Template talk:Track listing

Album name + artist

There was an unresolved discussion a couple of years ago in which I said that I'd like to develop this template by including optional album name and artist table headers. It can then be made to emit the hAudio microformat (for which the Extra field is not suitable). For example, in this template's own documentation, "Greatest Hits by Queen" would be part of the template and thus within the resultant HTML table. I'd still like to do that. Any questions, or suggestions as to how best to do it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you mean more specifically? To a simpleton like me with no programming/web experience its hard to picture what you envision. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

[Restored from archives] Sorry I overlooked your reply. For example, instead of:

Side one

No.	Title	Artist	Length
1.	"Into The Fire" (Blackmore/Lord/Paice/Gillan/Glover; from LP Deep Purple in Rock)	Deep Purple
2.	"Mother Dear" (Barclay James Harvest; from LP Barclay James Harvest)	Barclay James Harvest
3.	"Embryo" (Waters; previously unreleased)	Pink Floyd
4.	"Twisted Track" (Spedding/Brown; from LP Mantle-Piece)	The Battered Ornaments
5.	"Glenlogie" (Trad. arr. S. & D. Collins; from LP Love, Death and the Lady)	Shirley & Dolly Collins

We would display

Picnic – A Breath of Fresh Air, side one

No.	Title	Artist	Length
1.	"Into The Fire" (Blackmore/Lord/Paice/Gillan/Glover; from LP Deep Purple in Rock)	Deep Purple
2.	"Mother Dear" (Barclay James Harvest; from LP Barclay James Harvest)	Barclay James Harvest
3.	"Embryo" (Waters; previously unreleased)	Pink Floyd
4.	"Twisted Track" (Spedding/Brown; from LP Mantle-Piece)	The Battered Ornaments
5.	"Glenlogie" (Trad. arr. S. & D. Collins; from LP Love, Death and the Lady)	Shirley & Dolly Collins

and instead of:

All lyrics are written by Roger Waters

Side one

No.	Title	Music	Lead vocals	Length
1.	"Pigs on the Wing (Part I)"	Waters	Waters	1:25
2.	"Dogs"	David Gilmour, Waters	Gilmour, Waters	17:03
Total length:				18:28

we could display:

All lyrics are written by Roger Waters

Pink Floyd, Animals, side one

No.	Title	Music	Lead vocals	Length
1.	"Pigs on the Wing (Part I)"	Waters	Waters	1:25
2.	"Dogs"	David Gilmour, Waters	Gilmour, Waters	17:03
Total length:				18:28

We'd need separate parameters for artist, work and side, but they could be displayed in one line as shown; and styled as desired. By wrapping those parameters in HTML classes, we'd make them readable by computer programmes, as microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a massive need for the use of this field. Could the note field not manually be used? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean artists could be name per track inside the table? I'd like to see that, It's only natural this template will be able to manage compilations nicely, without an abuse of the extra or notes parameters. trespassers william (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that already possible? It's not what this proposal is about. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No; as explained in the previous discussion, that doesn't allow the necessary data granularity, for machine-readability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The need for such parameter is virtually non-existent. When would we have to cover the name of the album, artist, and side if the headline and section title dont already cover? Even then in the headline we would put "Album title (Side X)" if necessary. Overall i find this being too precise with parameters. Its like specifying different type of notes within the note parameter.Lucia Black (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You say "The need for such parameter is virtually non-existent", despite the need being explained both above and in the earlier, referenced discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

your word against mine is basically what you're saying, but your proposal doesnt solve any key issues. It just adds on to the template when there are other ways.Lucia Black (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Which "other ways" would achieve the proposed data granularity and allow metadata to be emitted and gathered? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

