This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Why is Allmusic included in the "Professional Reviews" section so many times, although any user of allmusic can write a review of an album - he/she needs not to be professional! -- Luoma (My Second Wife) ( talk) 12:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Right now it shows an ugly [[Image:200px.... etc thing if Cover is left blank. Can't it just skip that part? -- Bunnyhop11 ( talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ki (album) is being released by HevyDevy Records (the artist's record label) on May 25 in the artist's country (Canada), but one of the album's distributors (InsideOut) is releasing it May 22 in Germany only. The guide for the infobox says to put the earliest release date, but the label that owns the album is HevyDevy, so what date and label should go in the infobox? It seems weird to have "May 22" and "HevyDevy" in the infobox since they don't coincide, but I don't want to put InsideOut as the record label because they're just a distributor, not the label that produced and owns the album.
To make it more convoluted, HevyDevy started shipping preorders last week, so they are the label that released it first, but there's no reliable source for this. Gendralman ( talk) 14:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
"Alternate cover" should read "alternative cover". See http://www.cjr.org/resources/lc/alt.php, Partridge - Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, Fowler's Modern English Usage, Swan - Practical English Usage, http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1995/07/msg00037.html, etc. for why the current version is erroneous. Turkeyphan t 23:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (edited Turkeyphan t 12:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC))
Could a line be added to give the name of the artist who produced the cover art? I have copied the code from Template:Infobox Album into a new temporary template Template:Infobox Album2 and modified it to allow this box until it is resolved and have used this template on a few articles. - R160K ( talk) 21:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Under what circumstances can the Alternative/alternate cover template be used?
Images submitted for this purpose are disputed under:
Fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice, and also, or in the alternative, fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding
If this is the case, how can alternative covers ever be shown in wikipedia, as I cannot imagine many scenarios in which cover art for an album or single would be "free content." -- JohnDoe0007 ( talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}} same table in Lithuanian: lt:Šablonas:Infolentelė albumas
Hey folks,
Can we make the text for this template the same as the text used for Infobox Single Template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PK2 ( talk • contribs)
Done I made a small tweak due to the Released label not appearing, but it appears to be fine now. Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork ( talk) 22:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Please make the font size bigger; its difficult to read and looks silly when compared to the article text. Dan56 ( talk) 22:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
As per WP:ALT images should have alt text, for WP:ACCESSIBILITY by the visually impaired. Please install this obvious sandbox patch to add support for a new Alt parameter. I've checked it with the testcase and have documented it. Eubulides ( talk) 09:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on, the new look is hard to read, text is too small. Daniil Maslyuk ( talk) 05:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you please revert all of this until we actually agree to even use {{infobox}}? — Gendralman ( talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Are the objections to the new look exclusively directed toward the font size in the album chronology section? Or are there other objections? It would be great if we could try to address the specific objections or non-objections. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 16:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Despite the warning in the docuemntation,
this edit removed the class="summary"
attribute. Please replace it, by adding:
aboveclass=summary
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
When the argument for the artist field is wikilinked, the template links twice to the artist article, contrary to WP:OVERLINK. The second link, in " Artist chronology" needs to be removed. Anyone know how to effect this? Skomorokh 18:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Chronology = Artist
) and the second instance won't be linked.
Flowerparty☀ 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)I think that length of the album should be specified in hours, minutes and seconds, if it is longer than one hour. James Michael 1 ( talk) 14:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey people,
I was wondering if you could add up an extra cover and chronology as I need them for several projects in the future, and I am sure that other people would like this. Many artists and bands have more than one alternative covers and split CD's are often 3 and even 4 way splits, which would make a 3 chronology come in handy. Just a though. -- User:Petternitter ( talk) 02:31, 20 October 2009 (GMT +1)
{{editrequest}}
In July we changed several caption sizes (making them bigger, i.e. normal sized for readability) and noted that captions in all "extra chronology" templates should be changed to match. I notice caption size of
Template:Extra album cover 2 is small while the caption for the main album cover is normal. I suspect this was overlooked. Can we change the extra album cover template? I'll post a note on
Plastikspork's page; he is the admin who made the previous change. --
A Knight Who Says Ni (
talk) 02:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
{{Infobox album}}
is set by a parameter (or lack there of) sent to {{Infobox}}
. Currently, there is no value being set, hence the caption size is just the default text size for the first album cover. To match this, I removed the style statement in {{
Extra album cover 2}}, which was explicitly setting the caption size. Hopefully, this doesn't cause any problems. If it does, please revert, and we can try to resolve the issues. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 15:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Tried to use the template {{ Audiosample}} to incorporate an audio sample into an {{ Infobox album}}, as suggested at Template:Infobox_album#Misc, but had a problem. Looks like the template {{ Audiosample}} is broken. I have described the problem over at Template_talk:Audiosample. I am mentioning this here as the template {{ Audiosample}} looks to be seldom visited. HairyWombat ( talk) 00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Requested, over there, a change to the template {{ Audiosample}}. HairyWombat ( talk) 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi people,
This might have been discussed before, but I reckon it should be considered to implement a separate type for all Split releases; albums, EPs, singles etc. I understand this would require a whole bunch of new colour codes and would make the type list very extensive, so my though was that we could have a type that generates the 'Split' part of the text and a colour code whilst users can customly add the appropriate ending, such as 'album', 'EP', 'single' etc. I think this would work better than having Split releases marked with types like Studio album and EP. They are these types, though they are split releases making them something different from the norm, hence should be in some way seperated from the standard Studio albums and EPs.
