Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox album

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr Rhys (talk | contribs) at 09:07, 30 December 2009 (→‎Release Date). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sandbox edits

Hey folks,

Can we make the text for this template the same as the text used for Infobox Single Template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PK2 (talk • contribs)

Not a fan of the small text. I've noticed a trend lately of infoboxes moving to smaller text, generally because "the infobox takes up too much room, and this makes it smaller". But that's a reason to reconsider some of the box's contents and trim unnecessary parameters, not to shrink the text. There's no reason why the text in the infobox should be any smaller than the text in the rest of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with doing so, as long as my chronology font size changes, which were incorporated into {{Infobox Single}}, are in this one as well. To address IllaZilla's concern: I strongly believe in sitewide uniformity, especially for infoboxes, and most of the other infoboxes have already been changed to include the smaller font size. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the smaller font size myself, but as of now it's going to be just about impossible to reverse the current trend. Timmeh 00:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, all infoboxen would use the {{infobox}} base class, which means that should there ever be a move to increase the default size then we can do those of the entire project at once. Anyway, I'll try to prepare the sandbox for syncing this template with the others now that the single infobox has been migrated to the new metrics. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a specific diff showing the edit and I will be happy to help. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox now contains a fully {{infobox}}ed implementation, which actually passes more of the test cases than the current deployed version. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I made a small tweak due to the Released label not appearing, but it appears to be fine now. Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Please make the font size bigger; its difficult to read and looks silly when compared to the article text. Dan56 (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That font size is now used on the majority of Wikipedia's infobox templates. If you disagree with the size chosen, the best place to argue it would be on template talk:infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text support

As per WP:ALT images should have alt text, for WP:ACCESSIBILITY by the visually impaired. Please install this obvious sandbox patch to add support for a new Alt parameter. I've checked it with the testcase and have documented it. Eubulides (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checked; looks good to me. Please make the change.  Chzz  ►  17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Plastikspork (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not have it default to display 'Album cover' as the alternate text? Flowerparty☀ 00:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you want to add a default, but I believe the question is if that would be helpful for someone using a screen reader? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, never mind - I thought the alt text was what displays when you hold your cursor over an image, but apparently it's something different. Flowerparty☀ 01:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New look

