty of changing this to use the ambox fix, but I suggest you might want to tweak the exact values a bit perhaps.
    Alternatively i can make it simply clear and retain 65%, but then it will ALWAYS bump below the infobox. There is no way to do clear only when there is not enough room. (Conclusion, tables do not follow CSS specifications, but what else is new :D )
  2. As far as i'm aware you cannot change the default hide/show behaviour of tables in order to not conflict with navbox'es. It is enabled for ALL collapsable tables. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance. :) I've played around a with your revision and noticed a few issues: While the table now seems to be resizable to lower widths, before overlapping with an infobox occurs, at a certain point it still happens (at least with Firefox 2). Also, width is quite unevenly distributed between the various columns. See my sandbox for an example. Since there is fairly little gained from the changes, while sacrificing cleaner formatting, I've reverted the changes for now, but please give the fixed width/bumps always approach a try, it could very well be the best compromise between practicality and aesthetics. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Correct, overlapping with tables is almost unavoidable. You can try by setting all other column values to a fixed width and one of those columns to 100%. But when there is text, at some point it will overlap floats simply to show text. Solution, do not use tables, or spam firefox, safari and IE developers to make tables CSS valid :D
  2. I will show you why using clear always is bad. Now look at these pages: Withering to Death. Bara no Seidou Vision Creation Newsun Subarashikikana, Kono Sekai
So unfortunately, there might just not be a solution for your problem. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not pretty huh ? :D It is the big downside of using clear, even more so in wikipedia. with its fully dynamic layout'ing. :( --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New option: total_length

I believe this has been suggested somewhere else already and after running into a few rather special use cases related to the Tori Amos live discography, I guess this is a useful option for certain cases after all. I went for the most simple possible formatting for now. Thoughts? – Cyrus XIII (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. It should be put in a few of the examples on the main page though. = ∫tc 5th Eye 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. The current examples should now cover about all of the functionality. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder though; how easy (or difficult) would it be for the template to parse the times and add them automatically? = ∫tc 5th Eye 03:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The math itself is probably doable, though I'm not sure in how far MediaWiki markup can parse the times to separate minutes from seconds or if these would have to be provided separately right away. As far as I know, CD audio track lengths can be more precise than just seconds, so we would be adding up rounded values anyway and the result of such a calculation could differ from the actual disc length. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Good points. It's probably best to leave it the way it is anyway since the total time is in the infobox as well. 13:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsed appearance

When collapsed, the entire thing disappears except for a [show] button. This makes it difficult to discern that a track listing actually exists on the page. Could this be changed so that, for example, it at least has a text box saying "Track list" or similar? Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that it can be done using headlines. However, even with headlines, if the size of the table is wide enough, the [show] button seems to be disassociated with the headline. Can this be changed so that the background isn't white? That is, have the headlines and the [show] button visually connected by a gray (or other) colored box by default. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this wouldn't detrimental of the overall appearance of a few articles, for example the one about the Legs and Boots series. When it comes to lone, collapsed track listings, more emphasis can be provided though extra spacing and a <big> tagged headline, in order to make readers more aware of the context (see The Orange Box#Soundtrack). – Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Option suggestion: Producer

I happened to browse to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. (for god knows what reason) and, upon seeing the ugly table used to display the tracklist, thought that it would be nice to replace it with {{tracklist}}—however, one of the columns is Producer, not supported with the template. How appropriate would it be to add this extra category? = ∫tc 5th Eye 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You could put the producer info in the "note" fields. -Freekee (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I'll see how that looks. = ∫tc 5th Eye 05:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use in templates

Hello! I've recently been trying to incorporate this template within a wikitable. Basically for use with EPs etc that aren't notable enough for their own articles or compilations but would like to put their track listing hidden if anyone would like to see it. As is it behaves rather strangely.. there's a blank section in the middle. I can't see to figure out where it's coming from. Perhaps this is a bug? Would anyone be able to recommend a solution ot alternative to this? Thank you! [table commented out]Rehevkor (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the CSS properties of the wikitable are screwing up those of the template. But for a list of works you might want to opt for a simpler approach anyway. Take a look at Legs and Boots#Shows and Rentrer en Soi#Singles, where the headline text is wrapped in the {{nobold}} template, to have it appear in the regular font-weight, making it easy to work multiple track listings into a regular bulleted list. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That worked really well! Thank you. :) Rehevkor (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [hide]

