Template talk:Track listing

Quotes around titles

Why do track titles automatically get quoted? It seems like unnecessary clutter, especially with long track lists. It also interferes with track names that are supposed to have quotes around them (for example, several tracks on Music of The_Lord of the Rings film trilogy#The Complete Recordings are supposed to be quoted on their own, but it would just look dumb to have two sets of quotes). – Gardnermj (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's likely that if we didn't have this rule, it would encourage editors to omit them from paragraphs as well. I kind of agree that they might not be necessary when making a list of titles in a track list section, but we have done it that way for a long time, and I doubt there will be consensus to change the rule. As for the example you gave us, if there are quotes in the track titles, there should be quotes within quotes in the article: single quotes within double quotes.

Also, I notice the track lists all collapse in that article, which might not be deliberate. If that's true, it is probably being caused by a problem where if there is one collabsible list or box somewhere on the page, it makes all other collabsible boxes collapse. It may be possible to fix this by finding the box that's causing it, and making it non-collapsing, if a parameter is provided to allow this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's deliberate, at least it was, when I introduced the template on that page. The track listings of multi-disc releases can be very long, especially soundtracks, as these are often made-up of many, shorter tracks. Adding to that, the article covers several and to some degree even redundant releases, hence its only convenient for readers when at least the lengthier ones are initially collapsed, so that one can navigate around the overall article faster.

Regarding mandatory quotes, we're really just following pre-existing guidelines (WP:MOSTITLE and related bits from WP:ALBUMS) here and I don't think it would be wise to jeopardize consistency just to accommodate a few select tracks that, as A Knight Who Says Ni suggested, would be triple-quoted in other instances anyway. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to replace “programmer’s” quotes to “book quotes”? – Klimenok (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done per Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation marks. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

USA bias

In the USA '#' is used to mean 'number', but in other countries it doesn't mean any such thing. In the UK '#' can only mean 'hash', it has no other meanings.

In the UK the abbreviation for 'number', whether in chart placings or anything else, is 'no.'

Can we have less USA culture forced down our throats by Wikipaedia [sic] please?

Or is Wikipaedia [sic] a vehicle for wiping out international cultures and replacing them with the customs and practices (yes, with a 'c' not an 's') of the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.228.120 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, English-language Wikipedia is not supposed to be geared toward American readers more than other English speaking persons, and your accusation of a great cultural conspiracy is rather silly. By the way, in response to one of your complaints, did you know the word "practise" with an "s" was the proper spelling of the word in Middle English, and it comes from the Old French word "practiser"? So if you want to blame a whole nation for corrupting the spelling, the USA is not the place to start. "Wikipedia" is spelled as it is because it was named by an American (and, being a "brand name", any other spelling of it is improper), but that does not mean the spelling of "encyclopaedia" is disallowed; see the article on encyclopedia which shows three spellings of the word, one of which is even more traditional than yours. For more about WP's policies regarding spellings to be used, see MOS:SPELLING (in a nutshell, any proper spelling is acceptable, but there are guidelines on which to use depending on the circumstance). There may be inadvertant use of a symbol not internationally recognized, but its non-universality doesn't get noticed until someone points it out. So thanks for pointing it out, but you didn't have to do it with a big whine. Anyway... the template uses "#" as a column heading, and aside from the claim that it's not used to represent "number" in the UK (which, even if true, probably doesn't mean that UK residents have never seen it used this way, or can't figure out what it means), it isn't a good choice for a column heading anyway, because it doesn't say what the number represents. It just says "number" over top of a column of numbers. "Track" would have been a better choice. Clearly we wanted it to be as short as possible, to allow the column to be as narrow as possible. Maybe an abbreviation of "Tk." would be appropriate, or maybe not. By the way, the Manual of Style concurs with the complaint above, and recommends "No." instead of "#", but as I've pointed out, there is a bigger problem. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Track" instead of "#" is a simple compromise which does away with this problem (although I would note that the anon is wrong, and the hash symbol as "number" is recognised in the UK as well). I've implemented it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sub-titles

Does anyone out there know how to accomodate sub-titles using this template? A song may have several sub-sections which have their own subtitle e.g. the Track "Autumn" on Hero and Heroine by Strawbs has three sections each with an individual title (and writer) best Witchwooder (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There have always been discussions at music wikiprojects over when it is appropriate to use the tracklist template vs. a simple list, as that article has now. Many editors agree the simple list should be used unless the tracklist has some "complexity" where a table or template would be more helpful. This is one case where the simple list can show things clearer than the fancier formats. I'd suggest keeping the list as is. In fact, it could be improved by using a double pound sign which both indents and numbers the subtitles, like so:

1. "Autumn" – 8:27
   1. "Heroine's Theme" (John Hawken)
   2. "Deep Summer Sleep" (Dave Cousins)
   3. "The Winter Long" (Cousins)
2. "Sad Young Man" (Rod Coombes) – 4:09
3. "Just Love" (Dave Lambert) – 3:41
4. "Shine on Silver Sun" (Cousins) – 2:46

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir knight! ecki ecki ptang etc.

