Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 12 - Wikipedia

Would there be any way to alter instances of substituting the template/updating that already used on articles to not include the parameter "venue" if the infobox is already set to "studio" or "album"? The template's documentation states, in bold, that the "venue" parameter is explicitly for live albums, and realistically there are few exceptions for studio albums being recorded in venues or live settings. Most of the time this parameter is not filled in anyway and left blank, or removed in cleanup sessions by other editors. I've noticed that it's automatically placed when users substitute the template when in most cases it's not needed. Ss112 05:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at Module:Unsubst-infobox I don't really see any way to do this. Having the blank parameter on the page has no negative effect. I don't see anything wrong with it... One thing we could easily do is add a tracking category. So any page that had a venue set AND was not a live album would be placed in the category. That would certainly make sense. But I don't see any reason to rebuild a Module to work around this one use case, unless someone can see a way I can't. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The best option would be to see if @Zackmann08: could address this with the updates the editor is making. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: all I am doing is substituting the template... {{subst:Infobox album..... That doesn't have the ability to conditionally replace that parameter. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If it is valuable to remove the |venue= parameter, one could submit a bot request. There are plenty of template transclusions with empty parameters that do no harm, however, and this seems like one to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Does it seem wise to anybody else that we're advocating that users list each producer on a new line in the infobox when, especially for modern pop and hip hop albums, there are usually at least a dozen separate producers? This can turn out to be a long list and a mile to scroll through before the actual prose starts and it seems excessive. Horizontally listing them with the actual defined hlist template (not just utilising the default hlist capabilities of the infobox) inside visually takes up less space in the source editing. I wouldn't think using an hlist in cases where there are a tonne of producers to list would be a hindrance to screen readers for accessibility concerns either, otherwise, why does hlist exist as a template if it's an accessibility obstacle? (No need to ping me, I'll be watching the talk page.) Ss112 05:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

For recorded (which used to include studio and venue), studio, genre, label and producer we have a note (For multiple entries, see Notes[2] for details). That note used to state that we could use either flatlist or hlist, but that seems to have been changed. The template parameters table has not kept pace and should be updated. Do you have any suggested improvement to the documentation? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest we could re-add the part about using hlist if there's a lot of names or items to list in the infobox. Ss112 15:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Since both list templates work in the parameter, it might make sense. However, space isn't really an issue and vertical is often more clear than horizontal when a large number of items is present. I wouldn't be opposed to restoring the copy to the note though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@X201: what happened? The category was empty for albums. What did I miss? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@X201: HAHA!!! I just noticed that you reverted your revert. :-p I was worried because I checked and rechecked my work before making that change... Please do look over the change I made though? Always great to have a 2nd set of eyes. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08:, Yes, sorry about that. I'd got multiple diffs open on an article with a module string error and lost my marbles for a second. Sorry. I'm currently clearing Category:Music infoboxes with Module:String errors, will also clear the User and Draft articles that are cluttering it up. - X201 (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@X201: no problem at all! Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Keep up the great work. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm frequently frustrated by the lack of link to the artist's complete discography (page ifexist or artist page section ifexist) (issue: multiple artists) and briefly searched the talk archives to find I'm not alone in a desire to add one (or as many as are needed with regard to issue). Let's talk :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You are suggesting that the infobox would include a link to an artist's discography? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: And do you have any notion of how it would be displayed? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Not in particular Justin; since it would be a trivial addition with a non trivial effect (change == scary), I figured a discussion about the possibility before getting entrenched in aesthetic preferences seemed prudent. But to kick things off; I suppose a relatively plain link just above the "chronology" section, or at least around there somewhere. What do you think? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tango303 and Walter Görlitz: As you've previously expressed support... Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall being in favour of a link to a discography article in the infobox, but I'm not opposed. How would it benefit (or distract) a reader? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

A couple of years ago in this archived discussion (linked above) Walter :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

