Template talk:Infobox album

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Infobox Album)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albums (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Re-release singles[edit]

I'm just wondering why in the Template:Singles section it says "Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album." I've seen a few articles where this is the case, and I'm not sure what the issue with doing so is. I find the infobox becomes quite lacking of information if the re-release singles are not included. Usfun8991 06:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Studio/venue parameter link[edit]

Shouldn't it be linked to recording studio and music venue same as "Genre", "Label", "Producer", etc.? Also "Producer" to "Producer(s)" as was deemed suitable for the single infobox?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, quite often, an album will be recorded at multiple studios, so maybe that ought to be pluralized as well...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Executive producers" parameter re-proposal[edit]

There is no consensus for a change. See Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)'s comment here at WP:ANRFC:

I don't personally see any clear consensus here. There were only a handful of editors in the discussion and each seems to have a different solution. Sam Walton (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been plenty of discussion in the past regarding how to treat the existing "Producers" parameter in situations where there are several (10+) producers credited on a given record. There has been talk of perhaps just listing executive producers in the template for these instances, although some editors expressed concern with issues with older albums where no executive producers were assigned, and instead just featured many general producers. I've been doing some work on The Pinkprint recently, and like I Am Not a Human Being II (which prompted the original discussion if I remember correctly?), there are so many producers listed it makes the infobox almost too large for comfortable navigation. If it is overwhelming on my large laptop screen, imagine how busy this would look on a mobile device. My suggestion is that an "Executive producers" parameter is introduced to substitute the existing "Producers" field when applicable. If there are executive producers specifically listed on any given album, these individuals would be recognized with the new field, and if not, then all of the general producers would be listed in the original parameter. Neither of these templates would be used alongside each other, and would instead be used one over the other. I would find this particularly helpful with present-day pop and hip hop music; artists usually collaborate with multiple unique producers on each song and when this number is multiplied by at least ten songs per record, it would be much more concise to just list the few executive producers that are usually recognized as the most important, or so the back sleeve of a physical album would suggest. Any thoughts? WikiRedactor (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Executive producers are not the same as producers. We should have a separate parameter for them. If there that many producers, they are likely producers of the songs rather than of the album. Since this is the album's infobox, we shouldn't list any of them in the infobox and only list them next to the songs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Idea: If there are more than <some_small_number> producers listed, maybe have the producer section collapsed, with a click-to-view? Alsee (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I think adding another parameter for the executive producer(s) of an album, while would be resourceful, may cause unrequited fancruft editing. Also, the way they are listed on I Am Not a Human Being II should not be used. It clutters the infobox, which are meant to provide an over-view of material. If people want specific information, they should look within the article and see that the information is outlined (hopefully). I do, however, agree with Walter Görlitz that only an album's producers should be included, not specific producers for each and every single song produced for an album (if that is what they meant in their statement). Most albums have a surplus of producers and can cause an over-fill of information within an infobox; maybe executive producers are the only ones who should be listed, period? livelikemusic my talk page! 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Livelikemusic: I would support replacing producers with executive producers in the infobox. By the general nature of the position, executive producers pertain more to the record as an entire unit; it would seem as though producers has just become a field in the infobox to list every producer that has dipped their toes in the project. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You have confused modern pop production with album production. Most albums are still produced by only a few people. Modern pop albums have production on a song-by-song basis and are an anomaly. I will never agree to removing producers for executive producers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
All the more reason to add an executive producers field for situations where this would be most useful, and leaving the producers parameter for circumstances where it is applicable. They would both have their own unique purposes that would be useful in different scenarios. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If the number of producers is too large to comfortably list, why not leave a note to see the appropriate section in the article's body? This is sometimes done in film articles. You don't have to compulsively list every last bit of information in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would support this. Many modern albums, particularly in the pop and hip hop genres, have become a game of "let's fit as many hitmakers on one record as possible". Often times, this results in an excessive laundry list of anyone who had any involvement on any song (see Britney Jean), rather than who has primary oversight over the overall sound of the album. Sometimes, executive producers are even credited as "album producers" where the individual songs saw many different producers (I want to say I've seen this crediting on the back cover of My Love Is Your Love).

    I would suggest, however, only doing this on a case-by-case basis unique to each album. On albums with one producer, or a reasonably small list of individual song producers, go ahead and list everyone out. In instances such as The Pinkprint or Britney Jean, it may be more helpful to just list executive producers, or omit the field entirely. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly. As the sentiment made by Chase, a lot of times, artists gather "hitmakers" for their album, which can cause clutter in an infobox, which is meant to house and over-all review of information. I would say either list the executors of the album, or whatever the album sleeve, and / or metadata lists as the album's producers. As in the case of The Pinkprint, there is much an overload of information. Or simply omit the entry. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Take a look at Britney Jean and I Am Not a Human Being II; I've set it up so that just the executive producers have been listed in the infobox, while including an italicized link to "Credits and personnel" to direct readers to the longer list. How does this format look to you all? WikiRedactor (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I would italicize it. It could work, but something about it does seem off, and I can't put my finger on what it is. livelikemusic my talk page! 01:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I do see what you're saying; part of me is wondering if it seems off just because it's different from what we've done for so long? I'm not quite sure though. I've rolled it out Bangerz and Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded – The Re-Up just so we can see how it looks on a couple other articles for a sample. WikiRedactor (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Italic title[edit]

Is the template page supposed to have an italic title? I was going to fix it until I saw that {{Auto italic title}} is being used in the doc page. I didn't know if it was there for a reason or not. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Genres and flatlists[edit]

I have noticed a trend popping up on a handful of album articles (example), namely the use of {{flatlist|}} instead of commas to separate genres. On the guideline, for that infobox field, it still says: "The one or more music genres that the album reflects, delimited by a comma should be listed here." Should I let it slide or inform the user who insists on using flatlists on other articles they edit? They have also used it for track listing credits, but that may not be necessary to discuss here. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ehh.. looks like I'm a bit late to the party. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. To recapitulate, two or three items should be separated by commas. More than three, should use a list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Parameter for unfinished/aborted/non-existent/fictional album type?[edit]

For a very long time there has been a minor but longstanding edit war from various users on the article Smile (The Beach Boys album) due to the fact that the Smile album doesn't actually exist. Even though it was envisioned as a studio album, and the infobox reflects this, the wording is kind of strange and misleading: "Studio album partially recorded by The Beach Boys". The thing is, there is no studio album called Smile, Smile was just an idea for an album. So it should rather state something to the effect of "Aborted album by The Beach Boys". However, that "breaks" the template, so it can't be done as of this moment.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Use other. Most albums of this sort never meet WP:GNG so there's no other category for this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)