Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Help with Extra tracklisting template

Could someone who knows all this estoric stuff add a Type field similar to this template to the {{Extra tracklisting}} template? I've asked for it to be done on that talk page and the one for Extra chronology, and there has been no response. Thanks. -- Reaper X 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Singles Section

Hey! I just created a page earlier today to list at the bottom of the infobox any singles released from an album: Template:Singles (talk · links · edit). Let me know what you guys think. It's to be added into the "misc" section, so here's to hoping it works. I've so far transcluded it into What To Do With Daylight and Albertine by Brooke Fraser and am going to give it a shot in some others I dabble in too. Again, any criticisms or adjustments, please feel free to do directly to the page there and note the talk page itself. I've made it allow up to 12 Singles. I think that should be more than enough, but does everybody agree? I've never heard of more than 12 singles being released from an individual album before (however I'm not sure this would be appropriate for anything other than general studio releases, rather than Greatest Hit mixes or Live albums unless the tracks were originally derived from the Live album or Best of, such as Recurring Dream by Crowded House featuring the songs Not The Girl You think You Are, Instinct (song) and Everything is good for you, but I'd include only those of the page there).

Anyway, let me know!

--linca^linca 11

16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I think this feature (after tweaking, if it needs it) should be included on the main template page as it's quite a useful tool. I've now included it on a few pages successfully: Room For Squares, Albertine (album), Heavier Things, Continuum (album), What To Do With Daylight and Recurring Dream and it seems to successfully provide a useful and concise view of the singles originating from the album. As to how this could be worded and where it should be placed, i'll leave that to the discretion o fthe person who places the feature on the main page. My suggestion would be with Extra Chronology section as it's an extra miscellaneous section.

--linca^linca 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} It seems quite elegant to me to use a second template for singles that can be included in the misc section of this template; it makes maintenance of this template easier. The examples you gave show that very nice results can already be obtained. I will resolve the editprotected tag for now; feel free to add another one if several editors agree that the two templates need to be merged. CMummert · talk 06:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks highly useful...I'll be working on using it on the various music articles I contribute to. In my mind, being able to summarize such information in the Infobox is almost always better than trying to do so in the main article (unless specific information needs to be presented in the album article about a specific single...which really should be rare). -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. It's useful, yes, but many album infoboxes are already pretty huge. This information really should be in the main article space. Just take Room for Squares. The article has a one-paragraph lead, the chart positions/certifications, and two track listings, yet the album infobox is almost as long as the article. ShadowHalo 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Room For Squares page in particular should really still have a Template:stub (talk · links · edit) marker, since its content isn't nearly sufficient for an album, especially one of its success. Generally a page shouldn't be ridiculously long, but should be long enough that the infobox isn't longer than the page itself. Anyway, the template's there (and has been vastly improved as far as the code goes, since I created it, though designwise it's identical) and I encourage those who wish to to use it where they see fit. It's not suitable for all albums, and I'm aware of that. That's the diversity of Wikipedia for you, though.

--linca^linca 12:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Line break

Is there a reason why there's a blank line after the "Next album" field? It seems to be taking up unnecessary space. ShadowHalo 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed some unnecessary whitespace in the chronology section. Could somebody fix this? Jogers (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem; can you give a link to an instance where this is broken? CMummert · talk 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See the first usage example at the template documentation. There is more whitespace in the chronology section than it used to be (for example in this revision). I don't know what causes this. Jogers (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jogers: ahem. :) Bubba hotep 11:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorted out. Sorry :-) Jogers (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}. Since no specific edit is requested, I am removing the EP tag. Please investigate the issue using a sandbox and add another editprotected tag when you have a concrete edit suggestion. CMummert · talk 12:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New Template:Rating

Hey there. I've created a new template that hopefully supersedes the star rating {{Rating-3}}, {{Rating-4}}, {{Rating-5}}, {{Rating-6}} and {{Rating-10}}, since it unifies all these templates into one: {{Rating}}. Just write {{Rating|3|6}} to get , or {{Rating|2.5|8}} for . More examples can be found at the template page. Comments welcome. :) --Conti|✉ 02:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm all for rationalisation. I take it the other ones won't need changing over? Bubba hotep 07:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{Rating}} template is completely independent of the others, so a bot could theoretically run and replace the old templates with the new one. I'm thinking about implementing the "small" option automatically when the amount of stars exceeds a certain number, but I'm not sure what number that should be. 6? 8? 10? --Conti|✉ 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Six stars seems to fit okay, so I'd set the automatic function at seven and above. Let's just hope someone doesn't feel the need to use 15 or 20 stars :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that stars should be used for ratings of seven and above. It isn't very readable. Jogers (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the template accordingly. It's theoretically possible to use more than 200 stars I think, but I guess no critic uses a "X out of 200" system. :) --Conti|✉ 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note about not using star templates for numerical ratings - is it clear enough? - Alex valavanis 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the old templates with the new one in the template documentation. --Conti|✉ 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Rating templates for more debate on star templates and their uses. It would be good to continue further discussion in one place. -- Reaper X 00:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed a potential problem with the template, that I should have seen before. Because each of the stars is a separate image, individual stars are allowed to wrap to a new line occasionally. I don't know how often this would come into play in the wild, but there are potentially long reviewer titles that might cause this wrap inside an infobox, resulting in...say...three stars on one line and two on the next. Visually disturbing. There is a possibility that this problem only shows up in Opera (the browser I use), but might otherwise be something to look into. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sure that can be solved with some HTML. I don't know much HTML tho, and I haven't found the right command to keep the stars together. So if there's anyone who knows how to do that, any help is much appreciated. --Conti|✉ 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How about {{nowrap}}? ShadowHalo 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried <span nowrap> (some random website told me that works, but it didn't). That seems to work tho, thanks! --Conti|✉ 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, no problems here, well done :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with the new template caused by the use of separate star images, is that the alternate text is now duplicated. Consider what a user browsing without images might see. With {{Rating-5|3}}:

[3/5 stars]

With {{Rating|3|5}}:

[3/5 stars][3/5 stars][3/5 stars][3/5 stars][3/5 stars]

A possible solution to that is to only generate an alternate text on the first star image, and to use alt="" on the rest. --PEJL 08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

New Album Type: Mix Album

I've been having some problems lately determining which album type is appropriate for DJ mix albums. As of right now this album type does not fall into any that are already defined. A "Remix Album" is a collection of remixed songs where each track is distinctly separate from the other. For example: NIN - Further Down the Spiral, or Linkin Park - Reanimation. While many Mix albums contain remixed songs, I feel there is a need to differentiate them. A mix album can contain all non-remixed songs. I also do not feel that "Compilation Album" is appropriate either. A CD from the "Now that's what I call..." series is more appropriate for being labeled a "Compilation Album". Mix albums are distinct in that the track mixing is a crucial point. For most popular types of EDM the songs are typically beat-matched and mixed together to create one continuous piece of music, not individual songs (even though the songs are often tracked out). I propose that a new album type, the "Mix album", be added to the list. --MattWatt 05:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in part, but don't believe the volume is there to support it. I'd say we put it to the vote, though. I'm interested to see how many examples can be brought forward that support it. Offhand, I can think of only a small handful of remix albums (Love is one that readily comes to mind, as well as two by TobyMac and one by Plumb but otherwise, you've mentioned the only other two I'm aware of). In short, I'm for it if there's a volume to support it. I've offered a couple more, but can't think of any others that exist offhand. The reason I'm not jumping in and saying yes straight away is that the originality of the albums isn't huge. The only mashup or remix album that I know of that's yielded any singles is Reanimation (with the "Points Of Authority"/"High Voltage"-"Pts.Of.Athrty"/"H! Vltg3" EP and "Forgotten"-"Frgt/10" single and the inclusing of the "P5hng Me A*wy" version of "Pushing Me Away" on Live in Texas) and the two singles from Collision Course, and all of these singles are of course by the same group.

--linca^linca 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked it up and there's already a "Remix" option available (which is already in use for Reanimation), which colours in te same way as a compilation album. I'm not certain if this satisfies what you were after, but it's there to be used, and certainly is in use at present. Is it that you wanted it in a different colour from the other compilation albums? Because if this is the case, then I'm against the idea of it.

--linca^linca 09:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you re-read my proposal, I am not proposing a "Remix album" classification type. That already exists. If you go to the Remix album page it lists several examples and there is enough information to justify its existence. That fact I am not arguing.

What I am saying is that neither the "Remix album" or "Compilation album" classification types are sufficient for classifying mixed albums. I would argue that there are a lot more mix albums than there are remix albums, and therefore justifies it's inclusion. I propose a "Mix album" classification type to cover the scope of these DJ mixed albums. Examples of said albums would be: Paul Oakenfold - Tranceport, Sasha & Digweed - Renaissance Vol 1., and many of the pioneering Hip-Hop DJs mix tapes which pioneered the concept (redundant I know). I'm sorry if my original posting wasn't very clear. I feel that what I have said now should make my point much clearer. It would be helpful if the "Mix album" page contained more information about this album style and it's history. It does have a rich history, which unfortunately isn't currently on Wikipedia. I unfortunately don't have the time to work on that at the moment, nor do I consider myself an expert on the subject. There are many good documentaries and books written on the subject of DJ culture. But the "mix album" idea isn't limited to just DJs. I would go so far as to argue that Pink Floyd helped to pioneer the concept with albums like "Darkside of the Moon", as well as earlier artists such as Jean Michael Jeare and more. --MattWatt 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(Linking the relevant articles for your above comment, to demonstrate...)

I agree with this: I tried to propose a "DJ mix" classification quite a while ago, but I got no replies. (I suppose "Mix album" might be broader and more useful.)

In fact, I've considered proposing an optional field to indicate whether the tracks on an album are mixed or not; however, maybe the "Mix album" type could sufficiently cover all such instances. –Unint 19:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not being up on the "hip" music of today, can someone explain what the difference is (in less than 50 words) between a Remix album and a mix album or mix tape? I've come across mixtapes which I've had to type as "remix", but if they are sufficiently different, maybe they should have another type. If only to make my job easier! :) Bubba hotep 19:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that "Mix album" would be a better term, since not all mixes are necessarily by DJs. The problem I see is in strictly defining this album type. I do not feel it is impossible, but given recent advances and trends in music, especially in dance music, defining clear differences between this and other types could be challenging. For instance, take Sasha's "Involver" album, where he remixed other songs for his own purposes and mixed them together, not live, but in a studio. That's the great thing about music is that ideas are constantly being smashed together and merged to create new things. But something like that draws influence from "Live album", "Remix album", and "Studio album" types. Another thing which may cause confusion is what I feel is the inappropriate use of "mix" to refer to someone's personal "compilation" of separate tracks, which are not blended together for the purpose of creating a continuous music peice. I still feel that there is a very real need for a "Mix album" classification type. --MattWatt 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As a conclusion, I think the main distinction is in the product: songs mixed seamlessly into each other at track transitions. (The techniques used to produce Involver may be different, but I don't think it makes too much of a difference to the average listener.) There are also single-artist greatest hits albums that are indeed "mixed" in this manner.