what data granularity? Youre making it overly inricate in an unnecessary way. The same with metadata. Youre trying to use ambiguous words to support your idea, which is quite subjective against the layout we have now. Its a tracklist, the header does not need an additional artist, or side parameter. Tracklist would go under the section of an album that mention the artist. if multiple albums in the same article, then we could add paranthesis along side the tracklists. But overall, you havent said how this is a REAL problem. Youre not fooling anyone with big words. Either be straight to the point, or stop.Lucia Black (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The date granularity and metadata referred to earlier. Those terms are specific, not ambiguous, and I've been very much "straight to the point". Adding parentheses will not resolve the issue at hand. I'm not trying to "fool anyone" (an accusation that breaches WP:AGF), which Is why I have provided you with links and explanations to answer your questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No youre not. You have not been specific at all. Sure the words are specific, but not the explanations. Youre most definitely not straight to the point. Not trying to foool anyone? Than elaborate further. All you saying is "add more parameters to fix meadata" but how does that fix that for HTML format? You provided 1 link, but you havents proven anything.Lucia Black (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"not been specific at all"? I have told you:

• [the template] can then be made to emit the hAudio microformat
• I want to add specific fields; that way, we can apply HTML classes to them
• the Extra field is not suitable
• [the proposed] columns are not suitable; because they can also be used for other things, so it's impossible to determine that the data entered actually represents an artist or album name
• I'm suggesting a one-off value in the header [not per-row columns]
• {the proposed fields] would be part of the template and thus within the resultant HTML table
• We'd need separate parameters for artist, work and side
• [This is] for machine-readability
• By wrapping those parameters in HTML classes, we'd make them readable by computer programmes, as microformats.

and provided two mocked up examples.

"1 link"? Here are the links I've provided, so far:

• unresolved discussion
• microformats
• data granularity

You said "there are other ways", but have been unable to give any other way which will achieve this. You are the only editor who is preventing this improvement to the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What im saying is that the problem is non-specific. Show me an example of the issue. You only giving links to terms, but your not "illustrating the problem" you're only saying it, and we just go by your word. Theres also the issue of compilation album and soundtracks that have multiple artists, wont be good idea. This is where i see the root of the discussion:

• • [the proposed] columns are not suitable; because they can also be used for other things, so it's impossible to determine that the data entered actually represents an artist or album name

Thats not what the colums are for. Just used for tracklist info within the article, i dont understand how thats an issue. Its like putting a name for a table sharing the same name for the article or section in it. Please explain how this is a real issue, show me an article with HTML format that cant be readable for a reader. Also im saying there are other ways, as in lets look for alternative. Am i wrong that alternatives dont exist within the universe? If im the only one preventing this, so be it, why does that matter?Lucia Black (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: if we make this change,we can make every album and EP tracklist on understandable to computers; if we don't, we cannot. And yes, your objection is currently the only thing stopping us. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're not being clear and this continues to sound like a subjective issue. You're not getting a real approval either.Lucia Black (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of understanding on your part does not mean lack of clarity on mine. You're the only person objecting; at length - you may have "talked out" other interested parties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Andy, but what you're asking for is the addition of two more optional fields: 'Album title' and 'Artist' - is that correct? If present, those fields would display in-line with the current 'Headline' field? The advantage is then that the entire table becomes self-contained (because all the information is inside it) and is able to be re-used more easily? In addition, you could then (invisibly) add classes throughout the template which makes it compatible with automatic readers of the hAudio microformat - which allows third parties to gather information from us in a standardised format (and obviously works best if title and artist are present)?

Sorry if I'm being a bit slow, but if I've understood your request accurately, then it might also help Lucia Black to understand what you're asking for. I can see it's not a big deal for most folks, but it does seem to me to be a step forward, so it's worth drawing out the details to get consensus on an implementation. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