1. "How would it benefit...?" By providing the missing link when offered to easily peruse the chronology while stingily requiring one to find one's own method of finding the discography; convenience.
2. "How would it distract...?" I personally can't envisage it distracting anyone. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see this rather lengthy discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#"Single Album", in which a bunch of knowledgeable editors in the Albums Project reached a consensus on the need for a new TYPE called "Single Album" in the Album Infobox. (The term is unique to the Asian music industry and is becoming very common.) Please advise on the next steps. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Safest bet is if the new type is called single_album or singlealbum. There's already a single option in the color and link templates and using single with a space could open up a can of worms. - X201 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I do not have authorization to edit a template so we simply need an appropriate person to go forth. I forgot to mention above that this new type can be parallel to the existing "EP" type in terms of the color, as decided in the discussion. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can edit the template's sandbox (copy the main template code over to the sandbox first) and the testcases page to show how this new feature would work. Ping me or put an edit request template here if you need help, or if you need someone to look at the changes and implement them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Galobtter, who has some unpromoted changes in the sandbox. Do you want to move those over to the main template before this new experiment? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, The unpromoted changes can easily be reintegrated back, so feel free to reset the sandbox or whatever else needs to be done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95 - The procedures at the sandbox and test cases page are beyond my area of expertise and I don't want to mess things up. Please consider taking the initial steps yourself if you have time (adding a new TYPE called "Single Album" with the proper coding and the same color as the existing "EP"). I will keep an eye on things and provide comments. Thank you for your assistance. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Well played, doomsdayer520. This little template has a LOT of moving parts. I think I found, updated, and documented all of them. Please try it out and let me know if I missed anything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95 - Well played because I have no idea what you did or where you did it. Thanks for taking the time to implement the change. Per your comment over at the original Project discussion, you are correct about the link to Single (music) which is not quite an accurate place to send the term "Single Album". We decided to write a new article on the term "Single Album" as used in Korea, or at least a new section in an existing article somewhere else. When that happens I will take the lead back here on adjusting the link. Thanks again! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't need to adjust any links in any templates. Just drop your elegantly written, reliably sourced, mind-blowing new article content, complete with categories and arrows on the back of each one, into single album, replacing the redirect that is there now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that I have started converting articles on these Korean releases that were previously mis-characterized as EPs and whatnot. The new "Single Album" type in the infobox appears to be working properly. Thanks all! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Continuing from Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 11#Short description (ping Fram), I'm proposing adding an automatically generated short description to this infobox, having fixed the issue of secondary infoboxes by creating and using a module, Module:Is infobox in lead, to check if the infobox album is the lead infobox. (this is to avoid, say, having the short description "Soundtrack album by Clint Mansell" added to Pi (film)). The code is in the sandbox.

The short description is exactly the same as header1 of the infobox, i.e, "Greatest hits album by Nirvana" for Nirvana (Nirvana album), "Studio album by Simon & Garfunkel" for Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M., and so on; these descriptions are generally as good or better than the currently displayed wikidata descriptions (which are often just "album"). If that would improve the description, I can add the release date, too, for say "1964 studio album by Simon & Garfunkel". Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• I like it and support it. I'd also support the year addition. I'd personally would like it if a module did the work as usually there are a few more if checks to make sure that the description doesn't seem strange with missing parameters (and having all that in the template just clutters it up for no reason and is harder to debug). If you need help with testing, let me know. --Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Gonnym, I've added the year, I'll see about a module: another thing, would you think that "studio album" should be shortened to "album" in the short description? I don't know nothing about music which is why I'm wondering if you think that is reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not my expertise as well so cannot help there, sorry. --Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This is great. Definitely have the year in there. I think "album" over "studio album" works. Also, I noticed an article (I can't remember what one) before I saw this post that had two infoboxes and two short descriptions. There shouldn't be too many articles that have multiple infoboxes but would that happen with this automated feature? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

A short description is only generated if an infobox album is in the lead section and is the only infobox in the lead, so I don't think that should be an issue. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case with Hopes and Fears, where a second infobox further down the page is overwriting the short description from the first one. -- I need a name (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I need a name, thanks,   Fixed, doesn't display description in those cases. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, although that means it's now defaulting to the Wikidata description. Would it be possible to add a field like |short_desc= to the template for manually adding the description or would it be better to just use {{Short description}} in such cases? -- I need a name (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Question. The description is created through the infobox without anyone seeing or knowing that it exists when in edit mode, correct? So if someone trying to be helpful adds {{short description}} to the page, will that override the default automated description? Also, since those adding it are creating unnecessary work for themselves, is there a way to find out which album pages with infoboxes have a short description that was added manually as well? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Well, a manual description should override the automated description, except I messed up and it actually doesn't; I'll see about fixing that, since although many of the manual descriptions are of lower quality than the automated ones, it still should be possible to easily override the automated description.