With that in mind, though, there might be a distinction to be made between mixing and segueing, such as found on Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd (where there are still clear breaks between songs). –Unint 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely familiar with that album, but I believe I understand what you are saying. That is one of the "gray" areas in defining the "Mix album". I believe long ago, Pink Floyd pioneered that style of segueing from one song to the next (or at least gave it more notice), and it was called a "concept" in the rock world. I believe that "concept album" idea is what influenced DJ culture where it was taken further. Whether those should be lumped together under the definition of a "Mix album", I am not sure. I know in DJ culture the focus is on beatmatching and the overall arc to the mix (i.e. the journey). Careful thought is given to the placement of the individual songs and how they will be "mixed" together, often for the purpose of "telling a story", similar to how classical symphonies contain many movements. So it seems that there is a need for a distinction between this construct, and the idea of simply segueing between tracks. But where to define the line, especially when incorporating more than just DJ mixes, I am unsure. I will have to ponder on this some more. I am enjoying this discussion. :) --MattWatt 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that the matter has been clarified (and I realise that I'd misread what you'd written) I don't think there's a need to create anything new. The "longtype" field should really be sufficient for using a customer name. i.e.:

type = compilation
longtype = [[Mix Album]]

Something to that effect should work adequately without the need to change this template. Bear in mind how many album types are out there. The main ones are catered for in the template and all other types are sort of near in type to these, so the basic type can be selected in "type" with the more specific description can be typed into "longtype".

--linca^linca 11:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have let this discussion die, but I have not had time to resume it. You say the main ones are catered to in the template. I would argue that this proposed type occurs in much greater volume than the Remix album type included in the template, therefore, justifies its inclusion. I do not think that the "longtype" workaround that you propose is adequate. I will point back to the arguments in my previous entries and will continue to request for the inclusion of this album type. --MattWatt 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Extra album cover 2 and Extra chronology 2 templates

I made a change to Template:Infobox Album/doc to refer only to {{Extra album cover 2}} and {{Extra chronology 2}} and never to {{Extra album cover}} or {{Extra chronology}}, after bringing this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, not realizing this talk page was also active. Another change that I'd like to make is to change this: Caption allows an optional header to be inserted, with an explanatory label. to this: Upper caption allows an optional header to be inserted and Lower caption allows for an optional explanatory label. since there is no Caption field. Anyone object? --PEJL 07:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --PEJL 08:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cover size broken?

Is the "cover size"-parameter broken? At least I cannot get it to work... ---Lhademmor 12:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cover size default is 200px whatever you try to change it to. Bubba hotep 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know whether it is broken, because I've never used it. Hmm. Sorry. Bubba hotep 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha, the template isn't broken, however, it is poorly documented. Most of the time you would specify the size you want as "150px" or whatever. It appears, however, that the "px" cannot be included in the field. The code ( {{min|200|{{{Cover size|}}}}}px ) looks for a strict numeric value. Simply write out only the numeric value sans a value modifier like "px" and it will work just fine. I've tested it and it's good. (What you are seeing when including the "px" is the native size of the image, which is almost always much larger than desired.) I'll make an addendum to the doc shortly. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Certifications?

As many albums do win some major, or minor awards, mostly based on sales or other, I find it fitting if a section were added to the template. Fortyfeet 01:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A little while back, I started work on a template for gold, platinum and diamond records, but I got lazy/distracted/complacent (take your pick) and didn't finish it. It was my intention to throw in a section into here to add it (like I did with creating the miscellaneous addition for "singles"). Now that you mention it, I'll try to finish it off. The thing really giving me grief was the images and how to collect/collate them, but I'm thinking I'd write the code something like Template:Rating (talk · links · edit). We'll see.

--linca^linca 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Rarities"/"Rarity" section

Like with the request for a remix/mix album, I was thinking that a "rarities" album type should be included as a green entry with the "compilations" and such. Examples I know of are My Lives, Anthology 3: Rarities and Afterglow (Crowded House album). I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind quickly. Who's for this?
--linca^linca 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, irregardless of actual content, it is still just a compilation album. There is no need to complicate things any more than necessary, and I cannot imagine there are a significant number of these subsets of albums. If you want to specify that they are Rarities, use "longtype". -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

split album color

this is a request for a split album type. this type of album includes sampler cds put out by record labels, such as The Bled/From Autumn To Ashes Vagrant Sampler and split cds such as Here She Comes Now/Venus in Furs by Nirvana and The Melvins. See Split album and sampler album/sampler record (they will hopefully be merged soon). Violask81976 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Discography link

For artists that have a separate discography page, it would be nice to have link to that page (and not just to the artists' main page) in this template. For example, the second occurrence of {{Artist}} (before "Chronology") could link to the discography instead. ChKa 17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is already possible to do know with the "chronology" parameter (see Template:Infobox Album/doc#Advanced usage) but I don't think it would be very intuitive. You can always place the link in the article's "see also" section. Jogers (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If the artist has enough releases to warrant a discography page, then it's usually a good idea to have a navigational template anyway. ShadowHalo 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Album chart positions

