Template talk:Infobox album

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

Another problem[edit]

@Jc86035: I've reverted the bot's attempted substitution at Babylon 5, as it left a pile of wikicode visible down in the "Music and scoring" section. When I edited the bot's revision, removed the HTML comment after "Infobox album", and tried "Show changes", the subst went through correctly. So possibly an HTML comment in that position is confusing Module:Unsubst-infobox? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@John of Reading: I think the issue is that if the comment is in the template name then MediaWiki won't substitute it. This probably isn't solvable using the module, although maybe AnomieBOT's code could be changed to account for this; @Anomie: would this be possible and is it necessary? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
10:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: There are over 3000 of these so we'd better delay any large-scale bot run. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@John of Reading: of course; I was testing it to see if it would go through every transclusion or keep trying to edit the same article (since it returns itself). There are still a few separate issues to be ironed out with the Infobox song/Infobox single and Audiosample/Extra music sample mergers and Module:Unsubst-infobox, so it'll be a while. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
10:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with modules, nor with this infobox. There are a number of things that will defeat an attempt to WP:SUBST - these include: redlinked template; newlines between the subst: and the template name; HTML comment tags at any point between the opening braces and the first pipe. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Yes, I'll need to update the bot to not screw up like that. If you don't mind, remind me about this on Wednesday or so. Right now I'm at the Hackathon and, thanks to various reports of governmental stupidity, I brought a "clean" laptop and didn't copy AnomieBOT's development environment onto it before I left. Anomie 16:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Should be fixed now. Anomie 18:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of this template at other venue[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

For no clear reason, whether to keep or change or remove something in this template is being heavily discussed at the talk page of an entirely different template. Please see Template talk:Infobox song#… and a bugbear: partial track listing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

List formatting[edit]

On a sidenote - was there a recent change to the infobox to suppress any attempt to use vertical bulleted lists in, say, the studio parameter? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 05:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: I added the CSS class so that the parameters could be used without {{hlist}}, {{flatlist}} and {{unbulleted list}} (as is done in most articles as far as I'm aware). Is there a need to use a regular bulleted list? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
07:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Depending on the text, I think a normal vertical bulleted list actually looks better, like when there's a longer list of studios with locations or when that information takes up nearly an entire line each in the list (see Achtung Baby or Songs of Innocence (U2 album)). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes for unreleased albums are broken[edit]

See Lei'd in Hawaii, Smile (The Beach Boys album), Andy Paley sessions. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Fixed. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Forced release date[edit]

It appears that the template has been changed so that if Release= is blank but there is a date in Chronology for current album, then the release date is copied from the chronology field. This is not a positive change: it's normal in jazz discographies to list by recording date, not release date, and the latter is often unknown. This change forces potentially erroneous (and unsourced) information into the Release field display, when the Chronology uses recording dates. I was forced into this as a crude avoidance measure. Changing it back, so that Release= must be completed manually, would be advisable. EddieHugh (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)