Do a search for insource:"short description" hastemplate:"Infobox album" insource:/short description[^=]*infobox album/i - about 2000 album pages have a manual short description. Most I see were added using User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper in which case they will see the automatically generated description though (now that it is there). Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the extra chronology, the release Live at the Paramount (video) was released first as a DVD/Blu-ray video in 2011 and the audio album on vinyl was not released until 2019. If it had been the other way round it would have been a simple case of denoting the extra chronology as type: video. However, this appears to be a rare case where the video has been released first. As such both chronologies are not differentiated in the output. I have added "video" and "album" to the titles to differentiate for now, but can this issue be addressed ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think type should equal live. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have done that already, but the point I am getting at is there is nothing to differentiate between the two chronologies. Neither says "video chronology" or "album chronology".QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section to indicate format -- CD, cassette, vinyl, download etc.? Sheila1988 (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see that being mildly useful if the subject album was only released on specific formats, but since most are released on multiple formats,^[CN] this could get old fast. If excluded or empty, would the output of |format= (working title) be omitted or populated with a coverall? I assume you imagine the data will be linked to the most suitable respective article about the format? I can't see the need for a convenience link to the various formats, especially if not all are listed on each article. It can be argued that the noteworthiness of the format upon which an album (single, movie etc. for that matter) is rarely of any interest beyond the technical, and could be considered trivial. Where the information is notably non-trivial (perhaps only released as a download because the band and label were in dispute or similar), I'm sure it would be better covered in the article body. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I see {{Infobox song}} has a |format= parameter. I wonder if this has been discussed before? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it has; see Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 9#Proposed addition of a "format" parameter closed as "no consensus" 2014. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox album the producer parameter is for the person(s) credited with the record production. This is someone who oversees the recording process. I am confused as to why vocal producers, co-producers and executive producers are being included in this parameter as well?

I also find it bizarre that producers of bonus tracks and Japan bonus tracks not included on the main album track listing are included in this parameter as well. Could someone please clarify this for me? CoolMarc 14:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of work done contrary to documentation, guidelines and even policies; while the infobox template doesn't specifically handle other roles, I suppose editors who are unfamiliar with, or just don't care about, the template's documentation, will just stuff things in wherever they seem to fit. Consider landing on a page about something one's interested in, and finding that the philistines who wrote the article failed to mention the janitorial staff! Alarm bells ring; a giant red countdown timer starts; epic music plays! It's now or never; the fate of humankind is at stake! MUST. ADD. INFO. NOW!! Consequently, it gets shoehorned in with little to no regard for standardisation or continuity.

So, three questions need to be asked:

1. Should the various production-like roles be included in the |producer= slot (which, it should be noted, is built to handle lists)? or
2. Does this template need special handing for other roles? or
3. Should the information about other roles (where not exactly per docs) be blanket removed from articles, because the template docs don't specifically mention them?

I hope most people would answer a strong "no" to question 3, in preference of additional handling or a change to the documentation. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Vocal producers, executive producers, Co-producers are not the same as the actual record producer, so I would think they do not belong in a parameter used to name record producers. Also I don't think producers of bonus tracks not on the main album track listing belong here either. It is bizarre for example when you see a said producer in this parameter at the start only to find out later they only produced bonus track 21 of the album's Japanese version. This is obviously just my view on things but I think whatever the standard is, it should be clarified on Template:Infobox album. CoolMarc 15:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A RfC which may affect this infobox's |studio= and |venue= parameters has been opened at WT:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have some questions due to revert warring on a future album (this is not a formal RfC yet so freeform answers are fine):

1. Can "Released" be used for scheduled or anticipated release dates as the infobox is current worded?
   1. Does this violate WP:CRYSTAL since we don't know if it will actually happen? Specifically Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place.
   2. Does this violate simple grammar and logic since the parameter is phrased in the past tense, "Released"?
2. Are any of the following solutions appropriate:
   1. Changing the text to "Release date" (still would seem to violate the portion of CRYSTAL I quoted)
   2. Adding a "Scheduled release" or similar parameter
   3. Adding logic to select wording based on whether release date is in future or not (which is problematic due to not knowing time of day or timezone)

Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Unless someone creates some sort of “future release” section, if there’s reliable sources stating the date, it’s appropriate. As someone who has created and maintained a lot of future albums, I can say that it’s generally uncontentiously done this way. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