Someone already raised the idea of adding this to the template a year ago. The balance of opinion by the people who weighed in then seemed to be in favor, but it never happened. It really should - this is exactly the kind of basic, consistent and concise information that infoboxes are good for. The Infobox Single template already includes chart positions. Anyone else agree they belong on the Album Infobox? InnocuousPseudonym 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Violask81976 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

While I support having this included (possibly as a secondary template for the Misc field), the fact that it is somewhat limited in implimentation means that folks will continue to add chart positions to the body of the article, which this template should theoretically eliminate. If some method could be found to bring this proposal into line with WP:CHART, it would be fantastic. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of including chart listings. Of course, I'm not a big fan of including reviews, either. I prefer to keep things as concise as possible. The infobox often becomes longer than the text. What do you recommend? How many charts, for example? All of them? The most important four? -Freekee 00:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Freekee. The infobox is already pretty big, and it's best not to make it even bigger. ShadowHalo 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, Chart Position can be listed with all it's detail and splendor as a 'Level 2 Headline'. Then you can have 5,000 links to all the chart keepers and magazines or a simple "This album did not chart"(in or out of the top 100)...--ZapperZippy 15:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Catalog number

Can we add one more field to this template, for "Catalog number" (preferably to appear directly after "Label")? -- BRG 20:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion of catalog(ue) number placement within the article back in February on the WP:ALBUM talk page. I think the general feeling was that it wouldn't be a good idea to put them in the infobox because, really, it should only have the original release details in there, with further releases discussed/listed in the article body. Feel free to revive the discussion on the latest talk page if you feel differently though. Bubba hotep 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cover makers

I find it important to add the graphic designer of the respective cover to the infobox album templates. --ΛэтєяиuS 09:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You can use the "caption" field. See Template talk:Infobox Album/Archive 2#Album Artist field. Jogers (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --ΛэтєяиuS 10:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to add cover

What do you guys think about using something like this to prompt people to add inthe cover art for albums instead of directing people to the no cover page we could direct them straight to the upload page using an image map like this:

Add the album artwork

What do you guys think? If you like it, someone who knows how to edit the template can put it in. I couldn't find where to change it in the template itself. --linca^linca 12:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The premise seems to be wrong. We don't currently direct people to Image:Nocover.png. See any of the albums in Category:Albums without cover art. We used to, but this seems to have been changed. If we still did, I think a link like this would have been a good idea. It may still be, depending on why this was changed. --PEJL 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It was changed here with the edit summary "Remove invitation to fair use image". I suggested something similar at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 13#Fromowner. I still think that giving people detailed instructions on how to upload fair use cover art in this fashion would be a good idea. Jogers (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure linking them to Special:Upload will make them understand any better. There are still new users out there that are almost clueless about Wikipedia, and they will click on the image, see the upload page and go "What the hell is this?!". I'd rather link them to some little page explaining to them that this album article needs a cover and suggestions of where to find one, how to upload it, and how to licence it et cetera. This can also be used as a tool to encourage anon users to create accounts. -- Reaper X 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. Something like Wikipedia:Fromowner tailored for album covers. Jogers (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We may also want to consider using a special nocover image that mentions the ability to upload an image, to make it easier to understand that that is what clicking it will do. If possible, it would also be nice if we could get rid of the blue "i", since it would be redundant. --PEJL 16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologize for my ignorance Jogers, but yea, something like that. PEJL, your idea sounds excellent. Something simple like "There is no cover image for this album. You can help! Click here." It's tacky advertising, but whatever gets it done eh? -- Reaper X 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We may want to tone down the advertising a bit. Many people who view this image will have no interest or ability to upload an appropriate image, so I think the primary purpose of the image should still be to convey that no image exists. For example by making the "No cover available" text considerably larger than the text advertising for an image upload. I'd also prefer if the wording was slightly more concrete. Neither "You can help" nor "Click here" convey that it's really about uploading an image (or the license issues associated with that). I think we should at least mention "upload", perhaps like: "Click here to upload the cover image." (Links should generally not include phrases like "click here", but I think it may be appropriate to make an exception in this case, because it might otherwise not be obvious that this image would act like a link.) --PEJL 18:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Jogers (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the number of fair use vios in existing album articles this strikes me as a really bad idea.Genisock2 03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What specific violations do you mean? Lack of critical commentary about the cover art itself again? Your interpretation of the policy doesn't seem to be very common. Jogers (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just come back to this page after a while ago where I posted the suggestion. Why, PEJL, is the image a fair use image? I looked at the page and it's been released to the public domani, and anything public domain we can lather on every single page of wikipedia , use high res and make it a background... with a bow. Anyway, my point is that because of the nature of the image, we can use it to our discretion, and I think the way I've suggested it here works. I'm not against making a new image to take its place (I actually think this image is pretty ugly, but that's my opinion) but am not for it being an advertising thing. I'd rather try and emulate the subtlety of the link to edit the page at the top of the page. Anybody agree? Well, I'm too lazy to make the image, but the code's there to make the redirected link. And, by the way, if you click on the little blue link in the bottom right hand corner, it actually takes you to the image page anyway. --linca^linca 12:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you're misreading this conversation. First of all I never said anything about fair use. Second, the position of Genisock2 as I understand it is not that the nocover image is not fair use, but that making it easier to upload images which may have fair use problems is a bad idea. I also think you misunderstand what was meant by advertising. I at least only meant exactly what you mention, a subtle text in the image to mention the ability to upload an image. And like I said, the blue "i" in the corner would be redundant if we did this, so it would be nice if we could get rid of it. --PEJL 12:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

it's more common than you think see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Concern_regarding_film_posters.Geni 18:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What if we used something like this: Template:Infobox Album/No cover? So this is what people would get:

Add the album artwork

With that, it may be a little less misleading and give people an indication of what's going on (the text as it is may be subject to change, but you get the idea). --linca^linca 12:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Well if that draws no objections, the next question is: Will people have enough sense to click on it? Sounds cool to us, but will users know this image links to another page? I guess they will see the tooltip if they are lucky enough. Maybe say "Click here to add the album artwork" instead. -- Reaper X 04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than try to explain in words how I imagine the "advertising" might look, I made an image:

No cover image exists

It looks lighter than the original, which was an unintended change. --PEJL 10:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up. -- Reaper X 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Whooops!" statement from Template:Infobox Album/No cover, because I don't think we want to make the user think they did something wrong when they clicked the image. The template is editprotected, so I will propose this be added together with some other changes I've been prototyping. See forthcoming message from me. --PEJL 22:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed when testing this in a prototype infobox template that it won't work (yet) because of this bug, so I won't propose this just yet. Also, the blue "i" looks even more annoying in an actual infobox. I really wish there was a way to get rid of that... --PEJL 23:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Some parameter fixes

I'd like to propose that the parameter "this album" be removed, as the album title already provides the data needed for the display. Additionally, I think that the next and prev links should have the formatting built in as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

One problem with removing "This album" is that there are currently some albums which list multiple albums in "This album". I've recently added some text to WP:ALBUM#Chronology to say that this should not be done (after bringing it up here), and have started fixing this in some places, but there are still albums which do this. If we made this change now, those album chronologies would break. Another problem is that while reusing the album name from elsewhere in the infobox would be easy, extracting the year from the "Released" field would be more difficult. It might be doable though, in a way that could be implemented without having to update any album articles.

Changing the "Last album" and "Next album" parameters as you propose could not be done without changing existing album articles (of which there are over fifty thousand). We'd also need more parameters (for example "Last album name", "Last album year", "Next album name" and "Next album year"). --PEJL 16:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like here, right? See also the archived discussion. I like the idea but changing thousands of pages is problematic. I thought that I would be able to do this with my bot some day but I still don't know how to do this effectively with AWB and I haven't learned Python yet. Jogers (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if we did figure out how to extract the year for "This album" from the "Released" field, we could at least start generating that part of the chronology automatically, without changing any album articles. It should be as simple as extracting the first four-digit number from the "Released" field, but I don't know if that is possible within the Wikipedia framework. --PEJL 18:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither do I. My main concern isn't the need to repeat the same information twice, though. Last, This and Next album fields are just too complicated to use. Users have to remember to italicize album names, boldface "this album", put the line break and add brackets around release years. The solution from Polish Wikipedia is much more straightforward. Jogers (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem with forgetting to boldface "this album" would go away if we managed to do this, but I see your point. --PEJL 18:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Boldfacing "this album" doesn't work, though, since it puts it into small sizing which isn't apt to fit bolded text, all ti does is makes the line taller by doing that (in some browsers, though not all). I don't see boldfacing it as an issue. I'm impartial to this change, so it doesn't bother me what you guys do, but bear in mind that some people (like, for instance, me) type the template from memory each time and don't necessarily look for updates and changes. If we go ahead with this, I suggest the setup be use as an "either/or" (with of course, making the heirachial decision as to which one takes precedence which, usually, is the first parameter) to both allow the existing ones to stay and the news ones to be gradually implemented. that'd allow time to put together the bot, too, and to run a test on the bot. --linca^linca 12:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you say that boldfacing the current album doesn't work. It's currently boldfaced (or at least should be). What doesn't work? It's also unclear what "this change" refers to. If we were to implement a solution like the one on Polish Wikipedia, that would definitely be an incompatible change, requiring a well thought-out update mechanism. If we just generate the content for the current album section of the chronology automatically, then that wouldn't be an incompatible change, as we'd just discard the contents of the "This album" field and use the generated content instead. Then it wouldn't matter if the "This album" field existed (all existing infoboxes) or didn't (new infoboxes), they'd all use the generated content. That would allow for graceful degradation, without changing the album articles. The only potential problems I foresee are:

• Chronologies with more than one album in that slot. Probably occurs very rarely, and only minor breakage when it does.
• Infoboxes with no parsable release date. Probably occurs quite rarely. No huge breakage when it does, we'd just skip the year.
• Infoboxes with the wrong album name in the "Album" field, making the chronology album name wrong as well. No reason to believe this will happen more often than the opposite.

I should also mention that doing this wouldn't preclude us from using a solution like the one on Polish Wikipedia in the future. This is just a step in that direction, that can be taken without changing any album articles. (Assuming we figure out how to parse the release date, that is.) --PEJL 14:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the infobox

Untitled

I'd like to make some changes to the infobox. Since it is {{editprotected}}, we need an administrator to make the changes and we need consensus. I'll outline what I propose be changed below, and hold off on formally requesting the changes be made for a few days, to allow any concerns to be voiced. Here's what I propose be changed:

• The chronology currently has an extra linebreak in the "Next album" section, which looks like an oversight. Getting rid of that makes the chronology more compact vertically. It can be gotten rid off by adding an extra "|-" after "Next album". (See example to the right.)
• The chronology may currently force the columns for the other fields in the infobox to the wrong sizes and vice versa, if there are long words and/or short/missing info. I'd like to use a nested table for the chronology, which will make these sizes independent of each other, making the infobox column sizes more consistent overall. (See example to the right.)
• Change 'valign="middle"' to 'valign="top"' for "This album", to match "Last album" and "Next album", because they are all vertically aligned the same using CSS anyway. I'm assuming this was an oversight as well.
• Restore this change to add infoboxes which use "Cover=Nocover.png" to Category:Albums without cover art, just like what happens to infoboxes with "Cover=".
• Tweak the capitalization of "Alternate Cover" to "Alternate cover".