Come on, the new look is hard to read, text is too small. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Text is far too small. — Σxplicit 05:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I see no reason why the text in the infobox should be a different size from the text in the article body. Simply saying "other infoboxes do it this way" isn't sufficient; why do other infoboxes do it this way? Is there a useful reason for it? My impression is that most people feel something to the effect of "it looks less cluttered this way, and the box takes up less room." But IMHO that's a reason to reduce the amount of info we're trying to cram into the infobox, not a reason to shrink the text. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? --IllaZilla (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with IllaZilla. Standardization is a good thing in general, but not when it has clear drawbacks. Get the infobox base template to fit our needs and then apply it. —Gendralman (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Too small, no real reason for it to be so small. If it's really that busy in the infobox then you can use <small> tags. They did this to Template:Infobox Song and Single recently too, no idea why. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WAY too small. Can't even read the text in some sections. Dt128 14:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've discussed this in the past at Template talk:Infobox Music genre#less extreme makeover, where your conclusion appeared to be the opposite of that above.
This has been repeatedly discussed on other template talk pages as they have been migrated to use the {{infobox}} defaults. I'd advise those replying above to look into those discussions. It is unsurprising that when a change like this is made that a lot of knees are jerked, but considering that a majority of the rest of the project seems to be coping with the smaller font size I would hardly say that it was illegible. I'll happily cook up an edit which increases the font size of the next/previous section, though, as it is a little too small. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewquesting re-sync to fix the exceedingly small font size on the next/previous section of the box. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over Template talk:Infobox as far back as last April and the only discussion I have found related to changing the font size is this one which pertains to discrepancies between different browsers. Again, it seems to me that these sweeps of changes are being made "because other infoboxes do it this way" without anyone asking why it's done this way. Why does the basic infobox template use a smaller font size than the main article text? And why are we compelled to do the same? It seems to me that no one has bothered to ask these questions, despite many people complaining that the font is too small. I'm open to any compelling reasons as to why it's advantageous for the infobox text and the article text to be different sizes. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to my comments at the genre infobox linked above, my chief concern was for consistency across music-related infoboxes. I would rather that they all had the same size text as the article body, but looking at the discussion again I'm led to believe that the reason for the smaller size is because it renders the same in different browers? Is this correct? I'm not good with these kinds of technical issues. Is there a larger size that could be used that is closer to that used in the main article text, but would not cause discrepancies across different browsers? --IllaZilla (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that would be something best discussed centrally. Now that we use {{infobox}} here, if ever a decision is made to change the default font size then we will benefit from that automatically. My chief concerns here are making our templates as homogenous, easy to use and accessible as possible, and the music project has made significant inroads on that recently. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have removed the 'font-size:0.8em' from the album chronology section as requested. Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is one additional problem: {{Extra chronology 2}} is used to add an extra album chronology to the infobox. Consequently the font size of its chronology should be the same as for {{Infobox Album}} otherwise it looks inconsistent. Take a look at Together for an example, and you will see that the font size in "The Supremes chronology" is larger than the one in "The Temptations chronology". Likewise, {{Extra chronology 2}} is used to add an extra album chronology to {{Infobox Single}}; consequently, the chronology font size in all three templates has to be the same. A good test case for a single with two chronologies is "Under Pressure". Besides this minor problem, I like the new layout. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there was another discussion on the font size of the chronology section here: Template_talk:Infobox_Single#Chronology_font_size. It seems like some changes were done at that point, but it's a bit too technical for me to follow. – IbLeo (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather that the singles infobox were adjusted to just use the default size for the chronology section; I wasn't opposed to the change to make it smaller at the time, but given the comments here I'd rather we moved to keeping everything at the same size. I've updated the singles sandbox to make that change, along with adjusting {{Extra chronology 2}}, and posted a comment on the singles talk page at template talk:infobox Single#Update. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't have any preference for the actual font size of the chronology sections - only that it is the same in all three templates. – IbLeo (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my chief concern as well, but I do sympathise with the comments that we should not be making elements small for the sake of it. Once the singles box is updated (if that happens) then we'll be fully consistent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with removing the font size override for the chronology is that it makes the items in the chronology seem abnormally large in comparison to the rest of the infobox text. This was addressed here already. Also, the revert to the default font size really shouldn't have happened yet. You need to give editors more than just a few hours to weigh in. Timmeh 16:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put in an editprotected for the chrono change; I'd expected it to be discussed before being rolled out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left Plastikspork a message regarding his implementation. Timmeh 16:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I changed it prematurely. I will be happy to revert it to either 'font-size:88%' or 'font-size:0.85em' or whatever is preferred. It would seem as though it would be useful to have the same font-size for all three pages? Thanks and sorry about that! Plastikspork (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consensus was to reduce the chronology font size to 88% for Infobox Single. This apparently caused an inconsistency with this template. Since this template has the same problem with the default size, I suggest reducing it for this template as well until and if consensus is reached to change it back to the default size. Timmeh 16:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
eraser Undone I changed both back to 'font-size: 88%'. Sorry for jumping the gun. Plastikspork (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It'd be best to wait a few days to allow for other editors to voice their opinion on the font size. Then the change can be reinstated if consensus is in favor of doing so. Timmeh 16:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We should try to make sure the discussion is centralized for all three templates to prevent future inconsistent changes and to alert any interested editors. Thanks again for pointing out my premature change to the template. Plastikspork (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please revert all of this until we actually agree to even use {{infobox}}? —Gendralman (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling. Discussion is ongoing, and there is no requirement for consensus prior to editing in the first place. The only potentially controversial issue here is the font size, which can easily be altered from the infobox version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it and then implement it. At the moment there's no advantage to this and people hate it. —Gendralman (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, no one has said why the font has to be so small? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several advantages - the code is significantly shorter, easier to read and maintain and will dynamically adapt to any future improvements in the base class. The template now uses the same font metrics as the vast majority of the rest of the project's infoboxes, which unsurprisingly contains nearly every major music-related template (none of which have resulted in this level of noise when converted). Even if the font size is changed, there is absolutely no reason to revert to the pre-{{infobox}} version when we can just add one line of CSS to the current version to correct that. Lastly, the issue was originally raised centrally months ago, which passed without protest, so the implication that the above responses are representative of the community doesn't seem to be valid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we can do that (add a CSS line to fix this) then I support this completely. —Gendralman (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
disabled pending continued discussion and consensus on the best way to sort the font size issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question