Just a though.
Kindest, Petternitter ( talk) 9:51 am, November 17 2009 (GMT)
There is currently no provision for mix albums, that are compiled by artists. (See DJ mix). In articles like these: The Trip: Created by Snow Patrol and Late Night Tales: Snow Patrol, using "mix" as the type generates the pink-ish color, and the page gets added to the hidden category (albums with non standard infoboxes). Both albums are one of their respective series, so its not that its a rare type of release. The latter (Late Night Tales) being the 22nd album in that series. Can this type of album be added and have a separate color code of its own? The closest thing to it might be "compilation". However, a compilation is typically a greatest hits album, and it'll usually contain the artist's original work. The Mix albums however are compiled by songs taken from different artists, so there's a difference. Its not "remix" either, as those albums contain only remixed versions of original content, which is not the case in "mix". Suede67 ( talk) 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Reviews in infobox: scrap? regarding the possible removal of the "Professional reviews" field from this infobox. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion there. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add "Mini-album" to the list of Types. At present these either get classed as "Studio" or "EP", the latter being completely incorrect. Certainly back in the pre-CD days, vinyl mini-LPs were fairly common, and were never classed as EPs, and it really annoys me to see them classed as "EP" out of either ignorance or the lack of any other suitably descriptive category.-- Michig ( talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Can a parameter for Certification be added, just as there is one for singles in {{ Infobox single}}? It seems almost ridiculous that there is not already a parameter for this. Adabow ( talk) 03:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
In reference to extra chronology 3 above, adding a second extra chronology 2 does not work, as evidenced by Cry Cry Cry (band) Any thoughts on how to fix this? Nlaporte ( talk) 04:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, so I'm going to go ahead and say it: I've noticed that in the infobox, the first heading "released" lists different release dates depending on the artist's country of origin, etc. On this article for the template There seems to be no consensus on which date should be used, I'll give you a few examples:
X (Kylie Minogue album) - An Australian artist, Japanese release date is used, which is the first worldwide release.
It's Not Me, It's You - A British artist, British release date is used, which isn't the first worldwide release.
And on others (e.g. The Secret Life of... (album) - Australian) the infobox has multiple release dates, with the country in brackets after the date, all in the infobox.
I feel this needs to be clarified in this template so we can have a consistent release date. The two options are:
-The release date in the infobox is for the artist's country of origin, regardless of which country released it first.
-The release date in the infobox is always the very first instance the album was released, regardless of which country it was in.
Please help clarify this, and thank you for your time :)
-- Rhys ( talk) 09:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find any discussion of this in the archives. There appears to be no handling for unreleased albums (yes, I'm aware of WP:CRYSTAL; it's moot when WP:GNG can be satisfied). Many of the fields, particularly the release date are in the past tense (i.e. "released"). Potentially, we could change the headings to present tense, add optional fields (e.g. "expected release date") or clever macro handling to format future-release albums differently, or just have a separate infobox for unreleased albums. I'm a bit against a separate infobox, as it will just need to be converted whenever the album actually comes out. If a separate infobox is created (or already exists), the documentation here should have a hatnote pointing to it. Could I get some input on what people think should be done, if anything? - Verdatum ( talk) 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The single type of this infobox is broken. I can't figure out why, but when 'single' is put into the type field, it treats it like it was a custom argument (with the colors set to peachpuff instead of khaki). I'm not sure if there is something missing through all the subpages somewhere or what. See
Remixes 2004 to see what it is doing. Also, a link needs to be set so the line reads "
Single by [artist]" instead of the current "single by [artist]" (note the capitalization also). —
Akrabbim
talk 18:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
|Type=single
or any other |Type=
value that returns the color value "khaki". —
John Cardinal (
talk) 19:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)|typetext=
, a user might use the template this way: {{Infobox album |type=ep |typetext=CD single ...}}
|Longtype=
which is almost what I described above. (I forgot about it when proposing |typetext=
. When you use Longtype, you can specify text that appears after the type, but it doesn't replace the type. —
John Cardinal (
talk) 04:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The
doc page includes the comment <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
in the examples/models for how to use the template. This seems useless to me and adds clutter to the articles. It's unlikely any newbie will follow the instructions, and experienced editors know how to find the help page for a template. While many templates include comments like this, most do not and I propose that we remove it. Before you disagree, please consider what would happen if every template that was closely aligned with a WP project included such a comment. —
John Cardinal (
talk) 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
<!-- See Template:Infobox album -->
. What we really want these noobs to do is read the template documentation, which is right there on the template page, rather than transcluded way down on the
WP:ALBUMS page. Unlike you, I fail to see how it "adds clutter to articles" as it is hidden text that doesn't show up except in the edit window. Having the message causes no harm, and potentially benefits newer editors. I just don't see the problem. --
IllaZilla (
talk) 22:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Santa Claus Lane | |
---|---|
Holiday album by Hilary Duff |
A recent content dispute I have been involved in with several editors on various Hilary Duff album pages has shown that many do not consider holiday albums to be actual studio albums. This discussion is hopefully to gain some consensus with other editors on what should be done, since many artists and the media do not consider Christmas-themed albums as a part of one's studio chronology. How I see it is this: holiday albums are essentially studio albums (or extended plays) that contain material based on the Christmas holiday.