i. Don't necessarily believe adding these two parameters will automatically help editors using hAudio microformat. Its like trying to push all ifno into a tracklist table. Especially since this won't cover all albums. And yes, lack of clarity. How does this affect "readers"? And is this "improvement" will hav to rework all the other articles with this template. It just doesn't seem worth it. And yes, you continue to lack clarity.Lucia Black (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• The hAudio microformat uses title and artist fields to specify the title and artist of the work. Those are rather essential pieces of information, despite what you may believe.
• We would be doing it for some of the readers, not the editors. We are writing our online encyclopedia for readers, not editors.
• It is "like trying to push" all of the relevant information into the tracklist table. Were you trying to say that missing out the title and artist is a good thing?
• You seem to think that supplying title and artist won't "cover all albums". Would you like to suggest some examples so that we can see what the extent of the problem is?
• The "readers" would be able to re-use our table in its entirety without having to add in other pieces of information just to make sense.
• The "readers" would be able to make use of automatic tools to extract the information in a standardised format.
• The "improvement" would allow "readers" to be able to do things that they can't do now. That is what makes it an "improvement".
• The "improvement" does not rely on you having to rework anything, so don't worry. This is a collaborative project and those who want to add title and artist would be able to do so; at present they can't make the "improvement".
• I'm sorry that you don't find it worth it. Nevertheless, it is worth it because (1) the "improvement" would allow "readers" to be able to make more use of our content, and (2) you don't have to do it.

Is that clear enough for you? --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that tracklist is complimentary table to the article. Its like making the article about the tracklist rather than the tracklist being part of the article. Also we have compilation albums, and articles that cover multiple albums. Isn't that why each track has a writer/music/lyrics parameter? Asking me if I consider not adding an artist/title parameter a good thing is like asking if I consider not having redundancy in the article a good thing.

Also I don't understand how this would allow others to use this. How does not adding a title/artist parameter affect not using the same template? A simple copy-paste won't work? Or are you referring to somewhere outside of Wikipedia? Or does it just make it "easier"? This is an "editor" issue, not a "reader" issue.Lucia Black (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion for a while, and I find RexxS's explanation to be clear; it makes sense. I'm throwing in my support for making this change. It doesn't seem like it will be a problem for the average editor; at most an editor might choose to include information for a couple more fields. This does not seem like an unreasonable burden on editors, and it's not mandatory; if someone chooses not to enter that information, so be it. Someone else can enter it later. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you all do. He initially stated to remove headline/extra parameter because "computers can't understand it". I don't approve for a new artist/title parameter when we already have a headline parameter just for the sake of computers knowing what we're putting. Not only that but no one seems to actually mention any "true" benefits to the reader. You're all elaborating this idea to your own understanding. Each one giving me a different idea. The original poster is merely giving me that "computers will understand" and claims that was as clear as he can be. Now I'm gettting that this also helps re-use the same template (what?) From another editor.

Again, no one has yet to mention the issues of redundancy. Example: Article title "X (album)" and the opening post mentions the artist already. So the template would show "X by Artist" is that really necessary? What's next? A Disc/side parameter?

This "optional" thing still affects the tracklist at a significant way. We will be seeing "redundancy" within the template. HOWEVER the "artist" template would be great if it replaced "All writer" parameter. Same with Lyrics and Music. But other than that, adding two additional parameters somehow fix this "computers understanding the template".

We should only keep the necessity. "Optional" parameters for the sake of somewhat easier for "editors".Lucia Black (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We really do need to get away from thinking that we are building an encyclopedia for the editors. We are doing this clearly and unarguably for the benefit of the readers. That includes folks reading our webpages using normal browsers, smart phones or screen-readers. It also includes sites that mirror our content, or data-mine it like Google, or translate it into their own language because they don't have a developed local Wikipedia. Why shouldn't those users just lift the table ("template" is just what creates the table) and use it however it suits them best? Well, at present, the table doesn't tell you either the artist(s) name(s) or the title of the work and I find it very hard to understand why anyone would invest so much energy to prevent them from having quick and immediate access to that information by putting it in the table. Not only that, but if the title and artist were marked up with <span class="title">...</span> and <span class="artist">...</span> respectively, then a standard microformat can be created allowing our information to be read automatically by the thousands of third-parties who use our site as a source. We could build that inside the template, so editors don't have to worry about html, but it needs separate 'artist' and 'title'. That's why we don't want to just cram 3 different pieces of information into the headline parameter and then have to manually apply the classes around each part. The two extra items of data could still be displayed just before the 'headline' - and I'm pretty sure I've never suggested removing the headline parameter (which would still default to "Track listing", but can also be used for "Side one", etc.)