First of all, this is an awesome template and I'm surprised no one thought of it sooner. It's very well-done. I'm wondering, would it be possible for it not to show the [hide] button unless the template is collapsed to start with? I'd say it's very unlikely that anyone would need to collapse a tracklist in 99% of cases; it's just visual pollution. —Werson (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems quite reasonable and as well as an option which should not be too hard to include since all that would be needed is a simple flag which determines if to show the hide button (using the collapseable class) or not. We will have a look into it and try to implement the functionality. This could also be bound to the collapsed flag which already exists. Unless it's set to yes the hide button would be invisible FjtDo (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and implemented it. Like FjtDo suggested, the "collapsed" parameter still does all the talking; if it's not used, the template isn't collapsible at all. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writer(s)

Another idea: Instead of having writing_credits, you could have the page coder choose between writer_credits and writers_credits, for whichever is applicable. That way if there's only one writer for each song (as in the Queen example) it could just say "Writer" at the top instead of "Writer(s)". —Werson (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that besides replacing one existing option with two new ones, for a relatively minor change and with major breakage in already deployed templates, there are semantic issues with this approach. Once it either says "Writer" or "Writers", the respective term might apply to some but maybe not all tracks on the given record. Suppose we have another Queen album, some tracks written by Mercury, others by May and then there are one or two, co-written by, say, Deacon and Taylor. The intentionally ambiguous "Writer(s)" would still apply to each individual song. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough! —Werson (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation and/or Custom column

I'll start by saying that I think it was about time this was done, and I think it's great. Any chance we could add a "Translation" column for foreign albums. For Foreign albums (especially from non-roman written languages), this template looks like crap (no offense). Take a look at Music of Final Fantasy VII, compared to before (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Music_of_Final_Fantasy_VII&oldid=203900610). Don't even get me started on FFX's
I realize, that if we add a "Translation" Column, then we might have to add god knows how many other columns...
So, would it be possible to add a "Custom" column? (i know it's actually template-possible, I'm speaking more of if you think it's a good idea). I was thinking something along the lines of:

| CustomHeader  = Translation

| CustomValue1  = プレリュード (Pureryūdo)
| CustomValue2  = オープニング~爆破ミッション (Ōpuningu ~ Bakuha Misshon)
...
| CustomValue23 = 想いを胸に (Omoi o Mune Ni)

This looks perfectly possible. We can even implement multiple custom columns by doing something like

| Custom1Header  = Translation(Kana)
| Custom2Header  = Translation(Hepburn)

| Custom1Value1  = プレリュード
| Custom2Value1  = Pureryūdo
| Custom1Value2  = オープニング~爆破ミッション
| Custom2Value2  = Ōpuningu ~ Bakuha Misshon
...
| Custom1Value23 = 想いを胸に
| Custom2Value23 = Omoi o Mune Ni

Then, even add things like "Custom1Position", should we want to position it in a special order. I realize this might not be easy to implement, but I personally believe the template would GREATLY benefit a from this kind of versatility. Thoughts? happypal (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