To the side is what I am proposing, using the article Santa Claus Lane (the primary topic of the dispute I have been involved in) as an example of what could possibly be used. But I would like to be clear that my opinion in this matter is to refer to holiday albums as studio albums or EPs. – Chase ( talk) 21:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment I seem to be posting this a lot lately: With regard to the particular album mentioned as an example, here is another case of an article with raging edit/revert disputes, and a virtually empty talk page. Please use the article's talk page, not user talk pages or project / infobox talk pages or edit summaries, and certainly not edit warring, as first attempts at resolving disputes. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 15:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have compared its configuration to those of WT:ALBUM and WT:SONG where it works fine and I can't see any significant difference. Can someone figure it out? – Ib Leo (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be useful to have a field for the writer and a field for the composer in the album infobox, especially for the singles, because often it's not the same person and there seems to be confusion sometimes about it. Neon Tiger 21 ( talk) 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The label guideline is currently very vague. It currently states "Drop words like "Records" from the end of the label's name (e.g. use Universal rather than Universal Records)". What exactly are the "like" words. Would "music" as in Sony Music be considered a word to drop? That specific example is hard to determine since most albums on English Wikipedia don't include Sony Music under label, as emphasis is generally put on the label imprints instead. This is because the labels operate as standalone companies in the US and the UK. But in the case of domestic repertoire of the big 4 music companies outside of the US and UK, these companies usually only have only one company (one office) which is the parent name followed by the name of the country. For example, in Greece there is only one Sony Music standalone company and that would naturally be “Sony Music Greece”, therefore the release label is almost solely referred to as “Sony Music”. They also use imprints to segregate A&R operations, such as Columbia and RCA, but these are more of am internal formality and never used in promotion. Since the guideline is very vague, various users have been removing "Music" from “Sony Music” for Greek album pages I oversee, leaving it as “Sony” as per the infobox guidelines. I believe that in the case of Sony Music, or any of the big 4 parent companies who use their name in marketing outside of the US, "Music" should be in use, especially since these conglomerates have other media and technology business (e.g. Sony Music vs. Sony Pictures vs. Sony Electronics etc.). Any input on this would be appreciated. Greekboy ( talk) 03:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the official name is Sony Music Entertainment, but it is known/referred to as Sony Music. In fact their website is also www.sonymusic.gr. Editors are not changing just to Sony because it is commonly referred to as that, but because of the vague guideline. (as stated for their reason in the edit summaries) Greekboy ( talk) 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Question I have always been a little confused about the Type
field and its purpose. Does this establish an albums format or its content? For instance, parameters such as Holiday
have been removed from the template for referring to the kind of music. Simultaneously, we have a parameter for EP
, in contradistinction to long-play albums. What is to be done about (e.g.)
iTunes Live from London? Is it a "live album" or an "EP"? Clearly,
it is both. So which one takes priority in this field? What is the function of it in the first place? I've only seen this discussed
here and I don't know that there is a meaningful discussion of the philosophy of the Type
field. Thoughts? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Template is protected, so I can't edit it myself, but the interwiki to the Dutch version is wrong. It should link to nl:Sjabloon:Infobox muziekalbum. If anyone could fix that, thanks. -- Sander ( talk) 09:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please make the following changes, to apply the
hAudio microformat:
No visual changes will occur and the category is hidden. For background see the microformats project. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Question The above request included the addition of this line in the infobox coding:
Does this mean the microformatting is being used to assist entities outside of Wikipedia to track which contributors (Wikipedia editors) are writing articles on which artists? If so, is this something we should be concerned about? -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
class="contributor"
identifies a contributor (an artist, producer or conductor, say) to the recording.) Though if having edits to articles about artists tracked does concern you, bear in mind that such data can be extracted from RSS feeds of page histories; or from the database itself.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits 13:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)As you may have noticed, we're not using the reviews field anymore. Can someone re-code the template so it no longer recognizes the "reviews" field -- so that no matter what you put in it, nothing shows up, as was done with the "chart position" field on {{ Infobox single}}? This point was raised on my page by Bearcat, who said:
What think? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviews
in {{
Infobox album}} be added to a hidden category such as
Category:Album articles with reviews in the infobox and work from there with
WP:AWB, a bot, and hand-editing. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Could someone reinstate the reviews field please until the reviews have been migrated? We're already getting articles prodded because the reviews are not showing on the articles.-- Michig ( talk) 07:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Has there been any update on the migration of professional reviews to a dedicated "Reception" section that DASHBot was undertaking? It's been almost seven months now since consensus was reached to do away with the professional reviews in infoboxes but there are still lots and lots of album articles out there with the professional reviews intact. I can't say that I've noticed DASHBot doing much to migrate reviews recently, although perhaps I'm mistaken about that.
