Template talk:Infobox album

Why haven't MiszaBot auto-archived this page for the last 6 months?

I have compared its configuration to those of WT:ALBUM and WT:SONG where it works fine and I can't see any significant difference. Can someone figure it out? – IbLeo^(talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed it's stalled on a number of talk pages I watch. I've been able to fix most of them with a bit of a kickstart. I'll see if that works here. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the stall resulted from the page moves from "Infobox Album" to "Infobox album" (note the case change). Should be fixed now. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted! Sounds like a reasonable explanation. Thanks :-) – IbLeo^(talk) 23:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bingo! MiszaBot just archived 16 threads. Thanks again for your help. – IbLeo^(talk) 09:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Writer/composer fields

It would be useful to have a field for the writer and a field for the composer in the album infobox, especially for the singles, because often it's not the same person and there seems to be confusion sometimes about it.Neon Tiger 21 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Albums typically have multiple writers, so this wouldn't be useful. {{Infobox single}}, however, does have such fields. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do the single infobox have a composer field? I think they only have a writer field. I'm working also on the french Wikipedia, and in the french single infobox, there's a field for both. Exemple: For a single by the Smiths, you'll have Morrissey as the writer and Johnny Marr as the composer, so for someone who doesn't know much about the Smiths, he'll know that Morrissey wrote the lyrics and that Marr did the music. Right now, in the english Wikipedia, you only have one field with the two names, Marr first and Morrissey second, so it's like who did what? On other pages, you have only the writer. Neon Tiger 21 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Terminology problem: We rarely see "writer" used to mean lyricist. Writer and composer are interchangeable terms, composer being preferred, as writer is vague. The vast majority of songwriting credits do not separate out the music composer from the lyricist (and if they don't, we shouldn't guess), and when they do, it can be stated in the body of the article, but need not be in the infobox, which is only here to summarize points from the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see now... but sometimes the information is available, like in the Smiths or like in Green Day where almost all lyrics are done by singer Billie Joe and music by the band (I'm taking the information from the CD booklets). So sometimes it could be useful and, like I said, their is two fields in the french Wikipedia single infobox (we call them "Auteurs" and "Compositeurs"). Anyway, this is no big deal, thanks for your answer.Neon Tiger 21 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Labels

The label guideline is currently very vague. It currently states "Drop words like "Records" from the end of the label's name (e.g. use Universal rather than Universal Records)". What exactly are the "like" words. Would "music" as in Sony Music be considered a word to drop? That specific example is hard to determine since most albums on English Wikipedia don't include Sony Music under label, as emphasis is generally put on the label imprints instead. This is because the labels operate as standalone companies in the US and the UK. But in the case of domestic repertoire of the big 4 music companies outside of the US and UK, these companies usually only have only one company (one office) which is the parent name followed by the name of the country. For example, in Greece there is only one Sony Music standalone company and that would naturally be “Sony Music Greece”, therefore the release label is almost solely referred to as “Sony Music”. They also use imprints to segregate A&R operations, such as Columbia and RCA, but these are more of am internal formality and never used in promotion. Since the guideline is very vague, various users have been removing "Music" from “Sony Music” for Greek album pages I oversee, leaving it as “Sony” as per the infobox guidelines. I believe that in the case of Sony Music, or any of the big 4 parent companies who use their name in marketing outside of the US, "Music" should be in use, especially since these conglomerates have other media and technology business (e.g. Sony Music vs. Sony Pictures vs. Sony Electronics etc.). Any input on this would be appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd decide by asking: Do people often refer to it as just "Sony" (i.e. "it's on the Sony label")? Your experience of seeing other editors specify Sony seems to back that up. The full company name is Sony Music Entertainment, and according to its article, it had that name in 1991, but changed it to Sony BMG Music Entertainment in 2004, then back to Sony Music Entertainment in 2008. At one point, the article refers to it by a shorter name of "Sony BMG", and frequently uses the name Sony in reference to the parent company.. With all these name changes, I suspect most people are more likely to call it Sony rather than Sony Music. You also have to consider how it may be referred to internationally, which may differ from your own experience locally. But here's the main thing to consider: You wouldn't put "Sony BMG" or "Sony BMG Music" in the infobox just for releases between 2004 and 2008, right? And what if it changes to "Sony Entertainment" next year? The reason for the infobox rule is to weed out minor changes to the full, technical company name over time, and just call it by its simplest name. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to answer your Sony BMG question, yes on wiki we put "Sony BMG" for albums released during those years as wp:albums/infobox albums stipulate that you must use original labels. Imperatore (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the official name is Sony Music Entertainment, but it is known/referred to as Sony Music. In fact their website is also www.sonymusic.gr. Editors are not changing just to Sony because it is commonly referred to as that, but because of the vague guideline. (as stated for their reason in the edit summaries) Greekboy (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Separating form and content in the Type field

Question I have always been a little confused about the Type field and its purpose. Does this establish an albums format or its content? For instance, parameters such as Holiday have been removed from the template for referring to the kind of music. Simultaneously, we have a parameter for EP, in contradistinction to long-play albums. What is to be done about (e.g.) iTunes Live from London? Is it a "live album" or an "EP"? Clearly, it is both. So which one takes priority in this field? What is the function of it in the first place? I've only seen this discussed here and I don't know that there is a meaningful discussion of the philosophy of the Type field. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience live EPs are generally classified as EPs, despite the fact that they are live, just as a live single would still be classified as a single. EPs are tricky little beasts; I've seen a lot of discussion and back-&-forth (particularly lately at CfD) about what exactly constitutes an EP, and why they're lumped in with the Albums project to begin with when singles aren't. My interpretation is that there simply isn't any other home for them and WP:ALBUMS has always just put them within our scope by default, and they're lumped into this infobox because a separate "Infobox EP" would just be 99% identical to this template (whereas {{Infobox single}} has significant differences). I consider "EP" to be sort of the red-headed stepchild of the "Type" field: All of the other types refer to particular kinds of albums and the manner in which they are recorded or compiled, while "EP" is really just there because it has no other home. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla's reply is exactly what I would have said. This question has been asked a few times in the past, and although the situation isn't ideal, nobody has proposed an accepted solution. Also, it's not really a big problem; the "type" field is mainly there to select a colour for the box's title bar, and doesn't really affect categorization in a data-related way. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki

Template is protected, so I can't edit it myself, but the interwiki to the Dutch version is wrong. It should link to nl:Sjabloon:Infobox muziekalbum. If anyone could fix that, thanks. -- Sander (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. The interwiki links are not on the template page but in it's documentation page which isn't protected. I did the update. Thanks for bringing it up. – IbLeo^(talk) 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Apply hAudio microformat

{{editprotected}} Please make the following changes, to apply the hAudio microformat:

[redacted]

No visual changes will occur and the category is hidden. For background see the microformats project. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind applying your changes to the /sandbox version and replacing the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Done; thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Working well. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)