After pondering your suggestions for some time, including discussing it with FjtDo (who is more competent on the technical side than yours truly), I've come across several issues that would arise from such a changes and ultimately break its design paradigm. {{Tracklist}} already supports up to six columns (three of them optional), with the still-more-common-than-we'd-want-it-to-be resolution of 1024x768 in mind, at which the template still plays nicely with the {{Infobox Album}}. Adding more columns (you are suggesting at least two) to a table that might already be packed would make it look a lot more crammed than some variants that make heavy use of the notes parameter (that issue having already been somewhat addressed by using the <small> font for that text). Of course, one could always remove the width restriction of the entire template, but then again, having each instance of {{tracklist}} share the same width is essential to presenting a clean, consistent look, particularly when several of them are used in a row.
Custom columns would also inflate the code template code ... a lot, making it harder to maintain in general. Custom column positions on the other hand would not only blow up the code linearly but exponentially. This strange HTML/CSS/Wiki-markup voodoo with which we have to make do is just that limited in its capabilities/versatility. Again considering consistency, being able to switch around column positions between template instances also does seem to be a desirable feature to begin with.
On a side note: Given that I have worked on several soundtrack related articles myself (including some on which the two of us collaborated) this template was designed with them in mind as well; and while I can relate to your desire to make the template more accommodating to the current status quo on these pages, I've come to consider a few common practices found on them rather questionable, e.g. still giving preference to original, Japanese titles, when official English translations are available (at odds with WP:UE), inflationary use of unofficial translations (WP:RS/WP:OR) and pointing out discrepancies between official and supposedly literal translations (WP:MOSJP and probably WP:CRUFT). Considering our guidelines, I'd be rather inclined to simply give preference to English titles where available, rely on romanized titles elsewhere and reserve specific in-depth information for the relevant prose. This is, after all, a general purpose encyclopedia. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I also do not completely agree with giving 2 different translations, but I think at least both Jap(or other language) and English should both be there. And on a side note, the iTunes sources for the above articles are only called "Official" because they are the highest level influence, and when you realize that there are typos in their tracknames, one can only wonder if they weren't just copy pasted after the first Google search by some under-payed employee... But I digress.
Other than that, your post made me realize two things:
  • I never said anything about wanting 6+ columns, good god, that would be horrible!
  • Creating a CustomValue field is indeed a bad design concept BUT:
Would it be possible to just change the name of the "Note" Field at the top of the template? This would be extremely easy and bring no bloat to code or server load. This would only require a field called "NoteColumnName" or something?
This could be useful for when all the notes relate to the same specific thing (in our case translation or whatnot, but also possible would be location played for VideoGame soundtracks or tons of other things!). I think that would be the perfect level of versatility, without making the code impossible, or breaking the whole of point the template (Consistency). Thanks for taking the time to consider these things.happypal (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Disregard the above, I just realized "Notes" Isn't actually a column.happypal (Talk | contribs) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

This page requires at least semi-protection, and full protection once all it's quirks are worked out. It'll soon be too dangerous what with vandals and all. I realized this when I accidentally deleted all it's content, copy-pasting in the wrong window...sorry. Also, I would hate to see a floating penis on all the album pages of wikipedia, as was the case for all japan related articles a few years ago...happypal (Talk | contribs) 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hide Header

Sorry to keep asking for new features, but what could we add a way to NOT display the standard header, like be adding "DisplayHeader=False" (the header being displayed by default). This would allow for easy and continuous subsections, like for albums with multiple bonus tracks or something. Currently, we can do this, but the second header is kind of disruptive...

Beatles Album with super secret bonus songs
# Title Length
1. "Back in the U.S.S.R."   2:43
2. "Dear Prudence"   3:56
3. "Glass Onion"   2:17
4. "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da"   3:08
5. "Wild Honey Pie"   0:52
6. "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill"   3:13
7. "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" (George Harrison) 4:45
8. "Happiness Is a Warm Gun"   2:43
Bonus Tracks
# Title Length
9. "Martha My Dear"   2:28
10. "I'm So Tired"   2:03
11. "Blackbird"   2:18

In this example, I would want the second table's "#, Title, Legth" Row to not show.
This would be extremely easy to implement, but I don't want to do anything without discussing.
happypal (Talk | contribs) 06:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly cut some extra fat from a few track lists. I demoed the change by manipulating a screenshot and then went to work in my sandbox. Turns out that along with the table header, this would also eliminate the width distribution among the columns, resulting in ill-positioned songwriting credits across the multiple instances of the template. I'm not sure if the limited number of use cases for a header hiding option would justify adding the width distribution code (and the conditional statements attached to it) to every individual row. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've thought about it some, and I guess it can't be helped.happypal (Talk | contribs) 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visual aspect on album with complex writing credits

I experimented this template on What a Lemon which is an album with many different composers and lyricists. I am not completely happy with the result:

Side one
# Title Lyrics Music   Length
1. "What a Lemon"   Gasolin', Skip Malone, Dan Beck, Jan Bredsdorf Gasolin' 4:57
2. "Fatherless Hill"   Larsen Kim Larsen, Gasolin' 4:16
3. "Lonesome Avenue"   Larsen Larsen 3:25
4. "Rebel Run"   Beck Gasolin', Tommy Petersen 2:58
5. "Lots of Success"   Gasolin', Beck Gasolin' 3:40