DIYeditor, There's really no need for any technological solution here: if an album says that it is "released" next January, that is obviously in the future. I really don't see why anyone needs to edit-war over a release date that has a source. If it changes, change the information. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." What we are doing here is stating that something will happen in the future on a certain date (actually, by my reading, that the future has already happened, but either way) despite not being able to know that. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

DIYeditor, Sure but can we have utter certainty about past events? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, it’s okay to make comments on future events with reliable sourcing. As one can plainly see, there is no current ban on future release dates on Wikipedia. Nor should there be, that would serve no purpose to the reader. Application like what you’re proposing would benefit no one. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If the prose read "scheduled to be released on ..." it is safe for the infobox to read the proposed date. It is a summary of the article. Most people understand that the date could change. It is not a case of CRYSTAL as that only applies to creation of articles. In this case, WP:HAMMERTIME also applies. However, WP:PROMOTION does apply, and this is where my opinion diverges from much of the project. If we can't say much about the album, we shouldn't have an article, let alone an infobox in it. Wait for the album to be reviewed by at least one source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A content dispute at The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection has led me to ask for this change to the current template guideline. As I said there, it's more important to lead readers to the next significant release in an artist's discography than it is to show readers the next release was one so insignificant that no article covered it. Per WP:COMMONSENSE and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense." Dan56 (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Could we still call it a chronology if it didn't show the next chronological release? I feel like it would need to be renamed "Next/Previous Album that Meets Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines" or something to explain to readers that the listed album technically isn't truly chronologically next, it just has an article and the other one doesn't. The last time I saw this discussed the point was brought up that nowhere on Wikipedia is there a list of chronological albums from an artist. The artist's discography and navbox already provide links to other albums, so do we really need a third thing to provide the same function to readers? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we could still call it a chronology. Because the purpose of an infobox is to summarize at a glance key facts and do so in short form, not to be a complete account of information found in the article or elsewhere. Additionally, "general consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox", and it would be less consistent if there is a break in the navigation across articles. And if we are going to have a pedantic outlook (like to argue the release following isn't "truly chronologically next"), then it holds true that the chronology section doesn't label or specify that the next release showing is immediately next. Dan56 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huh? Adding the next chronological release regardless of notability does not impact the infobox's ability to present key facts in short form. In fact, adding the next album that doesn't have an article is closer to a fact than adding an album released years later just because it has an existing article. You're also using the word "consistency" in two different contexts here. The guideline you're quoting is suggesting whatever is agreed upon should be used consistently across similar Wikipedia pages, but you're suggesting it would introduce a navigational inconsistency, which is not what the guideline is referring to. If all articles are presenting chronologies regardless of notability, that would be very consistent and in agreement with that guideline. And actually the infobox does imply that what's listed immediately follows because that is literally the definition of chronological ("an arrangement in order of occurrence") . Fezmar9 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

[moved my comment since Fezmar9 is addressing Dan56's comment] Agree 100% with Fezmar9 reasons. If chronologies are to remain (I disagree that they are "key facts" about the release), they should be "arranged in the order of their occurrence" (dictionary def). Since only official releases should be included, most insignificant albums are excluded. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Embarrassing edit war on that Taylor Swift article; an argument by edit summary and no attempt at discussion on the talk page; *shakes head*
• I agree with Fezmar9 and Ojorojo; chronologies should not be notabilities
• If navigation being interrupted is the actual problem i.e. reaching a dead end because an article is missing (and unlikely to be created); perhaps a solution is to allow the |next_title= parameter to carry a list which terminates at the next live article? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Bullets? Why?

No, a chronology is not a list of notable works, it is a list of similar works of this type by the subject that came before and after this work. This applies to singles and albums. I've even seen separate chronologies for studio albums and live albums. Navigation templates go at the bottom of an article. That is the correct location for a list of all works with articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Merriam. But what good does it do a reader (which should be our priority), for them to see a (supposed) release title in the infobox, for which no article exists? Just words in italics and a year in parenthesis, without a link to anything for context. Can they at least be pipe-linked to the artist's discography article? Dan56 (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

An unlinked album does no more harm to a reader in a chronology than it does in a discography or an artist's biography. The aim of the infobox field is information, not navigation. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It actually does, because at a discography article, there is information about the release; there is context. The aim of the infobox is information within the article. Dan56 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

See here, WP:IBX: Keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article Dan56 (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It actual does no harm to the reader because the infobox is not a navigation template.