In addition, I would like to echo Ten Pound Hammer's earlier call for the "Reviews" field of this infobox to be re-coded and deactivated, so that even if reviews are still in the infobox, at least they won't display. Editors still continue to add reviews to album articles daily, as we all know. It is my belief that while the "Reviews" field of the infobox remains operative, this will never stop. I for one am getting tired of removing or relocating professional reviews, only to have other users revert my changes or continue to add new reviews to the infobox. WP:ALBUM guidelines state that professional reviews are no longer allowed in infoboxes, so we as editors need to get serious about implementing this change. So far, this hasn't really happened. -- Kohoutek1138 ( talk) 15:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Could someone with the authority to please add "ang:Infobox Album" to the list of languages? Gott wisst ( talk) 03:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
So, if an album is comprised of all studio tracks, but it is considered an EP, is it not also a studio album? What if the band includes the EP in their count of studio albums...should we treat it as both an EP and a Studio album or just one or the other. My specific issue is with regards to Rush's upcoming album, Clockwork Angels. The band describes the album as their 20th studio album, but that must include an EP named Feedback. Should we consider Feedback both an EP and a studio album, or do we ignore the band and just call Clockwork Angels the 19th studio album without a citation? LedRush ( talk) 14:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Question Why does the Type=Tribute
option default to "Studio album"? If anything, I would gather that most tributes are various artist compilations. This should probably just make a template error and add the page to
Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes--along with Type=Christmas
and any other deprecated fields. Then, it would be easy to fix them and properly sort these articles. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 04:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently the template has the word "Released" for the release date, which I see even on albums that are yet to be released, such as this one. Wouldn't it make more sense for it to say "Release date" so that it would apply correctly to albums that have been released as well as albums that have not yet been released? Betterusername ( talk) 21:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Another type of album that is a 'Greatest Bits', which when you type in in an infobox comes under the colour of the 'other' type.
Here is an example of what it will look like if one types it in. By the way, B-Side album and N/A aren't real, they're just examples.
Untitled |
---|
-- 77.99.231.37 ( talk) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised that, even though the 'Greatest Bits' exsists, it isn't credited in the Infobox album article. Here's a better example, using the current state of Green Day's album Shenanigans, just look to the right.
Untitled |
---|
Review scores | |
---|---|
Source | Rating |
Allmusic | link |
Rolling Stone | link |
-- 77.99.231.37 ( talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
greatest
. "Greatest bits" sounds like a joke title, certainly not worth its own type. By the way, Shenanigans is a
compilation album, not a greatest hits (it consists of B-sides & outtakes). Such albums should use compilation
as their type. --
IllaZilla (
talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)compilation
as its type, since B-side collections are
compilation albums. "Greatest Hits" albums are a subtype of compilation albums that specifically compile successful or popular tracks. --
IllaZilla (
talk) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)|type=
is either left blank or given an unsupported value. You'd get the same result if you typed in "
gefilte fish" (see below). --
IllaZilla (
talk) 18:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Untitled |
---|
Excuse me, but why would you want to move the professional reviews box when many people have gotten use to looking at it from the top right hand corner box? It has caused a great INCONVENIENCE and I think something as big as this should be discussed with all the administrators in wikipedia, preferably a poll should be held. Moving the review box to another location is like moving somebody's pinky to the back of your palm. I think you should review this immediately before further complaints arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronpon ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the "Released" date should be the official date if it is known. The official date is the most reliable and is the one set but the artist. Any other dates are unreliable and are a variation of the official date set by the artist and their management. -- 98.234.74.77 ( talk) 10:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Why does the length section say to list as minutes and seconds even if the length is over an hour. If something (a CD or even a movie for example) was an hour and five minutes you wouldn't say its 65 minutes you would say its 1 hour 5 minutes. This is basic time format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This documentation should mention the optional "Border" field somewhere other than just the optional "Extra album cover" template. I have been editing Wikipedia for three years now and never knew this field was available until yesterday. After digging through the archives here I found this discussion Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 4#Edit request for image border from 2007 where this feature was was added to the infobox, but it looks like its use was never properly documented. Could we add this to the "Advanced usage" section? Fezmar9 ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Cover
a black field in the Advanced Usage section and I'm not sure how to fix it. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 18:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Compiler
and Chronology
should be made black as well. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 18:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)These secondary issues Koavf brought up have not been fixed. Fezmar9 ( talk) 13:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to setting the default image size to frameless
(obviously this would apply to {{
extra album cover}} as well)? In practise this would increase the default size from 200px to 220px, but the infobox can easily accomodate the extra width and there's no reason for the infobox image to be smaller than a standard thumbnail. This would also eliminate the need for a |Cover size=
parameter, as any small images would automatically display at full size. Thoughts?