Witchwooder (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Vocals

do vocals go in "music credits" or do i need to make an extra column?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Music credits means songwriting credits. Vocals should go in the extra or note column. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The auto-quotation marks

I would love to be able to use the {{ref}} template next to title tracks, but the quotation marks are wrapped around them. My would-be workaround is shown in Example Two.

Example One

No.	Title	Length
1.	"Song titlenote 1"	4:44

Example Two

No.	Title	Note	Length
1.	"Song title"	note 1	4:44

–Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This probably isn't much better, but...

Example Three

No.	Title	Length
1.	"Song title" ([1])	4:44

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Episode list Template contains a "RTitle" field which can be used to add references or notes, and places them outside of the automatically quoted titles. Perhaps something like this could be added to this template. Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How to Format

I'm currently helping someone make a list of soundtrack article instead of having separate articles. I'm nearly done turning all into tracklist format except for the ones in the Evangelion: The Day of Second Impact, Evangelion: 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance Original Sound Track, and Neon Genesis Evangelion Addition. if anyone can help me, that would be great.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

box width

Is there any way we could make the width of the box a variable with a default of how it is now? That would be appreciated because there are many articles there there is no change of infobox interference, but the width is simply too narrow (the "notes" and credits flow into the next line - this is especialyl common with the extra column. TheHYPO (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe this has been asked in the past (probably frequently), and the response is the box was made to this fixed length to prevent its interference with the infobox in short articles with little more than an infobox and tracklist. (The way they interfere with each other varies by browser.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that; I read above. My question was, could we alter the template so that it has a DEFAULT margin of what it is now, but for articles where it clearly wouldn't interfere, the margin could be changable... So it would only change from the default if the editor actually intended it to, and obviously did so knowing it wouldn't be anywhere near the infobox? TheHYPO (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Usage clarification regarding Music

Okay, so when it comes to Hip-Hop/R&B (and sometimes Pop) music, the term "producer" is applied to the individual who "wrote" the music. This raises a usage issue with this template, since there seems to be a tendency for individuals to disregard the "music" column in favor of using the Extra column for "Producer" when it comes to usage on album pages from these genres. Should this continue to be the method employed on such pages, or should we instead be using the "Music" column for such information? After all, when it comes to the specified genres, the term is applied to the individual responsible for creating the music of the song in question.

So, I'm looking for some discussion, clarification, consensus on this issue. Is using the Extra column preferred, to distinguish from works of art that have their music more traditionally "written" (with sheet music and whatnot, as opposed to being pieced together on a board or whatnot)? Or should these articles be taking advantage of the Music column, since it's there for the creator of... well, the music? A third option (that is likely to be viewed as unnecessary), would be some kind of switch or "Header override" function to the template (if that's at all possible). With that, the Music column header could be altered to "Producer" for articles belonging to a genre where that terminology is more common and still leave the Extra column for other uses.

What is everyone else's thoughts on the matter? - Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 03:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is news to me. I've never heard of "producer" being used to refer to "songwriter". Producers usually belong to a union, and I find it hard to believe a Producer's union would allow the definition, for the purpose of its membership, to vary by genre. Furthermore, songwriters register their creative ownership through a publishing company which collects royalties for them, and I can't see why publishers would call songwriters "producers" for a certain genre. It is true that producers often get a good cut of the profits, and the word "royalties" can apply to either songwriter or producer income, but the producer's profit comes from the record company, while the songwriting royalty comes from the publisher.

Music is not necessarily registered with a publisher using sheet music. A copy of the recording (either the finished product or a demo) can be used. But even so, it is the melody, harmony, and lyrics that are being copyrighted by the publisher, and the actual recording of the song that the producer gets credit for.

When artist B covers a song by artist A, the songwriter (who could be artist A, or the producer of artist A, or someone else altogether) gets the same royalty from both versions, while the producer of artist A's version gets nothing from artist B's record's profits. I can't see this arrangement being different when the genre is different. Can you point us to instances where this is not the case?

Of course there will be cases where the producer is officially credited as a contributor to the songwriting, and this may well be a common occurence in hip hop. But that's not the same thing as saying songwriters get credited as producers, when they had no involement in the recording process, and weren't even in the studio. (If that's what you're saying.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Producer: "Hip hop producer, creates hip hop music using electronic instruments". - Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A producer is not the same thing as a songwriter. Mizery Maid's confusion stems from, I believe, the fact that in contemporary hip hop and R&B (his area of interest), the producer is also frequently one of the song's writers OR (similarly) contributes enough to the track to receive a songwriting credit. Just because the line between the two roles are occasionally blurred does not mean the original definitions change. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, i have a question, for those who compose/arrange the music or song, does that fall in music credits or writing credits???Bread Ninja (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be writing. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)