At worst, it would do more harm indicating that the next work is a notable one and omitting all of the non-notable works in the sequence. If albums A, B and E are notable while C and D are not, making the infobox of B show only A and F could lead the reader to assume that the three albums between them do not exist! Again, the infobox is to be a summary of the article and provide the information in a compact format. Its primary function is not for navigation. The navigation function is what the nav box at the bottom is for. The fact that we are able to navigate all of the works for some artists using the infobox is simply because their works are all notable. Not all works created by notable subjects are automatically notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

My question is about pipe-linking to the release's section in a discography page. And, as it is here, there has been no reported harm to readers so far. Dan56 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

See Aleluya (En La Tierra). The page title is half in italics and half not. The whole thing should be in italics because that is the full title of the album. It appears that something is going on with the italics function in the Album Infobox. I cannot figure out the problem myself. Also inquired at [1]. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done An editor named PrimeHunter has fixed it. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A discussion has begun at WT:ALBUMS#RfC on producer entries in infobox album regarding the |producer= parameter used in this infobox. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is that any singles on any re-releases of an album are NOT included under the singles box? As long as the singles are promoted within the album itself it SHOULD count as a single, that just seems like common sense to me. Aardwolf68 (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is a single on a re-release? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Aardwolf is referring to when an album is re-released with new songs and they are released as singles, they aren't always included in the infobox. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

One of the specific rules within the infobox says to NOT include singles on album re-releases. Can somebodybplease explain to me why this is? That makes no sense and doesn not have an argument for the rule. I say it's about time that we change it Aardwolf68 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen a re-release have new singles. I've seen deluxe editions released with one single. Where's an example of what you're stating? I'm open to reviewing the documentation if a case can be made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see some reliable sources that indicate the singles were released "during the marketing and promotion of the album". Often, singles are released prior to and after the album's promotion phase. These stand on their own and are marketed independently of the album. In any event, these details are not always key facts as presented in the main body, if they are discussed at all. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Doll Domination by Pussycat Dolls is a great example. It was released in 2008 then re-released in 2009 with two brand new singles "Hush Hush; Hush Hush" (a remix of a song from the original album not previously released) and then also "Jai Ho!" a completely new recording. Editors at the page chose to include the singles in the infobox because the re-releases formed part of the same chart listing as they had the same name etc. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Many modern releases, particularly pop or urban releases, get re-releases with deluxe editions being released later. One Love by David Guetta is another example of that → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 16:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Deluxe editions are not re-releases, they're just a money-making effort to fleece fans: "wow three new songs". It's part of the original release and should be treated as such. Third Day (album) is a re-release. It was released on a small label, the band signed with a larger label, they re-packaged it and released it with additional tracks in a new order. There are instances where a work is re-mastered and released with bonus material, but I have not seen singles appear from those works. Deluxe editions should be treated as part of the original release as should any singles from the release of deluxe editions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

From the guidance wording, more than the fact that a single was released is needed, otherwise it could simply say "list singles here". They must be noteworthy in the context of the album. If a single is released when a classic album gets a "deluxe" or anniversary edition, it may be argued that it promotes that edition, but not the original. The guidance makes clear that only info about the original release be included in the infobox (see cover, release date, length, and label). So it follows that singles are treated similarly. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Then I pose this question: How exactly do we classify re-releases and deluxe editions differently, and what difference does it make o include the singles listed in the album's tracklisting? Aardwolf68 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we need to? Releases that are separated by years or labels are clearly re-releases. Releases that add "bonus material" without significant difference in time and on the same label are simply different editions of the same album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

But who's to say that we're in control of deciding that? In any case- my main point of discussion is about singles being listed in the infobox and why it matters to seperate re-releases from deluxe editions when including them Aardwolf68 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Walter has summed it up perfectly. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

In going over some newer album articles, I noticed that many or most album tracks are released as singles. Listing them all can double the length of the infoboxes and push them far down into the following sections. Singles are often discussed (or should be) in the main body, but are they really needed in the infobox? Also, some were released a year or more before the albums, so I wonder if they actually meet the guidance "were released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, If you can give some e.g.s, that would be helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