A diff containing all of these changes is available here. Any objections? --PEJL 00:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I always noticed the center chronology item being slightly off in (I think it was) IE6. Good to finally fix this. And... where does the text "Alternate cover" as coded here actually get printed? –Unint 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The text "Alternate Cover" is used for the "extra cover1" and "extra cover2" parameters, rarely used (AFAIK) alternatives to {{Extra album cover 2}}, added here, and discussed briefly here. To get rid of this redundancy, perhaps we should standardize on one of "extra cover[12]", {{Extra album cover}} and {{Extra album cover 2}} (most likely the latter), convert other all uses of the others, and finally remove support for the others. --PEJL 09:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering how to remove the extra whitespace in the chronology for some time. Nice changes. Jogers (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's do this. --PEJL 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Before I make the changes, I want to verify that the version here is the correct, updated one. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's correct, but you can't replace it entirely because the live template contains a different footer than the test template. Specifically, the lines below the "{{{Misc|}}}" line differ. Only the changes reflected by the diff should be included. --PEJL 08:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also moved some interwikis over to the /doc page. Please verify that the changes I made are correct. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! --PEJL 12:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Non-standard album infoboxes?

Category:Non-standard album infoboxes REALLY does not seem like a cat that should be visible in the article namespace. Sohelpme 04:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the only way the articles that don't use it in a standard manner can be categorised. The error should be rectified by correcting what makes it non-standard (i.e. it won't stay permanently on the page). --linca^linca 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The only alternative I think of is replacing the category with an empty template and using "What links here." Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why make a fuss about it? It's just another category, and it may prompt for someone to correct the problem. -- Reaper X 22:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

From viewing the article Words & Music, the Promotional album type is a good one to standardize for this Template; record labels send promotional CD's to dance clubs and radio stations all the time in order to keep them current on new releases as they are readied for retail. Rhythms del Mundo is a good example of the Collaborative album type, a potential standardize for this Template as well. - B.C.Schmerker 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of non-standard album infoboxes, WikiProject Songs considers a template modification I did two months ago, Template:Infobox Maxi single, to be redundant (discussion now underway as of 12:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC) at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Maxi single). From my own research, maxi singles may be either standalone or paired with an album. Can this Template (viz., Infobox album) be successfully recoded to satisfy an anticipable maxi single doc requirement? - B.C.Schmerker 12:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can inlay info be added? Such as lyrics

I think it would be very useful if there could be information about the inlays of albums, like whether or not they included the lyrics of the songs. Is that possible, and is this the right place to be asking that question? Thanks. Gronky 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean in album infoboxes, as opposed to in album articles? (If not, WT:ALBUM would technically be the right place to ask this, and probably has a wider audience.) --PEJL 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about in the infoboxes. It would be great if there was a field "Lyrics in inlay: yes/no". I've left a comment at WT:ALBUM#A_class_review. Thanks for the pointer. Gronky 14:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In general the number of fields in the infobox should be limited, to retain focus on the most important facts about an album. There are a large number of facts about an album that could be included, but shouldn't be, for that reason. So the question is whether this is one of those important facts. That is of course subjective, but in my opinion it is not, and seeing as how noone has requested this previously, I assume many would agree. --PEJL 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be great in a sense of it'd be hard to put that into the prose of an article. Personally there's a bunch of things that could be put in a secondary template with random information about the article, like lyric sheets - yes, no, leak - yes, no, cover songs, etc. Yea, they could be put into prose, but i think a box would be alot easier to present and look neater then a couple of choppy sentences that don't really fit into any type of main heading. That's one thing I'm working on covering in my wiki. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 16:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A secondary box is a good idea. It seems that this same info should be covered in every album article, so a box seems the clearest way to store and display it. Gronky 17:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about a secondary box should be moved to WT:ALBUM. --PEJL 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How is whether or not a CD booklet contains lyrics, whether or not an album was leaked, etc. encyclopedic and significantly notable except in irregular cases (if there was serious controversy surrounding the album being leaked)? Wikipedia isn't a catalog or a fan site, or at least it didn't use to be. --FuriousFreddy 01:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Color for High Voltage!: A Brief History of Rock

Do we go for cover, compilation or what? I'll go with cover for now. --Jamdav86 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with cover, because while it is a compilation, it would primarily have notability as being comprised of cover songs. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There's actually an option for "Tribute." Go with that. --linca^linca 06:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the entry for Tribute album, though, this disc doesn't qualify. --Jamdav86 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Move category back from /doc