Redundancy isn't the bad thing you make it out to be. When we write the lead of Golden Brown, we summarise the content of the rest of the article by repeating the artist and the major release dates, as well as the label and the album it was taken from - that's redundancy and it's useful. As the article is developed the lead will grow in size, but it will always create redundancy to give readers a chance to read an overview of the topic. When we add an infobox to Golden Brown we repeat that information again in a very condensed format to let readers grab key facts "at-a-glance" - that's also redundancy and it's also useful. We have no shortage of electrons (or storage space on the servers), so there's no imperative to cut everything down to the bare bones. We serve different audiences with different approaches and it involves duplication, but there's very little cost to that compared to the benefit of meeting the diverse needs of a diverse group of users. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The assertion that "He initially stated to remove headline/extra parameter because 'computers can't understand it'" is false. If you disagree, please cite a diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No such diff has been provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Lead opening post is suppose to summarize the article. So obviously not a good example. And of course infobox may repeat that exact same info for those who want just the basics. Regardless that doesn't justify a third tier of redundancy. For the record, these templates work fine in a smartphone (a bit cramp, but no irregularities). Also no one has actually took a snapshot of what the problem actually looks like for other webpages for readers.

You see, if we have a headline (meant for title and side/disc #), then we add a title parameter, and an arrtist parameter (again, no one seems to answer the gritty issues of this). We might aswell rename "headline" to "Disc" parameter and maybe disc and side parameter shouldn't go together the same way Headline can't have title, and artist. So eventually maybe both disc and side parameters too.

Then we have compilation albums that don't share the same artist for each track. How will this "artist" parameter work? This isn't "necessary" for readers. This is just to satisfy third party to use the template too. The idea of helping those third parties seems optional but in reality to get to it, things will have to be reworked. Let's not forget the one who started this thread also wants to axe the "extra" column.

But it all goes down to: "why help these mirror wiki sites?".Lucia Black (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I already said the lead summarises the article, please try to read what's written. On the contrary, it is a very good example of what we call redundancy. We do it with information all of the time and you are completely wrong to think there is any inherent problem with it.

What you need to see is that there aren't any "gritty issues" with having a template containing an artist and title parameter. You really need to make some attempt to engage in explaining these "issues" that you are imagining. And no, we may as well not start renaming parameters; there is absolutely no need whatsoever to create loads of extra work expecting people to fix all the articles that contain this template by having to rename a parameter for no reason at all. The headline works well now for things like "Track listing" or "Side one" and it will work just as well after we've added artist and title. Why on earth would you even think of changing it to something else? If you want to add disc and side parameters, go ahead and make your suggestion in a separate section, but don't construct strawman arguments so that you can object to something that isn't even proposed.

Do you think that nobody has ever considered the problem of compilation albums before? Just look above: Andy even supplied an example of a compilation album, Picnic – A Breath of Fresh Air and it simply doesn't need to have 'artist' filled in, although an editor could just as easily employ the usual convention of using "Various" or "Various artists". When the option exists, people can make use of it. You, personally, need never fill in an artist or title field if you didn't want to. I still can't understand why you want to prevent those who want that choice from having it.

I reject entirely your assertion that you get to decide that we should only write for what you call "readers", and not for other users of our content. You don't need to rework anything - and if you take the trouble to look above, you can see how little the appearance changes. Axing an extra column? Strawman again.

As for "why help the mirror sites"? (and all the other re-users as well)? Because we can. Because it's our mission to create a world where the whole sum of human knowledge is freely accessible to every person on the planet - and helping spread our knowledge via re-users helps that mission.