LP1 (Liam Payne album), We Love You Tecca, Why Me? Why Not., This One's for You (Luke Combs album), Divinely Uninspired to a Hellish Extent, While I'm Livin', Carte Blanche (DJ Snake album), Imperfect Circle, Rewind, Replay, Rebound, When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, ADHD (Joyner Lucas album), The Later Years, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, If the singles are supported by a source then it's fine, but looking at the articles that you pointed out have no sources. I think removing the unsourced singles is the best idea. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: That would work in the short run, but after sources are added, we're back to overly long infoboxes. Review ratings used to be included in infoboxes; once they were removed, people didn't seem to miss them. The distinction between singles and "tracks" is becoming increasingly blurred and really doesn't have the importance it once did. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Copy about the nature of the "singles" and their WP:SECONDARY sources would be placed in the body of the article and so no need for references in the infobox would be necessary. Just being released as a video does not indicate that the song is a single. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

There's an issue with linking the chronology of the albums for the band 7eventh Time Down. It can be seen Just Say Jesus where it capitalizes the first letter, and there's no article at 7Eventh Time Down. It's easy enough to fix by using a redirect there, but it would also be easy enough to fix by not forcing a cap on the first letter in the word if it's not the first letter in the string. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, It comes from the "ucfirst" passage. Not sure what that's there to be honest, except maybe so that (God forbid), we would see "the Beatles chronology" instead of "The Beatles chronology". Let me see if I can fix it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's on Infobox Song as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox album#Inconsistency of capitalization style. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, There's no problem at (e.g.) Just Say Jesus (song) (note that I am redirecting that page now, see the history). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The documentation for this template explains what to do in this edge-case situation: The first letter of the artist name given in artist= is automatically capitalized in the chronology header so that band names starting with "The" appear as recommended in the Manual of Style. If the first letter of the artist's name should appear in lower case, enter the artist's name in chronology= as you wish it to appear, e.g. chronology=letlive... I have asked Koavf to revert the most recent change that removed ucfirst; ucfirst had been implemented as a result of the discussion above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Should the automatic upper-casing be removed?

In a discussion section above, we decided that in order to better comply with MOS guidance on capitalization of "the" at the front of band names, we would use ucfirst to apply automatic upper-case to the first letter in |artist= when it appeared in the Chronology header. This change has the known side-effect of upper-casing the first letter of an artist or band's name in the very rare case when the preferred style of the artist/band name is to lower-case the first alphabetic character. See the discussion above for a few examples of this very rare case; 7eventh Time Down, mentioned at the top of this section, is another example. The template's documentation explains that |chronology= should be used to fix these very rare cases.

Koavf proposes to undo this upper-casing entirely. This would presumably decrease MOS compliance across a wide array of articles, while preventing the inconvenience of needing to use |chronology= in a small handful of articles. It is quite possible that we can come up with a more elegant way to manage this upper-case/lower-case situation. Maybe, for example, there is a tool similar to ucfirst that limits its action to the first character instead of the first letter. Changes in the template's sandbox and the testcases page are welcome, as is discussion of ideas about how to manage this situation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"The" in band names is fairly common, but names that begin with a lower case letter or number are rare. Whatever benefits the most occurrences should be used. It's just a matter of one or the other having to use |chronology=. Also, if the proposed change is made, who will go through and correct all the current infoboxes that use the lower case "the"?—Ojorojo (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, "T/the Beatles" is perfectly fine and works but "6band" where "6Band" is a redlink doesn't work. This is a choice between many instances of a small style issue being fixed versus a few instances of the purpose of the field not working at all. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone come up with a tracking category that shows how many occurrences "don't work at all"? It probably would be easier just to add |chronology= to those rather clean up all the "the"s. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Despite Koavf's declaration that there were only two possible choices, I have found what appears to be a third option. I have added a test to the "chronology" header that is intended to check the first character of the artist. If it is a letter, upper-casing proceeds as usual, so album articles like Fake History by letlive. will still need to use |chronology=, but Alive in You by 7eventh Time Down is fixed. Please let me know if you find any bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, The magic word {{ucfirst:}} only capitalizes the first character. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That has not been my experience. To wit:

{{#invoke:String2 | ucfirst |[[7eventh Time Down]]}} → 7eventh Time Down

My experience is that the first alphabetic character in the string is upper-cased, which is a bit frustrating, but working as currently documented on the page for ucfirst. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean the magic word: {{ucfirst:4foo}} gives 4foo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops, totally missed that there was a difference. I am using Module:String2. I wonder why they are different.