By complying with WikiProject Album's track listing standards ("write (and link) the full name the first time it appears, and then just give the last name") I feel that the Lyrics/Music columns becomes quite unreadable and not very pleasant to look at. Although I am a big fan of templates, this is for me a "showstopper" for applying this particular one. Would anybody have any suggestions about what could be done to overcome this problem? – IbLeo (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you make any changes to the template code in above copy, or why did you include it? As for your issue with the credit columns, I'd say the width distribution within the template could still use a little tweaking. But even if you choose to not use it for What a Lemon at this time, would you consider to at least somehow denote lyrics and music credits? I'm afraid many readers will not be able to distinguish them in the current revision of the article. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No, this is how it looks with the current version of the template, I included it solely for illustrating my point on a real use case. I used the "subst" command to be sure the display doesn't change as the template evolves, and apparantly it expands the template code . The format I use in What a Lemon right now is ' "title" (music writers / lyrics writers) – time'. It is true that the current WikiProject Album guidelines does not say how to distinguish composers from lyricists, so in lack of anything better I use the '(music writers / lyrics writers)' format because it is written like that on the original LP label. I therefore assumed it is some kind of standard in the record industry so widely understood. However, if you feel it is necessary to make it clearer, how would you propose I sort it out (without using this template)? – IbLeo (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess then my approach would be "##. Title (Lyrics: Lyricist / Music: Composer) – mm:ss", track for track. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I like this approach. I have updated the article. If we manage to sort out the visual issue on the template mentioned in my first entry, I will use it. – IbLeo (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hang on

Before implementing this template on articles and spreading its use any further, a community-wide discussion is necessary as the changes to articles are quite significant. I'd suggest posting invites for a centralised discussion on music-related Wikiprojects to discuss whether the use of this template is ultimately beneficial to the article, and changes to the existing structure are merited at all. indopug (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For the most part it's only being used on articles that need it, since it clutters up articles that don't. I don't think it was ever intended to be used in every album article. = ∫tc 5th Eye 12:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted its use from the entire discographies of the Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots and Nine Inch Nails, among others. indopug (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As should be done. It looks really messy if there are no notes or extra writing credits that should be there. Its use is only valid, I feel, in certain cases (e.g. foreign-language albums, etc.). = ∫tc 5th Eye 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you consider to bring this up at WP:ALBUMS before engaging in substantial reverts? The template has already been adopted for well over two hundred articles and per the "silence implies consent" bit of WP:CON (and favorable comments here and on said project talk page), this signifies at least some level of support among the community. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you point me to the favourable comments on the ALBUMS talk-page? This talkpage is hardly a well-frequented location on Wikipedia, so a community-wide consensus can't be extrapolated from the positive feedback you received here. indopug (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking back, the template was actually mentioned quite a few times.[1][2][3][4] – Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Those archives all praise the use of the template for foreign language records or hip-hop albums because of complexity of assigning credits. On the other hand, for the rock albums' track listings, which are a largely straightforward affair, and with which I am primarily concerned, the template isn't needed. This recommends only using tables when "when three columns and more are required", which is not the case in any of the articles I reverted. In those archives too, a few people have expressed concerns that using it for simpler track listings is overkill in terms of additional code. Can we agree on this? indopug (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The "three column" rule may in fact justify the use of this template in this case. The logic being, the three common columns are track number, song title, and track length. While it may not be often considered its own column, the "track number" field does vary in length, and will offset the list data, giving it a rough appearance. With this template, all column width issues are avoided, as each field is properly contained, and fitted for nearly every commercial monitor. I think the template has proven itself in trial usage, and has been mostly accepted, but even in rock articles, where it may lack blatant praise, it hasn't been met with rejection. I think the editing work on the rock-related articles is a bit impersonal, due to its highly formulaic nature, with almost everything being guided by WikiProject guidelines (unlike hip hop and foreign music, which often requires editors to cooperate and be creative in the development of unique articles). --Jacob Talk 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because rock articles are simpler to format doesn't make them impersonal and formulaic. On the contrary, not having to be worried about templates and MoS complexities enables editors to focus and collaborate instead on content. For eg: Be Here Now and Loveless are gloriously well-written and interesting articles.
Of course that is irrelevant to the discussion. Fact is, the additional code is cumbersome and complicated, and even when weighed against the perceived elegance, doesn't match up. (Unconnected detail--when the writer column is empty, the track timings are so far away from the song names that it takes a moment to figure them out. The eyes have to move across the length of the screen from song to corresponding timing) indopug (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This is your opinion, to which you are entitled, but it does little to advance your point, when you purport it as some kind of irrevocable "fact", along with opting for a rather dismissive tone in your comments here and your edit summaries. Just about anyone who ever deployed, discussed or worked on the template might be just a tad offended by the assertion that it is "ugly" (while the complaint that it is "[too] colorful" just seems odd, given that it does not employ any actual colors and derives its few shades of grey from our major info- and navboxes).
If you want to know my personal opinion as both a programmer and a two-year Wikipedian, then I'll say that additional code is not per se undesirable, if it is well-formatted and (ideally) self-explanatory. There have yet to be any complaints regarding these points, so my best guess is, that people either consider the code they find in existing articles easy enough to adapt or consider the documentation sufficiently helpful. If you would like to see some outside examples for track listings in a table format, feel free to consult Allmusic and Amazon.com.
Beyond that, all I can really offer you here is to look into your issue with the distance between track titles and lengths (making the fixed width optional could be a solution), that is if this was meant as genuinely constructive criticism. In the meantime, I will reimplement the template instances you removed, per the "three columns and more" bit in WP:LISTS.– Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Honestly, the template looks like varying shades of pink on my screen. Further, I never meant to insult, but just assert that it wasn't useful for simpler track listings. As for complaints, there is me and there is also this, from a highly contributive user who has written three album FAs. User:5theye above has agreed to my reversions and assertions that it isn't suitable for rock albums (with simple track listings); he even seems to approve of it otherwise. You might say that a template is supposed to be self-explanatory but any template is more difficult to use (for many of us) than just typing #"Song Name" (Writer) – 3:21 (some of us aren't programmers y'know).