PC78 (
talk) 11:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Apparently uncontroversial. Please update with the code at
Template:Infobox album/sandbox (
this revision) and update {{
extra album cover}} with the code at
Template:Extra album cover/sandbox (
this revision). I've also added a tracking category for use of the |Reviews=
parameter, per discussion above. Thanks!
PC78 (
talk) 22:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
{{px|{{{Image size|}}}|frameless}}
so that the image size can still be manually overridden if required.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) -
talk 10:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)|Cover size=
? I would expect so, and it would be good to keep it in harmony with |Cover=
. I don't personally have much objection to allowing for larger images so long as there is no standing concensus to the contrary, though I think there is at least some benefit in forcing a standard width and preventing users from arbitrarily making images bigger because it "looks better". It's worth bearing in mind that we're dealing almost exclusively with non-free images here, though of course they shouldn't be uploaded to any great size in the first place.
PC78 (
talk) 12:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Do not like the new size. Way too large. The 200px thumbnail was fine. – Chase ( talk) 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Redux PC78 has claimed "The increased image size does not affect the width of the infobox", but this would show otherwise, with a difference of 23 (!) pixels. Is there something I'm missing here? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. J04n( talk page) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
{{ Edit protected}} In the album type parameter, "EP" should be "extended play" - no reason to abbreviate the term especially when the linked article is extended play. – Chase ( talk) 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Why is Allmusic included in the "Professional Reviews" section so many times, although any user of allmusic can write a review of an album - he/she needs not to be professional! -- Luoma (My Second Wife) ( talk) 12:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Right now it shows an ugly [[Image:200px.... etc thing if Cover is left blank. Can't it just skip that part? -- Bunnyhop11 ( talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ki (album) is being released by HevyDevy Records (the artist's record label) on May 25 in the artist's country (Canada), but one of the album's distributors (InsideOut) is releasing it May 22 in Germany only. The guide for the infobox says to put the earliest release date, but the label that owns the album is HevyDevy, so what date and label should go in the infobox? It seems weird to have "May 22" and "HevyDevy" in the infobox since they don't coincide, but I don't want to put InsideOut as the record label because they're just a distributor, not the label that produced and owns the album.
To make it more convoluted, HevyDevy started shipping preorders last week, so they are the label that released it first, but there's no reliable source for this. Gendralman ( talk) 14:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
"Alternate cover" should read "alternative cover". See http://www.cjr.org/resources/lc/alt.php, Partridge - Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, Fowler's Modern English Usage, Swan - Practical English Usage, http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1995/07/msg00037.html, etc. for why the current version is erroneous. Turkeyphan t 23:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (edited Turkeyphan t 12:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC))
Could a line be added to give the name of the artist who produced the cover art? I have copied the code from Template:Infobox Album into a new temporary template Template:Infobox Album2 and modified it to allow this box until it is resolved and have used this template on a few articles. - R160K ( talk) 21:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Under what circumstances can the Alternative/alternate cover template be used?
Images submitted for this purpose are disputed under:
Fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice, and also, or in the alternative, fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding
If this is the case, how can alternative covers ever be shown in wikipedia, as I cannot imagine many scenarios in which cover art for an album or single would be "free content." -- JohnDoe0007 ( talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}} same table in Lithuanian: lt:Šablonas:Infolentelė albumas
Hey folks,
Can we make the text for this template the same as the text used for Infobox Single Template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PK2 ( talk • contribs)
Done I made a small tweak due to the Released label not appearing, but it appears to be fine now. Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork ( talk) 22:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Please make the font size bigger; its difficult to read and looks silly when compared to the article text. Dan56 ( talk) 22:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
As per WP:ALT images should have alt text, for WP:ACCESSIBILITY by the visually impaired. Please install this obvious sandbox patch to add support for a new Alt parameter. I've checked it with the testcase and have documented it. Eubulides ( talk) 09:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on, the new look is hard to read, text is too small. Daniil Maslyuk ( talk) 05:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you please revert all of this until we actually agree to even use {{infobox}}? — Gendralman ( talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Are the objections to the new look exclusively directed toward the font size in the album chronology section? Or are there other objections? It would be great if we could try to address the specific objections or non-objections. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 16:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Despite the warning in the docuemntation,
this edit removed the class="summary"
attribute. Please replace it, by adding:
aboveclass=summary
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
When the argument for the artist field is wikilinked, the template links twice to the artist article, contrary to WP:OVERLINK. The second link, in " Artist chronology" needs to be removed. Anyone know how to effect this? Skomorokh 18:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Chronology = Artist
) and the second instance won't be linked.