What it actually all goes down to is this:

Don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand
For your times they are a-changin'

- Bob Dylan

You need to be lending a hand. --RexxS (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Lucia Black object to this change? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a good reason for why we need an artist parameter? I can only support 70% of it.Lucia Black (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes; and I have done, above and in earlier discussions. My question was "Does anyone other than Lucia Black object to this change?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read through the conversation several times and can't see either a clear need for or against the additional parameter. Can't the artist name etc be manually typed in the current | headline = field? I'm confused as to why we need an additional parameter than ultimately places the new information on the same line as the headline? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, in reply to your questions: "We'd need separate parameters for artist, work and side... By wrapping those parameters in HTML classes, we'd make them readable by computer programmes, as microformats" and "as explained in the previous discussion, [using the existing fields] doesn't allow the necessary data granularity, for machine-readability". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I wanted to check as I wasn't sure what the issue was and I didnt want to give an ignorant POV. I've re-read the discussion and if data granularity is the issue then I support the addition of the new parameter. It does not cause an issue if you choose not to use the parameter nor does it particularly impact upon the template mark-up much. Not sure upon what grounds its being rejected tbh. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Because i dont get swept.up by vague comments. The question is "how". The goal is to remove the ambiguois headline parameter by adding additional parameters we would normally add in. Such as title (when multiple albums have different names and are in the same section, and disc and side aswell.) But the artist does not provide that, it does not help computers understand because its not necessary to add in the tracklist. In fact it looks odd having that particular parameter for being overly redundant. And the problem is that why give the option to make a tracklist look ugly and redundant? Andy continues to be vague, and he continues to stay that way so others can find their own interpretation and not see the flaw in his proposal. Thats why RexxS stopped, thats why MoustageMM stopped. Lucia Black (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. You may not get swept up by vague comments, but you seem to have been swept up by false assumptions:

• "The goal is to remove the ambiguois headline parameter" - Nowhere has this been proposed.
• "the artist does not provide that" - Nor is it claimed or proposed that it would do so.

As to "why RexxS and MoustageMM stopped [sic]", I'll let them speak for themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats it. This is poinless. Im bringing it to dispute resolution. Youve avoided clarification long enough.Lucia Black (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"thats why MoustageMM stopped" Please do not presume to speak for me. (Also, please learn how to read/spell, you weren't even close on my name). I have made my support for this addition clear. I have mostly stopped replying because I said everything that needed to be said, and did not feel that arguing with you would be productive. You refuse to read (or perhaps you simply don't understand) the points made by various editors above, and it seems that any attempt to help you understand is rebuffed; you simply don't want this change to be made, and refuse to change your position. Oh, and I've understood what Andy has written, and RexxS's explanation further clarified his position. I haven't seen any "vague"-ness here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

A disc, a side, and a Title parameter, but no "Artist" parameter as we already have the "All writer" parameter. RexxS, read the first two posts of the one who started this thread.Lucia Black (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, "title" parameter would be used mainly if multiple tracklist are within the same article/section.Lucia Black (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how your proposed solution will supply an artist-name to the hAudio microformat? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There's already a "all writers" parameter. We also have individual writer, music, lyrics parameteer for each track. Also the "Artist" parameter won't be useful as there are compilation albums that were not all composed by the same person. Its not necessary for hAudio to cover it because not even the normal tracklist covers it. Its an additional aspect. If people want to read the tracklist and somehow skip it all, maybe, but tracklist is part of the article, not the other way around. Please explain why artist is necessary to cover hAudio format within an article that already mentions the artist (probably twice if infobox is used).Lucia Black (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your lengthy reply. Unfortunately, though I asked you to "explain how your proposed solution will supply an artist-name to the hAudio microformat", you have not done so. Please do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't, that's part of the compromise.Lucia Black (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Please now explain why you think it would not be useful to pass the artist name with the hAudio microformat, for albums by one artist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The same reason we never added them in the first place, overly redundant and that's what "all writers"parameter is for. And it seems you recognize the "artist" parameter isn't a universal parameter for all albums. That's also why title parameter would be necessary when multiple tracks are lumped together "special, extended, limited editions" with varying track lists). If you want this, we should keep the bare necessities.Lucia Black (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

All_writing doesn't help if the songs were written by a specific member. If John Doe of The Musicians Band wrote all the songs, that doesn't export "The Musicians Band", it exports "John Doe".