I understand that you've worked hard on this and I am sorry to deem it ugly. All I am came here to say is that if you want to standardise its use of your work on every type of album article, you will need a larger consensus. (since clearly I've broken the "silence = consensus" clause). Until then the status quo remains (not having the template on rock albums). Furthermore, there the code is not perfect yet, considering my complaints of the timings being too far away from the track and the weird pink display on my screen. indopug (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You speek of "MoS complexities", but writing #"Song Name" (Writer) – 3:21 correctly is 10 times harder than writing
| title1          = Song Name
| writer1         = Writer
| length1         = 3:21
I cannot even begin to tell you how many articles I have seen without the Song Name double quotes, the wrong dash, writer parenthesis ill placed etc. While you say you are not a programmer, most people on wikipedia know more about templates, then the way WP:ALBUMS standards work, and this template does not even require the knowledge that such standards exist. If this template is already used on so many articles, it is because it is easy to use and understand, straightforward, looks good, and generally accepted by lots of people, who probably have never been on ALBUMS. The only thing I will grant you is that it is new and requires tweaking, but that is all.happypal (Talk | contribs) 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay then, if it is as good as you say it is, maybe we should advertise the proposal to change the standard format track listing? Not everybody works on music articles, even album articles, hangs around ALBUMS talk pages.
Apart from myself, I have pointed out other editors who are discontent with the template; the archives Cyrus pointed out show that while there is praise for its use in Hip-Hop/Foreign language articles, support for its use in articles with simple track lists is hardly unequivocal. My prime concern, even more than difficulty of use, is that the template is being applied to a large number of articles by a small number of editors. indopug (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think this template is needlessly complicated. If anything, it should be used like the Cite templates--that is, you can use it, especially if you have no idea how to format an album tracklisting and need a template to follow, but it certainly shouldn't be mandatory. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wesley. I don't think I'll be using it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it is worth: Templates help authors like me to quickly deal with tedious tasks like complying to formatting conventions and thus give me more time to concentrate on the important stuff: Writing the content of the article itself. As resumed by happypals excellent entry above, when there are no template, even the most simple formatting convention is often disrespected, simply because a lot of people writing articles don't necessarily find their way to the project pages. Using templates overcome this problem, and I think this one does an awful good job even on albums with "simple" tracklists like #"Song Name" (Writer) – 3:21. When I started on Wikipedia only 2 months ago, I was actually quite astonished that there is not already a template in place for the track listing, and subsequently happy when I eventually found my way around to this one. So yes, I definitely support this template (though it still needs a little more tweaking, as requested above), and I would like to see it applied on ALL albums (not only hip hop albums and foreign albums - what is a "foreign" album anyway?). Just like it is the case with the Infobox today. However I do believe that it it should be properly agreed and adapted as a standard over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and I won't use it before this is the case. – IbLeo (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hang on (arbitrary section break)

Indopug, I don't understand what you're complaining about. Okay, you say you don't like how it looks, so you reverted its use on dozens of pages. Is that it? But now you're saying we need wider consensus before it's allowed on all pages. What that statement really means, is a wider consensus before it's allowed on more than just a couple of pages. People tested it on a few articles, but if testing is complete, we should stop until everyone else agrees that it's okay to use? And if consensus is not reached, it should be deleted? There are only two choices here - consensus to allow its use, and consensus that it should not be used. If the consensus is to allow it, then it should either be recommended for use in all articles, or left up to editor prerogative. So I guess that's three choices. Ah, I think I get it. You don't like it, and won't allow its use on pages that you edit, unless consensus is gained for it's preference?