Flowerparty☀ 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)I think that length of the album should be specified in hours, minutes and seconds, if it is longer than one hour. James Michael 1 ( talk) 14:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey people,
I was wondering if you could add up an extra cover and chronology as I need them for several projects in the future, and I am sure that other people would like this. Many artists and bands have more than one alternative covers and split CD's are often 3 and even 4 way splits, which would make a 3 chronology come in handy. Just a though. -- User:Petternitter ( talk) 02:31, 20 October 2009 (GMT +1)
{{editrequest}}
In July we changed several caption sizes (making them bigger, i.e. normal sized for readability) and noted that captions in all "extra chronology" templates should be changed to match. I notice caption size of
Template:Extra album cover 2 is small while the caption for the main album cover is normal. I suspect this was overlooked. Can we change the extra album cover template? I'll post a note on
Plastikspork's page; he is the admin who made the previous change. --
A Knight Who Says Ni (
talk) 02:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
{{Infobox album}}
is set by a parameter (or lack there of) sent to {{Infobox}}
. Currently, there is no value being set, hence the caption size is just the default text size for the first album cover. To match this, I removed the style statement in {{
Extra album cover 2}}, which was explicitly setting the caption size. Hopefully, this doesn't cause any problems. If it does, please revert, and we can try to resolve the issues. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 15:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Tried to use the template {{ Audiosample}} to incorporate an audio sample into an {{ Infobox album}}, as suggested at Template:Infobox_album#Misc, but had a problem. Looks like the template {{ Audiosample}} is broken. I have described the problem over at Template_talk:Audiosample. I am mentioning this here as the template {{ Audiosample}} looks to be seldom visited. HairyWombat ( talk) 00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Requested, over there, a change to the template {{ Audiosample}}. HairyWombat ( talk) 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi people,
This might have been discussed before, but I reckon it should be considered to implement a separate type for all Split releases; albums, EPs, singles etc. I understand this would require a whole bunch of new colour codes and would make the type list very extensive, so my though was that we could have a type that generates the 'Split' part of the text and a colour code whilst users can customly add the appropriate ending, such as 'album', 'EP', 'single' etc. I think this would work better than having Split releases marked with types like Studio album and EP. They are these types, though they are split releases making them something different from the norm, hence should be in some way seperated from the standard Studio albums and EPs.
Just a though.
Kindest, Petternitter ( talk) 9:51 am, November 17 2009 (GMT)
There is currently no provision for mix albums, that are compiled by artists. (See DJ mix). In articles like these: The Trip: Created by Snow Patrol and Late Night Tales: Snow Patrol, using "mix" as the type generates the pink-ish color, and the page gets added to the hidden category (albums with non standard infoboxes). Both albums are one of their respective series, so its not that its a rare type of release. The latter (Late Night Tales) being the 22nd album in that series. Can this type of album be added and have a separate color code of its own? The closest thing to it might be "compilation". However, a compilation is typically a greatest hits album, and it'll usually contain the artist's original work. The Mix albums however are compiled by songs taken from different artists, so there's a difference. Its not "remix" either, as those albums contain only remixed versions of original content, which is not the case in "mix". Suede67 ( talk) 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Reviews in infobox: scrap? regarding the possible removal of the "Professional reviews" field from this infobox. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion there. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add "Mini-album" to the list of Types. At present these either get classed as "Studio" or "EP", the latter being completely incorrect. Certainly back in the pre-CD days, vinyl mini-LPs were fairly common, and were never classed as EPs, and it really annoys me to see them classed as "EP" out of either ignorance or the lack of any other suitably descriptive category.-- Michig ( talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Can a parameter for Certification be added, just as there is one for singles in {{ Infobox single}}? It seems almost ridiculous that there is not already a parameter for this. Adabow ( talk) 03:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
In reference to extra chronology 3 above, adding a second extra chronology 2 does not work, as evidenced by Cry Cry Cry (band) Any thoughts on how to fix this? Nlaporte ( talk) 04:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, so I'm going to go ahead and say it: I've noticed that in the infobox, the first heading "released" lists different release dates depending on the artist's country of origin, etc. On this article for the template There seems to be no consensus on which date should be used, I'll give you a few examples:
X (Kylie Minogue album) - An Australian artist, Japanese release date is used, which is the first worldwide release.
It's Not Me, It's You - A British artist, British release date is used, which isn't the first worldwide release.
And on others (e.g. The Secret Life of... (album) - Australian) the infobox has multiple release dates, with the country in brackets after the date, all in the infobox.
I feel this needs to be clarified in this template so we can have a consistent release date. The two options are:
-The release date in the infobox is for the artist's country of origin, regardless of which country released it first.
-The release date in the infobox is always the very first instance the album was released, regardless of which country it was in.