For albums that don't contain a single artist (ie compilations), the parameter can be left blank. But instead of focusing on corner cases, look at the overall use of the template. Most albums have one single artist, and this would be useful information to extract from the template. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am, its unnecessary and there's no real benefit to hAudio. Its not necessary and this makes this template resemble an infobox. Example: List of Episodes table template don't have at the top "TV series by "creator". Its redundant. Single artist albums would have the opening post, and the infobox to mention the artist, why repeat it thrice?Lucia Black (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What "opening post"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Your argument for not passing the artist name with the hAudio microformat for albums by one artist is that it would be redundant? Redundant to what? |all_writers= is not suitable for passing to the hAudio microformat, as others have explained. Yes, I recognise the "artist" parameter isn't a universal parameter for all albums; I have never claimed otherwise and that negates one of the points I have made. I am unsure why you consider that statement relevant. Since I asked about "albums by one artist", your comments about compilations appear to be red herrings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The "need" for an "artist" parameter is non existent. Explain (in detail) how the artist parameter is necessary for readability in hAudio. Wasn't the point to avoid parameters that computers can't understand? If I understood you correctly, axing the Headline and replace with Title, disc, side parameters so all three won't be jumbled up into one ambiguous parameter? So then why a single "artist" parameter above the tracklist as part of the headline if artist was never really necessary even now in regular format? It doesn't add up to your previous argument because this is an "additional" parameter compared to the rest.Lucia Black (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My question was "Redundant to what?". You appear to have neglected to answer it. Please do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did answer that. It would be redundant to the article info. The opening paragraph mentions the "artist" and even the infobox aswell. If tracklist had neither opening paragraph nor infobox to state the artist, then of course an artist parameter would be ideal. But stop trying to control the discussion. I've answered your questions (even if they weren't directed towards you), you have not answered mine.Lucia Black (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My question was not about article content. It was about your allegation of redundancy in the context of the usefulness of "passing the artist name with the hAudio microformat for albums by one artist". You have yet to address that point. Please do; and please refrain from making bogus accusations that I am "trying to control the discussion". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Rereading, and don't see any of my comments having that exact wording. Maybe you didn't understand the "allegation". The redundancy is related to the article's content as the template falls in the article. Plus not necessary to understand tracklist even for computers.Lucia Black (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked "Please now explain why you think it would not be useful to pass the artist name with the hAudio microformat, for albums by one artist". You answered "The same reason we never added them in the first place, overly redundant...". If that's not what you meant, please now explain why you think it would not be useful to pass the artist name with the hAudio microformat, for albums by one artist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't get you, now you quote me accurately, but don't elaborate on the issue. Instead you divert by asking "if that's not what you meant...". I say its overly redundant and the redundancy is related to article content. The template is complimentary to the article, not a stand-alone template. Not that difficult to understand.Lucia Black (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see the problem now. You think the template should never stand alone. I assure you that when our content is re-used, lots of people will use it on its own, so why not help them out by supplying all the information so that they can use it that way if they want to? What does it cost us? --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy and unnecessary is the cost for wikipedia. I assure you, no one is going to add the tracklist template on its own. Why not release date? Catalog #? Type of disc? Vinyl LP, compact disc, Hd CD?