I like the template, but if it makes you feel any better, I would like to see consensus. -Freekee (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with WesleyDodds, the comparison of {{tracklist}} with citation templates is actually quite fitting. Both present the information they convey in a consistent and more transparent fashion than their free-form counterparts (access dates for citations, proper alignment of titles and lengths for track listings), but almost always take more time to deploy. With that in mind, I would not support a motion that made the use of this template (and most others) mandatory, as that would ultimately keep many people from contributing to Wikipedia altogether. Yet if some editors want to take that time to add template based citations, navigational elements or track listings to an article, it is fairly unreasonable to keep them from doing so, especially since cleanly formatted template code requires fairly little maintenance later on, even more so if the data in them is unlikely to change.

The reason I have not made a move on WP:ALBUMS to make {{tracklist}} "teh standardz" is not just because I think it does not need to be that to be useful, but I also don't believe in prescriptive, top-down consensus building on guideline and WikiProject talk pages (at least as long as none of our prime policies, such as verifiability and neutrality are concerned). Like happypal stated earlier, many editors never frequent these venues, but still make valuable contributions to articles in the respective fields and as such, guidelines should remain descriptive of what happens down in the trenches. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't make this template the standard either, as I strongly believe in WP:IAR and that each page should be decided individually, and for the same reasons stated by Cyrus XIII.
Furthermore, as WP:ALBUMS currently prescribes, use inline when simple, and use columns when more complicated. If the tracklist is nothing more than 05 "Song Name" – length, then I would not use the template. If every song requires notes, individual artists, composers etc, then I would prescribe the template.
From experience, I have noticed most users prefer copy-pasting templates/tables etc, and then adapting them, rather then create anything on their own, or look up references. I had created a special collapsible track list layout for Music of Final Fantasy VII, and I have already seen it in more than 10 other articles, I had strictly nothing to do with. It's just so much simpler that way.
So yeah, I say let it be used if it makes the article better, but leave it at the editor's discretion.
happypal (Talk | contribs) 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Even now, after a full year in ALBUMS, I still regularly go back to the project page, because I cannot for the life of me remember the song title formats (and I hate that en-dash to death).
What this really makes me wonder, is why there isn't a template that automatically formats inline lists and/or song titles. i.e, something like:
<nowiki>{{songTitle | 5 | I love beer | happypal | 3:30}}<nowiki>
which would return:
5. "I love beer" (happypal) – 3:21
This is exactly the same as the Template:nihongo. It doesn't do much, but it does it well, and has had great success in standardizing all Japanese related pages, even though I'm ready to bet no more than 1% of the people who used the template actually looked at the template page's specifications.
I digress, and as this is an entirely different subject, but I still believe worth discussing.
happypal (Talk | contribs) 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden tracks

Can anybody add a title+ to the template? That would be very useful for the hidden tracks. For example, here at 7:20 the band refers to "Famous last words" as the last song, and that's because there is a hidden track that's completely different from the album style, so I think it would be better if it was listed as with a + sign --Moraleh (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Another row for an unnumbered track could be easily added, but it would appear in a fixed position after the (hypothetical) 99 tracks it currently supports (the markup we can use for the template isn't very dynamic). There are however a few hidden tracks that do not appear at the end of an album. For example, artists (or their technicans) have become quite inventive when it comes to hide a track in another one's pregap, for example (I'm aware of at least one album that hides an instrumental version of one of its songs right before the first track).
I'd approach the problem by just using regular tracks and notes, in a fashion that reflects the actual CD layout (or files, when it comes to the incressingly relevant digital downloads). If an unlisted song occupies its own track on a disc, just add "[[hidden track]]" as a note, if it is an extension of another track add "contains the [[hidden track]] "Song Title" at its end/after two minutes of silence/in its pregap" or something to that effect. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be clearer if we added the "+", just like Coldplay did on the X&Y discs... --Moraleh (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)