Please help clarify this, and thank you for your time :)
-- Rhys ( talk) 09:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find any discussion of this in the archives. There appears to be no handling for unreleased albums (yes, I'm aware of WP:CRYSTAL; it's moot when WP:GNG can be satisfied). Many of the fields, particularly the release date are in the past tense (i.e. "released"). Potentially, we could change the headings to present tense, add optional fields (e.g. "expected release date") or clever macro handling to format future-release albums differently, or just have a separate infobox for unreleased albums. I'm a bit against a separate infobox, as it will just need to be converted whenever the album actually comes out. If a separate infobox is created (or already exists), the documentation here should have a hatnote pointing to it. Could I get some input on what people think should be done, if anything? - Verdatum ( talk) 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The single type of this infobox is broken. I can't figure out why, but when 'single' is put into the type field, it treats it like it was a custom argument (with the colors set to peachpuff instead of khaki). I'm not sure if there is something missing through all the subpages somewhere or what. See
Remixes 2004 to see what it is doing. Also, a link needs to be set so the line reads "
Single by [artist]" instead of the current "single by [artist]" (note the capitalization also). —
Akrabbim
talk 18:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
|Type=single
or any other |Type=
value that returns the color value "khaki". —
John Cardinal (
talk) 19:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)|typetext=
, a user might use the template this way: {{Infobox album |type=ep |typetext=CD single ...}}
|Longtype=
which is almost what I described above. (I forgot about it when proposing |typetext=
. When you use Longtype, you can specify text that appears after the type, but it doesn't replace the type. —
John Cardinal (
talk) 04:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The
doc page includes the comment <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
in the examples/models for how to use the template. This seems useless to me and adds clutter to the articles. It's unlikely any newbie will follow the instructions, and experienced editors know how to find the help page for a template. While many templates include comments like this, most do not and I propose that we remove it. Before you disagree, please consider what would happen if every template that was closely aligned with a WP project included such a comment. —
John Cardinal (
talk) 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
<!-- See Template:Infobox album -->
. What we really want these noobs to do is read the template documentation, which is right there on the template page, rather than transcluded way down on the
WP:ALBUMS page. Unlike you, I fail to see how it "adds clutter to articles" as it is hidden text that doesn't show up except in the edit window. Having the message causes no harm, and potentially benefits newer editors. I just don't see the problem. --
IllaZilla (
talk) 22:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Santa Claus Lane | |
---|---|
Holiday album by Hilary Duff |
A recent content dispute I have been involved in with several editors on various Hilary Duff album pages has shown that many do not consider holiday albums to be actual studio albums. This discussion is hopefully to gain some consensus with other editors on what should be done, since many artists and the media do not consider Christmas-themed albums as a part of one's studio chronology. How I see it is this: holiday albums are essentially studio albums (or extended plays) that contain material based on the Christmas holiday.
To the side is what I am proposing, using the article Santa Claus Lane (the primary topic of the dispute I have been involved in) as an example of what could possibly be used. But I would like to be clear that my opinion in this matter is to refer to holiday albums as studio albums or EPs. – Chase ( talk) 21:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment I seem to be posting this a lot lately: With regard to the particular album mentioned as an example, here is another case of an article with raging edit/revert disputes, and a virtually empty talk page. Please use the article's talk page, not user talk pages or project / infobox talk pages or edit summaries, and certainly not edit warring, as first attempts at resolving disputes. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 15:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have compared its configuration to those of WT:ALBUM and WT:SONG where it works fine and I can't see any significant difference. Can someone figure it out? – Ib Leo (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be useful to have a field for the writer and a field for the composer in the album infobox, especially for the singles, because often it's not the same person and there seems to be confusion sometimes about it. Neon Tiger 21 ( talk) 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The label guideline is currently very vague. It currently states "Drop words like "Records" from the end of the label's name (e.g. use Universal rather than Universal Records)". What exactly are the "like" words. Would "music" as in Sony Music be considered a word to drop? That specific example is hard to determine since most albums on English Wikipedia don't include Sony Music under label, as emphasis is generally put on the label imprints instead. This is because the labels operate as standalone companies in the US and the UK. But in the case of domestic repertoire of the big 4 music companies outside of the US and UK, these companies usually only have only one company (one office) which is the parent name followed by the name of the country. For example, in Greece there is only one Sony Music standalone company and that would naturally be “Sony Music Greece”, therefore the release label is almost solely referred to as “Sony Music”. They also use imprints to segregate A&R operations, such as Columbia and RCA, but these are more of am internal formality and never used in promotion. Since the guideline is very vague, various users have been removing "Music" from “Sony Music” for Greek album pages I oversee, leaving it as “Sony” as per the infobox guidelines. I believe that in the case of Sony Music, or any of the big 4 parent companies who use their name in marketing outside of the US, "Music" should be in use, especially since these conglomerates have other media and technology business (e.g. Sony Music vs. Sony Pictures vs. Sony Electronics etc.). Any input on this would be appreciated. Greekboy ( talk) 03:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the official name is Sony Music Entertainment, but it is known/referred to as Sony Music. In fact their website is also www.sonymusic.gr. Editors are not changing just to Sony because it is commonly referred to as that, but because of the vague guideline. (as stated for their reason in the edit summaries) Greekboy ( talk) 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Question I have always been a little confused about the Type
field and its purpose. Does this establish an albums format or its content? For instance, parameters such as Holiday
have been removed from the template for referring to the kind of music. Simultaneously, we have a parameter for EP
, in contradistinction to long-play albums. What is to be done about (e.g.)