{{editprotected}}

The categories that were previously on Template:Infobox Album were moved to Template:Infobox Album/doc in the changes here and here. I think at least Category:Music infobox templates should be moved back to Template:Infobox Album (in a noinclude section), to make Category:Music infobox templates not include Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums (which transcludes Template:Infobox Album/doc). The sorting order for the category should also be set to "|Album", to make it sort under "A" instead of "I", for consistency with the other entries in the category. Does this sound reasonable? Perhaps a comment should also be left explaining why this shouldn't be reversed in the future. --PEJL 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been flagged as editprotected for quite a while. Is there some problem with this request, or is it unclear in some way? --PEJL 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You added the interwiki link to italian (occording to down there (V)). Can't you just do it? -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, because that was just an edit to Template:Infobox Album/doc, which is not protected. This change involves editing Template:Infobox Album, which is protected. --PEJL 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the admins who make these changes haven't seen my follow-up. So I'll add another {{editprotected}} to see if that gets their attention. --PEJL 15:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Be patient, PEJL. I remember waiting several weeks for a simple change to this template. The administrative backlogs are huge so sysops may just be very busy. Jogers (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The reason I suspect something is up is that I've been watching User:VeblenBot/PERtable, which has been filled and emptied many times over, except for this change. But I guess it's possible this was considered a more complex change than the others, and that that's why it's taking longer. (The second {{editprotected}} didn't alter the entry in that listing, so I'm removing it.) --PEJL 15:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) I finally arrived to take care of this request. I think it's easier to just change to doc page to say

{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:Infobox Album|[[Category:Music infobox templates|Album]]}}

This only includes the category on the desired page and not on any other pages, but keeps the category in the doc page. I made the change to the doc page.

The reason that this request took so long is just the lack of resources; very few admins are interested in protected edit requests, so a few of us do most of them, but I was traveling at the end of last week. I'm glad to know someone else uses the PER table. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That works nicely, thanks! --PEJL 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian version of this template

Please add it:Template:Album. Thanks. --79.0.184.126 09:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --PEJL 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSED CHANGE Producer(s) ---> Producer

Honestly, I find that "Producer(s)" thingy a bit ludicrous:

• We don't have "Genre(s)" or "Length(s)" or "Label(s)" even though we often have to put several items in them. ( I am NOT suggesting more plural(s) headers ;-) )
• Having "Producer Joe Schmoe and John Doe" isn't shocking, really.
• To add injury to insult, this is the widest header of the infobox, so "Producer" would gain us some precious infobox real estate we really don't need to waste for such trifle.

...In my opinion, anyway. -- 62.147.37.217 14:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. (Up until recently, the code in the infobox was such that the field labels had to occupy 33% of the width of the infobox. That is no longer the case, so it could be decreased. I've prototyped this at User:PEJL/Template:Infobox Album test. Decreasing the width from 33% to 28% makes the space after the longest common field label (previously "Producer(s)", now "Recorded", disregarding uncommon "Compiled by") roughly the same as before.) I propose we apply this diff. --PEJL 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! And while at it, I wasn't aware of this "Compiled by" but isn't it ludicrous too? We don't have "Produced by", so "Compiler Joe Schmoe" should do nicely too. (I understand that IT people think they preempted the word, but "the compiler of this work" such as the Grimm Brothers existed centuries before the first computer.) -- 62.147.38.171 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, I support these changes. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A musician's infobox does have genre(s), instrument(s), label(s) and occupation(s). Since many albums are going to have more than one producer, more than one label, and perform in more than one genre — we should begin making all headers plural. Since, as you concede, most albums have more than one entry in any given heading such as this, it makes sense we would consquently pluralize them instead of making them singular. (Mind meal 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

Disagree, not on the basis of proper grammar (of which I'm a stickler) but on the basis of cleanliness. Having ...(s) just seems excessive, in my opinion. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Note that only one label should be included per WP:ALBUM#Details. Whether having more than one length is acceptable is debatable, but it is safe to say that in most cases multiple lengths aren't used. I feel that the arguments in the three bullet points above outweigh the need for absolute correctness in this case. As for "Compiler", I'd be fine with that, but I suspect it is slightly more controversial. --PEJL 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a diff which also includes the change from "Compiled by" to "Compiler". I'm also removing editprotected for now, until we decide what to do. --PEJL 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mind meal + "proper grammar" - Then a rather simple solution IMO would be to have TWO #if fields, the current one to be used with "producer = " (displaying label "Producer") and a duplicate one to be used with "producers = " (displaying label "Producers"). So all current wikicode would still work as currently:

| producer = Joe Schmoe and John Doe

Producer Joe Schmoe and John Doe

But any "stickler for proper grammar" would be free to add one 's' to the wikicode:

| producers = Joe Schmoe and John Doe

Producers Joe Schmoe and John Doe

Cake, meet Eatit. Eatit, meet Cake. Not that I'm saying it's vital to have such dual syntax, mind, having "Producer" seems perfectly OK to me in a tabular form, but it'd be better than the (s). Actually, I believe such plural(s) are the exclusive province of administrative form(s) that use them everywhere, because if you have a header in the singular, dumb people will bother clerks all day asking if it's OK to have two answers, and if you have the plural dumb people will bother clerks all day asking if it's OK to have only one answer... -- 62.147.38.171 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea. We should be consistent, for the benefit of readers and editors in general. --PEJL 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: PEJL + compiler being controversial: some quotes from Bartleby.com

• (in a dict entry) "compiler - NOUN: 1. One that compiles: a compiler of anthologies." [1]
• (in a bibliography) "CONANT, R. W. (compiler). Theodore Roosevelt. Chicago: Orville Brewer Pub. Co. 1902." [2]
• (in a Cambridge History of English and American Literature) "Florence is not much more than a laborious compiler from the works of others;" [3]