Are the objections to the new look exclusively directed toward the font size in the album chronology section? Or are there other objections? It would be great if we could try to address the specific objections or non-objections. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of discussion, I have restored the sandbox to the 2008 version. You can see the difference by looking at the test cases page, unless someone has changed it since I last changed it. I personally don't see a major difference in font size. Plastikspork (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix broken microformat

Despite the warning in the docuemntation, this edit removed the class="summary" attribute. Please replace it, by adding:

aboveclass=summary

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- RockMFR 00:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

When the argument for the artist field is wikilinked, the template links twice to the artist article, contrary to WP:OVERLINK. The second link, in "Artist chronology" needs to be removed. Anyone know how to effect this?  Skomorokh  18:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a field called 'chronology' that you can use. Put in the artist's name in plain text (Chronology = Artist) and the second instance won't be linked. Flowerparty☀ 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the album

I think that length of the album should be specified in hours, minutes and seconds, if it is longer than one hour. James Michael 1 (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the industry standard, though. Albums & film runtimes are nearly always calculated in minutes rather than hours. I'm not really sure why, but it is what it is. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a reason to do it that way here, although what you say is true when it comes to DVD "TV season" box sets which force you to convert 300+ minutes to hours when you're looking at it in a store. But why do you (James) feel this is a problem for albums? Most CDs are a single disc with less than 80 minutes run time, which is no problem to convert to 1 hour plus so many minutes, if there is a need to do that. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, leave the running time in munites, but use hours and minutes when the set as a whole is over 90 minutes (1:30:00). MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 02:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra cover and chronology 3

Hey people,

I was wondering if you could add up an extra cover and chronology as I need them for several projects in the future, and I am sure that other people would like this. Many artists and bands have more than one alternative covers and split CD's are often 3 and even 4 way splits, which would make a 3 chronology come in handy. Just a though. -- User:Petternitter (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2009 (GMT +1)

Many articles use more than one alternate image. Just use the extra cover parameter more than once. I believe the alternate chronology parameter can be reused too. Try it in a user sandbox page, and let us know if it doesn't work. Please add your posts to the bottom of talk pages, because they won't be noticed if posted at the top. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caption size

{{editrequest}} In July we changed several caption sizes (making them bigger, i.e. normal sized for readability) and noted that captions in all "extra chronology" templates should be changed to match. I notice caption size of Template:Extra album cover 2 is small while the caption for the main album cover is normal. I suspect this was overlooked. Can we change the extra album cover template? I'll post a note on Plastikspork's page; he is the admin who made the previous change. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember if there was a reason to keep the font smaller. Enlarging the font to match seems like a reasonable idea, unless I am missing something. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed, I would fully support a standardisation. – IbLeo (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The caption size for {{Infobox album}} is set by a parameter (or lack there of) sent to {{Infobox}}. Currently, there is no value being set, hence the caption size is just the default text size for the first album cover. To match this, I removed the style statement in {{Extra album cover 2}}, which was explicitly setting the caption size. Hopefully, this doesn't cause any problems. If it does, please revert, and we can try to resolve the issues. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Audiosample no work

Tried to use the template {{Audiosample}} to incorporate an audio sample into an {{Infobox album}}, as suggested at Template:Infobox_album#Misc, but had a problem. Looks like the template {{Audiosample}} is broken. I have described the problem over at Template_talk:Audiosample. I am mentioning this here as the template {{Audiosample}} looks to be seldom visited. HairyWombat (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying over there. It's not broken: the confusion is that "adds a captioN" does not mean "adds a user-provided caption". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested, over there, a change to the template {{Audiosample}}. HairyWombat (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split albums