No one is going to add a tracklist by itself. And by itself, literally an empty page with only the tracklist. Come on, be practical.Lucia Black (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a fair compromise. Wikipedia shouldn't cater to those who wish to re-use our content even then, no one is being realistic about it. No one is going to add artist onto their tracklist even outside of wikipedia. Andy Mabbett continues to evade the question of why its necessary at all for hAudio microformat. And I feel you play devil's advocate too much because it didn't seem you understood the so-called "problem" which is parameters can be used by multiple aspects "headline" and "extra". So it was confusing when you supported "title" and "artist" but didn't follow the goal of the proposal by leaving "side" and "disc" into the same parameter "headline".

But even then, I support as long as it doesn't affect wikipedia's set up. And the only parameter that does is the superfluous "artist" parameter. The "title" parameter would be used if multiple tracklist are in the same section (by different title or different disc).Lucia Black (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has more server space than you could use in a hundred lifetimes of writing, so please don't worry about the cost of redundancy. I assure you lots of re-users will use the track listing on its own. You really need to free yourself from your preconceived notions that re-users are simply copying our format as well as our content. A re-user may be compiling a catalogue of albums and their track listings (rather than collecting complete encyclopedia articles). Wikipedia is an excellent source for that, but a track listing that is missing the album title is pretty useless - and it seems crazy not to give the artists for the majority of albums that are not compilations. That's why those two parameters are necessary. --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You provide nothing but empty claims. Stop worrying about other people who want to use wikipedia's template. Why would a tracklist.template be useless without an artist template? The redundancy issue has nothing to do with servers but readability. The artist and title info are basically info expressed in prose. The only reason why title is necessary because multiple tracklist in the same article would have different names. But thats the only reason why. If there is only one tracklist, then a title parameter would be ridiculous to add as it makes it redundant. Pointing out the obvious for no reason. Even more redundant to add artist. And you jut proved my point, this artist parameter wont fit with compilation album or albums with no specific artist/producer. So how can you call it "crazy" not to add them if this only covers single artist albums? again, i say, be practical.Lucia Black (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't be so rude and don't tell me what I need to be concerned about. What on earth are you talking about a tracklist.template be.useless without an artist template? Nobody's said that the tracklist template is useless without an artist template. On the other hand, a tracklist is clearly useless without the name of the work. Here are the microformats that we should be providing to our re-users (in some order):

<div class="hAudio">
  ...
  <span class="::you dodnt explain title">Animals</span>
  ...
  <span class="artist">Pink Floyd</span>
  ...
  <table class="tracklist">
    ... {''the track data''} ...
  </table>
</div>

or

<div class="hAudio">
  ...
  <span class="title">Picnic – A Breath of Fresh Air</span>
  ...
  <span class="artist"></span>
  ...
  <table class="tracklist">
    ... {''the track data''} ...
  </table>
</div>

In the second example you can see quite clearly how we would handle empty artist fields. At this point, your refusal to listen to explanations is becoming disruptive and I am no longer prepared to assume good faith in your comments here, particularly after you have attempted to spill this debate onto my talk page. This is the place for discussion of this template, not elsewhere. I'm prepared to explain a few times in order to seek consensus, but a single irrational voice cannot be taken to block consensus without providing coherent reasoning. --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

you have yet to explain how how an artist parameter is necessary at all. Irrational? Is it irrational to not want a completely unnecessary, and superfluous parameter that provides little to no benefits (both in wikipedia and out).Title is necessary, but artist is unnecessary