The word "compiler" is as basic as "editor", and after all we don't work around the word "editor" just because it means VI to IT people ;-) 62.147.38.171 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The majority seem in favor of this change, so I'm requesting this change be made ("Producer(s)" to "Producer", "Compiled by" to "Compiler", with tweaks). --PEJL 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --Eyrian 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be the change currently proposed:

{{#if: {{{Producer|}}} |
<!-- -->{{!}} '''[[Record producer|Producer]]'''
<!-- -->{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{Producer}}}
<!-- -->{{!-}}
}}

This option allows us to use singular or plural, as appropriate, with only a little extra code:

{{#if: {{{Producer|}}}{{{Producers|}}} |
<!-- -->{{!}} '''[[Record producer|Producer]]{{#if:{{{Producers|}}}|s}}'''
<!-- -->{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{Producer|}}}{{{Producers|}}}
<!-- -->{{!-}}
}}

And the same for Compiler, of course. Just a thought. Might make things a bit more complicated than they need to be. If nobody comments before too long, I anticipate seeing Option 1 implemented. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This was already proposed above, to which I responded "I don't think that is a good idea. We should be consistent, for the benefit of readers and editors in general." --PEJL 21:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with this. Let's keep it simple and straightforward, instead of adding endless alternate variations, which I see as setting a bit of a dangerous precedent. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So how do you change the infobox to read "Producers" then? The article in question is The View EP, any help would be much appreciated... --SteelersFan UK06 08:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the point though, having the plural form isn't really necessary. Think of it this way: the term on the left side of the infobox is simply describing the field itself...it doesn't matter if there are more than one persons being described. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough, sounds good. Just think it looks kinda goofed though. --SteelersFan UK06 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Extra chronology + extra album cover

What code should be used if you want to add another album cover after the extra chronology? The Misc section is already used for the chronology, so I don't know where to put the additional album cover. Can you just stick it after the chronology, before you close the infobox? I'm mainly concerned with Fall Out Boy / Project Rocket Split EP, which needs to include the original album art, before the re-release (Image:Prfob split.jpg). I'm not sure how exactly that would work. —Akrabbim^talk 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely you just stick it after the chronology. Just throw a {{Extra album cover 2}} template just before the last set of }}. -- Reaper X 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate it. —Akrabbim^talk 02:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected request: add hCalendar mark-up

{{editprotected}} I would like to add hCalendar microformat mark-up to this template. This requires just teh addition of three HTML classes, vevent, summary and description:

1. change class="infobox" to
   • class="infobox vevent"
2. change | style="background: {{Template:Infobox Album/color|{{{Type|}}}}}; text-align: center;" colspan="3" | '''''{{{Name}}}''''' to
   • | class="summary" style="background: {{Template:Infobox Album/color|{{{Type|}}}}}; text-align: center;" colspan="3" | '''''{{{Name}}}'''''
3. change |- [line break]| style="background: {{Template:Infobox Album/color|{{{Type|}}}}}; text-align: center;" colspan="3" | '''{{Template:Infobox Album/link|{{{Type}}}}} {{#if:{{{Longtype|}}}| {{{Longtype}}}}} {{#if:{{{Artist|}}}|by {{{Artist}}}}}''' to
   • |- class="description" [line break]| style="background: {{Template:Infobox Album/color|{{{Type|}}}}}; text-align: center;" colspan="3" | '''{{Template:Infobox Album/link|{{{Type}}}}} {{#if:{{{Longtype|}}}| {{{Longtype}}}}} {{#if:{{{Artist|}}}|by {{{Artist}}}}}'''

Date entry will be by using {{Start date}} in the existing "Released" field.

Would someone oblige, please? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the changes to the template by themselves (as they seem quite harmless), but does this require using {{Start date}} to be useful? If so, this needs to be discussed further. (For that reason I'm removing editprotected for now.) No album articles (that I know of) currently use {{Start date}}. It doesn't appear to be much more difficult to use {{Start date}} than entering a date in normal format, but it will require a lot of articles to be changed, and makes it less obvious how to use {{Infobox Album}}. It also seems problematic that {{Start date}} doesn't work if the date is not a full date containing a month and date, as many if not most of our release dates are such dates. (Many infoboxes also contain multiple dates, despite our guideline to only include one date.) I'd also like to question the entire endeavor of adding hCalendar markup to album infoboxes. While hCard markup for artist infoboxes seems very useful, hCalendar markup for album infoboxes seems much less useful. What is the intended purpose of this markup, and why would the release date rather than say the recording date be the date to mark up? --PEJL 12:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Start date}} is required; it outputs the date (hidden by CSS that degrades gracefully) in the required ISO8601 format, wrapped in class="dtstart". It's no more complex than {{Birth date}}, on which it is based, and which is widely used throughout Wikipedia. {{Start date}} can be omitted for incomplete dates, until such time as that functionality is added - the work to do that is already in hand. Where multiple dates occur, the earliest should use {{Start date}} (any other occurrences would be ignored by microformat parsers, anyway). The purpose is to facilitate machine-readable date tagging of articles, so that in future, for example, searches within chronological ranges can be conducted; or search results sorted by date. Recording dates are arbitrary and wide-ranging; an album's release date marks its formal appearance in the wider world (that's not to say that, in future, all such dates couldn't be marked up as hCalendars, with appropriate summaries; but let's walk before we run). For an article already marked-up with {{Start date}} in an hCalendar, see Eurovision Song Contest 1963. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. a microformat for tracks/ albums is also being developed; it is likely that the release date, using the same date-pattern, will be a field within that, also. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. See The Dark Side of the Moon. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)