Hi people,

This might have been discussed before, but I reckon it should be considered to implement a separate type for all Split releases; albums, EPs, singles etc. I understand this would require a whole bunch of new colour codes and would make the type list very extensive, so my though was that we could have a type that generates the 'Split' part of the text and a colour code whilst users can customly add the appropriate ending, such as 'album', 'EP', 'single' etc. I think this would work better than having Split releases marked with types like Studio album and EP. They are these types, though they are split releases making them something different from the norm, hence should be in some way seperated from the standard Studio albums and EPs.

Just a though.

Kindest, Petternitter (talk) 9:51 am, November 17 2009 (GMT)

Both {{Infobox Album}} and {{Infobox single}} already support splits, just not as a separate color. A split release is still either a single, an EP, or an album, so they use those colors. Simply put both artists' names in the "Artist" field and use the "Chronology" parameter in conjunction with {{Extra chronology 2}} to create 2 separate chronologies for the 2 artists. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you insert the participating artists or bands in the in the "Artist" field, the Chronology section will use both names as the headline. I understand this can be avoided by adding 2 additional chronologies, however generating an own type for split which implements this feature would be easier. But yes, I agree that Splits are still studio albums, EPs, singles etc., hence I understand that the suggestion for an own colour with be incorrect.
Kindest,
Petternitter (talk) 2:45 am, November 18 2009 (GMT)

Mix albums

There is currently no provision for mix albums, that are compiled by artists. (See DJ mix). In articles like these: The Trip: Created by Snow Patrol and Late Night Tales: Snow Patrol, using "mix" as the type generates the pink-ish color, and the page gets added to the hidden category (albums with non standard infoboxes). Both albums are one of their respective series, so its not that its a rare type of release. The latter (Late Night Tales) being the 22nd album in that series. Can this type of album be added and have a separate color code of its own? The closest thing to it might be "compilation". However, a compilation is typically a greatest hits album, and it'll usually contain the artist's original work. The Mix albums however are compiled by songs taken from different artists, so there's a difference. Its not "remix" either, as those albums contain only remixed versions of original content, which is not the case in "mix". Suede67 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation album is not restricted merely to "greatest hits". It also refers to collections of works by various artists (for example the NOW series). If these mix albums you're referring to are compiled by Snow Patrol, but are composed entirely of songs by other artists with no remixing or new recording, then they are compilation albums. A "mix album" or "mix tape" is a compilation album. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware of that, thank you. Suede67 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly removing the "Professional reviews" field

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Reviews in infobox: scrap? regarding the possible removal of the "Professional reviews" field from this infobox. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion there. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Type - add "Mini album"