Consensus

So is there consensus here to make this change yet? Only one editor disagrees, and they have not provided any good reasons for their position, just "I don't want it there, it's redundant" (which as explained above, is not a good reason for opposing a change, as many areas of Wikipedia show redundancy that we nonetheless include, leads and infoboxes being good examples), and "not every single article will use the artist parameter" (which can be answered simply: do not use the parameter on those articles). Consensus doesn't require 100% agreement from all editors, just that the reasons made for the change are reasonable and helpful to the project. Does anyone have any good reasons against this change? Please make sure you cite policy when giving these reasons against the change. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Why offer a completely optional, completely unnecessary parameter, and not been proven to help HTML and hAudio format that offers nothing but redundncy? I provide a.clear reason why we shouldnt. You all spit out the same thing but never elaborate. No one provided a good reason why the artist parameter is necessary. No other tracklist in wikipedia or even outside of wikipedia adds general artist. Not to mention the continuous dodging of not all albums have one universal artist/producer. I can understand title, disc, and even side but artist is pushing a combination of tracklist and info box. No one here provided a good reason at al, Andy continues to dodge questions, RexxS is more worried about things outside of wikipedia, and you go along with it.Lucia Black (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are writing this encyclopedia for everybody on this planet, and that does indeed include lots of people outside of Wikipedia. So yes, I do worry about them as well. I support adding the two extra fields for artist and title of the work, while retaining the headline field to do precisely the job it does now. I don't think there's any value in restating what I've already said above, and that's the principle reason I've not added anything else to this debate. --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Because i already countered your points. You literally have nothing left to say that can.actually help your supposed cause. the goal is to make a universal encyclopedia for everyone. not to cater to them so that they can use our templates. Not to mention other sites use other templates.that can be used. Both of.you have this "hear-say" attitude.Lucia Black (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep your commentary on the issues, not on the editors. Our goal is far wider than writing an encyclopedia - it is to provide every person with the sum of human knowledge, and the more partners we use to spread our content, the closer that goal becomes. --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

control over column width

Is it possible? See Voices in the Wilderness, where much info is squeezed on the right column, while titles are short and leave wasted space. trespassers william (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

At present, there is no provision for custom column widths. The template has seven columns defined, although no more than six may actually be shown. Three of the columns are always present: of these, the "No." and "Length" columns are fixed-width, but "Title" may be 100% wide if there are no optional columns; 60% if there is one optional column; 40% if there are two; or 30% if there are three. Note that although there are four optional columns, it's not possible to have all four present, because "Lyrics" and "Music" only appear when "Writer(s)" is absent. The four optional columns - "Writer(s)", "Lyrics", "Music", and that set by |extra_column= - occupy a percentage of the remaining width, the calculation of which is based upon the choice of columns that are to be shown. If one is present, it's 40% wide; if there are two, both are 30%; if three, 20%.

What I would do with Voices in the Wilderness is to add a serious amount of text, sufficient to push the tracklisting below the infobox, so that it can use that big blank strip up the right-hand side. If you can't add enough text, pop a {{clear}} in between the section heading and the track listing template. Whether that goes above or below the "All songs composed by John Zorn." bullet is a matter of taste. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is all that information in the track listing template anyway? It should be moved to a Personnel section per WP:MOSALBUM#Personnel. Then this issue need not even exist. I'm also not sure why it's in a wikitable, that is completely unnecessary. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Now there should be no width concerns with the track listing template. I didn't look through the names of the personnel, but any duplicated should be delinked per WP:REPEATLINK. Additionally, instruments should be linked per WP:MOSALBUM. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You can use {{-}} to create a section break so the track listing isn't squashed by the infobox. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried template:clear before and was not happy with the space between lead and section. I don't see how {{-}} is better, but tried something else just now. isn't it neater? trespassers william (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I mean, I didn't like disc one skewed by the box and disc two streched and enveloping it from below. trespassers william (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Performed by" parameter?

Is there a way to display the track name, length, performer(s), writer(s) and producer(s), each with their own column? See Music from Baz Luhrmann's Film The Great Gatsby for context. Right now the performers are added as parenthetical notes; I think performers should display as a column, especially since people are more interested in performers than producers. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not use the |extra_column for the performer instead of producer, and then instead list producers in the personnel section. It is done like this in a lot of album pages. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

reference parameter

It might be good to add a parameter to deal with a reference. Some articles are using the all_writing parameter which places the reference before a period and others just dump it after the whole table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)