{{#invoke:String2 | ucfirst |[[7eventh Time Down]]}} → 7eventh Time Down

{{ucfirst:[[7eventh Time Down]]}} → 7eventh Time Down

Unfortunately, it doesn't really help when a wikilink bracket is the first character:

{{ucfirst:[[the Beatles]]}} → the Beatles

Strange. I could probably try to delink and then re-link, but ugh. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

At MOS:MUSICCAPS we are instructed to use lower case 'the' in running prose for band names, for instance the Beatles released the album The Beatles. But in the infobox coding, there is no way to have the correct version of the band name show up at the correct spot. We either have an incorrect capital styling in the sentence "Studio album by The Band" or we have an odder styling of lower case 'the' starting a new line as "the Band chronology".

An example can be seen at A Date with Elvis (Cramps album) which says "Studio album by the Cramps" (proper Wikipedia style) but below that it says "the Cramps chronology" in a new header, which shows a lower case 'the' incorrectly.

The opposite example can be seen at Bad Music for Bad People which properly says "The Cramps chronology" but displays the wrong styling of "Compilation album by The Cramps".

Can we tweak this template's background coding to accommodate the two styles? The brute force method would give us two places to enter the band name, one with capital 'The' for band chronology and one with lower case 'the' for running prose. Perhaps there's a more automatic way to solve the problem.

Note that Template:Infobox song has the exact same style problem. Both should be fixed at the same time. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to add except to say this has always annoyed me too. Popcornduff (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have modified the template's sandbox to capitalize the first letter (and only the first letter, with the rest of the letters left alone) of |artist= in the Chronology section. You can see an example on the test cases page. I think this will solve the problem, with one big caveat: if a band's name is supposed to be written in all lower case, this change will capitalize the band's name in the Chronology section. Are there bands with that limitation? If so, we need to be more clever. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

|chronology= has been used to work around these problems. Template:Infobox album#chronology includes: "This field can be used when the album belongs to an overall series that is not adequately described by the artist's name alone; in these situations, the text entered in this field replaces the artist name that would normally be displayed preceding 'chronology'." Five Live Yardbirds uses |artist=the Yardbirds and |chronology=The Yardbirds), so they appear correctly. The group name stylized as letlive. is an example of Jonesey95's last concern. For The Blackest Beautiful, |chronology=letlive. would need to be added if the first letter of |artist=letlive. is automatically capitalized. The link in |artist= is also automatically repeated in the chronology, so it appears twice (unnecessarily?) in the infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked around and did some web searches for band names that are styled in all lower case, and it was a surprisingly difficult search. I found The xx, which is a pretty cool name, written "the xx" in running text; since there is a "the", they won't be affected. There's Letlive, stylized letlive., but in the infobox for their album Fake History, a WP editor has already capitalized the artist's name, so it's quite possible that nobody will notice this change. See also fun. I also stumbled across !!!, which is a bitchin' band name; I tested one of their albums with the sandbox version of the template, and nothing appeared to change.

Thanks to Ojorojo for actually reading the documentation to see how |chronology= works; that looks like a great solution for edge cases like letlive. I'm going to move this change from the sandbox into the live template and document it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless someone sees a problem (maybe link this discussion on Template talk:Infobox song), the same should be added to that infobox as well. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done after some testing in the sandbox; {{Infobox song}} is more complex than this album template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, Heads up that I removed this, per below, as it was generating redlinks. If necessary, the solution is to use the chronology field to enter "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" as necessary. Better to have some awkward caps than to have redlinks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please revert. I think you threw out the baby with the bathwater. Band name edge cases are clearly documented in this template's documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I don't think this is wise but I'll revert for collegiality. Will you revert your changes to the template as well? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The band "65daysofstatic" oddly gets its name in the chronology changed to "65Daysofstatic" (example). It's fixable with |chronology=, but it certainly seems like something that shouldn't be happening. The documentation for Module:String2 is a bit contradictory. Under "Functions" it says that "ucfirst" renders the first alphabetical character in upper case (which is what actually happens), while under "Usage" it claims to capitalize the first character (which is the way I think it should work). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This problem has been fixed. See below. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)