I think it would be useful to add "Mini-album" to the list of Types. At present these either get classed as "Studio" or "EP", the latter being completely incorrect. Certainly back in the pre-CD days, vinyl mini-LPs were fairly common, and were never classed as EPs, and it really annoys me to see them classed as "EP" out of either ignorance or the lack of any other suitably descriptive category.--Michig (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that mini-album can't be a type of EP. "Mini-album" is a marketing term used in certain countries and eras. If you take a wider view of the marketing strategies used from many decades and in many countries, you will find hundreds (well, at least dozens) of terms that have come and gone. "EP" can be used in retrospect for anything between a single and an album, and while an article should refer to the record by whatever term was used to market it, we don't need "type" parameters for all these. Keep in mind the parameter mainly exists to change the colour of the heading bar. We already have more types than colours in use (several similar types will use the same colour),and if we created a mini-album type, we would probably use the EP colour. So I don't see the point in creating this new parm value. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rethinking reply above: the parm does put "EP by..." in the heading bar, so perhaps your suggestion is valid. I did an archive search and found no previous discussion on the topic. Yep, I'm going to change my mind and agree with the proposal! But it should use the EP heading colour. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A "mini album" is either an album or an EP, unless I'm misunderstanding their nature and Michig can explain it better or would like to provide some examples. If it's just a term for a short album, well then it's still a studio album, isn't it? If it's synonymous with EP, then there's really no problem labeling them as EPs (which is an industry standard term, whereas I've never seen the term "mini album" used). Either way this is a problem that can be fixed with editing and doesn't require an entirely new type for the template, much the same way that we rejected "maxi single" and a number of other types as superfluous & redundant to the existing types. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mini-LPs were generally 12" LPs with 7 or 8 tracks and were shorter than "full-length" EPs. Good examples are My Bloody Valentine's This is Your Bloody Valentine and Ecstasy, and Pixies' Come On Pilgrim, all of which were released as mini-albums, all of which were classified as albums by their record labels and the chart compilers, and all of which are currently wrongly classified as 'EP' in the articles here. I would be happy to have these listed as "Studio albums" but unfortunately there appear to be a number of editors here who consider anything shorter than a "full length" to be an EP, largely based on recentist concepts of album length - in the pre-CD days, albums were generally 30-40 minutes long, and EPs around 10-15 minutes long. It's wrong to retrospectively reclassify these releases as EPs.--Michig (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think they ought to just be changed to studio albums, and the problem editors pointed to the proper articles explaining the evolution of the album format. I don't see a need to create a whole new infobox type to solve an editing dispute. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that of the current types, Studio album is the most suitable. My suggestion for adding a new type was to remove the need for anyone to reach an opinion on which of the existing types was most appropriate.--Michig (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm what Michig says, "mini-album" was an actual marketing category briefly popular for a very short time in the UK in the early 1980s, but it never really caught on. A timing of 20 to 25 minutes was about average.
As a side note, one has to be careful when making generalizations about "general" album length. Even going back to the 1950s, one can find albums ranging anywhere from 22 to 60 minutes in length (the latter being not uncommon for classical music; spoken word albums can be even longer). Trying to define a typical length can become very POV.
For that matter, there is no typical length or definition for an EP across all eras. In the 1950s and 1960s, an EP was always a 7 inch disc, usually with 4 songs and a total playing time of 10 to 12 minutes. By the 1980s, an EP was usually a 12 inch disc with a longer playing time, and was often lumped in with 12-inch singles. In central Europe, a "maxi-single" was an "extended length" 12-inch 45 rpm record, which could have either 2 long tracks, or more than 2 tracks to reach an extended length, therefore a "maxi-single" could be either a single or an EP. Michig's suggestion of 10 to 15 minutes for an 80s EP could be a good average, but I have seen some that run up to 35 minutes (which is getting into album length), and are only called EPs or maxi singles by virtue of their having just the title track on side one, and the aim of gaining a charting on the singles charts. The style of packaging is also to be considered; 12-inch singles and some 12-inch EPs used a no-frills style of cover, often with lighter cardboard and no "spine", while mini-albums often used more detailed covers typical of albums.
But this gets us back to the question of what an EP is. Really an EP is supposed to be a "little album" and not just a long single. In the era of 12-inch singles, it was the record industry that lost sight of the EP's original intention. You complained about "editors here who consider anything shorter than a 'full length' to be an EP", but record companies in the 1980s were guilty of that too. And since that's how they used and marketed the term, it has become a legitimate definition, if not a universal one.
So to bring it back to the question: An EP means many different things. Sometimes a mini-album is just a kind of EP (that is to say, a certain kind of EP), and sometimes it isn't. In your last response, you seemed to agree a mini-album is more like a type of album. But I'd suggest sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. You wanted to create a field to save the editor from making a decision on whether the article they are trying to create is about something that is more like a kind of EP, or a kind of album. So I'll suggest that we probably should force them to make that decision, by only giving them a choice of EP and album. (And sorry, but that means I'm changing sides again, and am now opposed to the "mini-album" parameter value. Also sorry for such a long response. It's my bad habit!) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, an EP is and always has been an "extended play" single (hence the name), not a "little album". Mini-albums, in contrast were albums, but not as long as most, often due to budget constraints. They were fairly common throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. A release is only ever a mini-album if it was marketed as such - these were classified as albums by the chart companies, the main difference to the consumer was reduced price compared to "full-length" (whatever that means) albums. This is really where the distinction is. Record shops would put 12" EPs and 12-inch singles together, and they would put LPs and mini-LPs together. I'd be happy if we could agree that all LPs, whether "mini" or "full-length", should be classed as "Studio album", but a lot of editors seem to find it hard to see a 20-minute LP as an "album" these days. I guess you have to be old enough to have been around before CDs to understand it.--Michig (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but are you old enough to remember EPs of the 50s? Especially when RCA was trying to market the 45 rpm record in competition to 33 rpm, and created the EP as a direct response to albums? Or when EPs were often just selected tracks from an album (using the same cover art), or an entire album split up into "volume 1, 2, 3" EPs (in the 1950s in the USA, and into the very early 1960s in the UK)? That's what I mean by having a wider POV. Also, your experience of seeing mini albums marketed a certain way in shops, makes me think you saw this in the UK, but you would probably not have seen that at any time in North America (not to mention most of the world). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have one or two "old" EPs, and even those old ones, e.g. the Beatles and Kinks ones were extended singles in format. Yes, the mini-albums that I'm talking about were from the UK. Would I have seen these in North America? Frankly, it's irrelevant - we're discussing UK releases, so the way they were classified in the UK is all that matters.--Michig (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming your old EPs have covers, look again at how the covers are laid out. They are nothing like singles covers, but were trying to be something presented like a tiny little album with four songs. And even those are not the "real" original type of EP that came out in the USA in the early 1950s, to compete with the LP format. Anyway, you can't drive Wikipedia policy from the way records (mini albums) were classified in one country. (Which is a bad argument anyway; the mini album format existed in other countries too, including the USA.) To get the discussion back on track, do you think that all (so-called) mini albums are better associated with albums rather than singles, so that our template would be right in making that decision for the editor? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certification parameter

