Template talk:Infobox album

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.


Is there a verdict on whether the chronology includes all albums, including live and 'best of' albums? There is a mixture out there and a proliferation of best of albums really messes the chronology up in some cases. Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A different question: Shouldn't the heading link be to the artist's discography page (if there is one) instead of a repeated link of the artist's page found in the above heading? --Musdan77 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Dennisthemonkeychild: See [1], where a consensus was established in 2010 that the chronology chain should include all albums. It's not something I agree with, and I'm grappling with a tricky issue at the moment over multiple versions of a compilation album by The Mutton Birds: released in different countries under different names and with different track lists.]] BlackCab (TALK) 23:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Syntax for chronology parameters[edit]

according to the template data on the documentation page, the syntax for the chronology parameters is

| Last album = ''[[Last album name]]''<br />(YEAR)
| This album = '''''This album'''''<br />(YEAR)
| Next album = ''[[Next album name]]''<br />(2004)

so I was surprised to find that many articles are using {{unbulleted list|''[[Last album name]]''|(YEAR)}} which is completely wrong since these aren't lists. so, I created a tracking category, Category:Pages using infobox chronology parameters with plainlists, and there are currently over 900 pages in the category. it would be great if users like User:Synthwave.94, who are actively changing the syntax to {{unbulleted list}} could comment why list markup is being used instead of a break tag. and yes, I read WP:UBLIST, and saw nothing about replacing all <br /> with {{unbulleted list}}. Any help with cleaning up Category:Pages using infobox chronology parameters with plainlists is also appreciated. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use {{Unbulleted list}} in those fields. You should make a WP:BOTREQ to have them cleaned up! Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
UBLs should be used and the breaks should not have had the XHTML version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Lists are used for lists. This is not a list; it's just a linebreak to push the year on to a new line. Alakzi (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, the br tag is supported in XHTML, see http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_br.asp . You just have to make it self-closing. I agree with Alakzi, that these are clearly not lists. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Which is why I called it the XHTML break tag. I understand. (WP:ASSUMECLUE). The issue is that XHTML is now a disfavoured technology. HTML 5 is the new favoured technology and it does not support the break that way. With that said, if we go with UBL, it doesn't matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Walter, <br /> and <br> are both valid in HTML 5. It does matter to use HTML elements appropriately. Alakzi (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_br.asp says only <br> is valid. Browsers will interpret the wrong one, but they prefer the correct one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From the HTML 5 specification:

6. Then, if the element is one of the void elements, or if the element is a foreign element, then there may be a single U+002F SOLIDUS character (/). This character has no effect on void elements, but on foreign elements it marks the start tag as self-closing.

Hope this helps. Alakzi (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not the case here. The standard is a simple break. XHTML is dead. You've lost. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes I just don't know what to say. Alakzi (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Blank cover fields[edit]

Template:Infobox album#Cover specifies that the value "blank" should be used to avoid adding an article to Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover. Alakzi, I believe your change broke this functionality, and any articles using the "blank" value now point to File:Blank. hinnk (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Alakzi (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I think the reason you didn't see any articles using the field just now was because it wasn't widely used before, and KylieTastic (and probably other editors) had been fixing the red links. hinnk (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Singles taken from..." parameter coding issue[edit]

Is anyone else noticing that the "Singles taken from..." parameter is off in its coding; the header aligns completely to the left, instead of being centered as it once was. Also, the spacing between singles and their release dates seem to be more condensed and a bit cluttered. Was there a change on the document pertaining to these parameters? livelikemusic my talk page! 15:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the header alignment. The spacing hasn't changed, as far as I can tell. Alakzi (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, that was changed back! And see here (sorry for off-site upload), the singles are squeezed together, when before there was some space between releases and their release dates. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's ridiculous. I've restored the default leading. Alakzi (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, excellent! Looks much better! Thank you again! livelikemusic my talk page! 16:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Studio parameter[edit]

What should be entered after "Studio = " Just the name of the studio? Studio and city? Studio, city and country?

Also, are there any guidelines for size of text in the infobox? Piriczki (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Piriczki, see WP:FONTSIZE. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
If there is an article about the studio, I'd say a mere wikilink to that page should suffice. If there is no article, I suppose name and city are alright, or just name and country if different from the artist's country of origin. This is an infobox so let's it keep it short. De728631 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Modern criteria for what constitutes a single?[edit]

Someone else asked this question on the talk page for Template:Singles, but never received a response. In the modern era, what constitutes a single released for an album? Before the advent of digital music, it was a lot easier to determine this, as single releases produced a physical artifact, usually a vinyl record. However, with most (thought not all) songs from an album being available for download individually, what constitutes a single? Does it need to be sold separately on iTunes and other digital music stores? (Example: the original release of Prince's "Breakfast Can Wait") Does it need to be released separately in a physical format (vinyl, CD, etc.)? (Example: the forthcoming Sam Smith song "Writing's on the Wall") Is it a matter of what the record company promotes to radio and streaming services? If so, how would one determine that? It's easy enough to leave the Singles template out of the infobox, but for the sake of argument, what is the appropriate criteria for inclusion? Thank you. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 23:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You likely won't get a unified response from either Wikipedia or third-party sources because, as you note, the digital age has really mucked up that definition. As such, the following response reflects my personal opinions. I've been writing and editing articles with this rough definition of what a single is in 2015: a single is a type of release that's much like a studio album or EP that can be legally obtained independent of another release (if one exists) that has its own release date, catalog number, cover art, etc. that could be digital or physical or free or paid. For several decades, there's been two senses of the word "single" -- a literal one and a more conversational one. The literal one is much like the one I've outlined above, while the more conversational definition uses "single" to describe popular songs and songs promoted in any, way, shape or form. Think of the relationship between the use of the word stomach to literally refer to the organ that digests your food, and the more conversational usage of the word that kind of generally refers to your abdominal area. In the digital age, the more conversational use of the word "single" is used to describe just about everything by just about everyone, which makes it even more difficult. Personally, since an encyclopedia is a fairly literal medium, I don't think Wikipedia should be defining songs as singles using the more conversational definition. But like I said, you're not going to get a unified answer, so whoever comments after me is probably going to disagree :) Fezmar9 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
A single should be a song released for commercial charting purposes, not simply a promotional song. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)