Can a parameter for Certification be added, just as there is one for singles in {{Infobox single}}? It seems almost ridiculous that there is not already a parameter for this. Adabow (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would be appropriate. Firstly, {{Infobox single}} gives no explanation of how it's to be used. Secondly, album certifications are different in every country (both the sales thresholds and the types of certifications given), so for popular albums this would lead to a lot of infobox clutter. Thirdly, the vast majority of albums don't reach any significant sales certifications, so it would only apply to the minority of articles. In summation, sales certifications are best left to the body sections of the article, presented in either prose or table format (such as 21st Century Breakdown#Chart performance...trying to cram a dozen certifications into the infobox is a horrible idea). --IllaZilla (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, by why does {{Infobox single}} contain this parameter when both your second and third points apply there? Adabow (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I've never seen it used. It should probably be removed. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra chronology 3

In reference to extra chronology 3 above, adding a second extra chronology 2 does not work, as evidenced by Cry Cry Cry (band) Any thoughts on how to fix this? Nlaporte (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Misc" parm can only be used once, but you can add several sub-template calls within one "misc". The infobox has been repaired. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

Hi everyone,

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, so I'm going to go ahead and say it: I've noticed that in the infobox, the first heading "released" lists different release dates depending on the artist's country of origin, etc. On this article for the template There seems to be no consensus on which date should be used, I'll give you a few examples:

X (Kylie Minogue album) - An Australian artist, Japanese release date is used, which is the first worldwide release.

It's Not Me, It's You - A British artist, British release date is used, which isn't the first worldwide release.

And on others (e.g. The Secret Life of... (album) - Australian) the infobox has multiple release dates, with the country in brackets after the date, all in the infobox.

I feel this needs to be clarified in this template so we can have a consistent release date. The two options are:

-The release date in the infobox is for the artist's country of origin, regardless of which country released it first.

-The release date in the infobox is always the very first instance the album was released, regardless of which country it was in.

Please help clarify this, and thank you for your time  :)

--Rhys (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_album&oldid=334880457"