iTunes Live from London? Is it a "live album" or an "EP"? Clearly,
it is both. So which one takes priority in this field? What is the function of it in the first place? I've only seen this discussed
here and I don't know that there is a meaningful discussion of the philosophy of the Type
field. Thoughts? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Template is protected, so I can't edit it myself, but the interwiki to the Dutch version is wrong. It should link to nl:Sjabloon:Infobox muziekalbum. If anyone could fix that, thanks. -- Sander ( talk) 09:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please make the following changes, to apply the
hAudio microformat:
No visual changes will occur and the category is hidden. For background see the microformats project. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Question The above request included the addition of this line in the infobox coding:
Does this mean the microformatting is being used to assist entities outside of Wikipedia to track which contributors (Wikipedia editors) are writing articles on which artists? If so, is this something we should be concerned about? -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
class="contributor"
identifies a contributor (an artist, producer or conductor, say) to the recording.) Though if having edits to articles about artists tracked does concern you, bear in mind that such data can be extracted from RSS feeds of page histories; or from the database itself.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits 13:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)As you may have noticed, we're not using the reviews field anymore. Can someone re-code the template so it no longer recognizes the "reviews" field -- so that no matter what you put in it, nothing shows up, as was done with the "chart position" field on {{ Infobox single}}? This point was raised on my page by Bearcat, who said:
What think? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviews
in {{
Infobox album}} be added to a hidden category such as
Category:Album articles with reviews in the infobox and work from there with
WP:AWB, a bot, and hand-editing. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Could someone reinstate the reviews field please until the reviews have been migrated? We're already getting articles prodded because the reviews are not showing on the articles.-- Michig ( talk) 07:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Has there been any update on the migration of professional reviews to a dedicated "Reception" section that DASHBot was undertaking? It's been almost seven months now since consensus was reached to do away with the professional reviews in infoboxes but there are still lots and lots of album articles out there with the professional reviews intact. I can't say that I've noticed DASHBot doing much to migrate reviews recently, although perhaps I'm mistaken about that.
In addition, I would like to echo Ten Pound Hammer's earlier call for the "Reviews" field of this infobox to be re-coded and deactivated, so that even if reviews are still in the infobox, at least they won't display. Editors still continue to add reviews to album articles daily, as we all know. It is my belief that while the "Reviews" field of the infobox remains operative, this will never stop. I for one am getting tired of removing or relocating professional reviews, only to have other users revert my changes or continue to add new reviews to the infobox. WP:ALBUM guidelines state that professional reviews are no longer allowed in infoboxes, so we as editors need to get serious about implementing this change. So far, this hasn't really happened. -- Kohoutek1138 ( talk) 15:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Could someone with the authority to please add "ang:Infobox Album" to the list of languages? Gott wisst ( talk) 03:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
So, if an album is comprised of all studio tracks, but it is considered an EP, is it not also a studio album? What if the band includes the EP in their count of studio albums...should we treat it as both an EP and a Studio album or just one or the other. My specific issue is with regards to Rush's upcoming album, Clockwork Angels. The band describes the album as their 20th studio album, but that must include an EP named Feedback. Should we consider Feedback both an EP and a studio album, or do we ignore the band and just call Clockwork Angels the 19th studio album without a citation? LedRush ( talk) 14:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Question Why does the Type=Tribute
option default to "Studio album"? If anything, I would gather that most tributes are various artist compilations. This should probably just make a template error and add the page to
Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes--along with Type=Christmas
and any other deprecated fields. Then, it would be easy to fix them and properly sort these articles. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 04:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently the template has the word "Released" for the release date, which I see even on albums that are yet to be released, such as this one. Wouldn't it make more sense for it to say "Release date" so that it would apply correctly to albums that have been released as well as albums that have not yet been released? Betterusername ( talk) 21:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Another type of album that is a 'Greatest Bits', which when you type in in an infobox comes under the colour of the 'other' type.
Here is an example of what it will look like if one types it in. By the way, B-Side album and N/A aren't real, they're just examples.
Untitled |
---|
-- 77.99.231.37 ( talk) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised that, even though the 'Greatest Bits' exsists, it isn't credited in the Infobox album article. Here's a better example, using the current state of Green Day's album Shenanigans, just look to the right.
Untitled |
---|
Review scores | |
---|---|
Source | Rating |
Allmusic | link |
Rolling Stone | link |
-- 77.99.231.37 ( talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
greatest
. "Greatest bits" sounds like a joke title, certainly not worth its own type. By the way, Shenanigans is a
compilation album, not a greatest hits (it consists of B-sides & outtakes). Such albums should use compilation
as their type. --
IllaZilla (
talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)compilation
as its type, since B-side collections are
compilation albums. "Greatest Hits" albums are a subtype of compilation albums that specifically compile successful or popular tracks. --
IllaZilla (
talk) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)|type=
is either left blank or given an unsupported value. You'd get the same result if you typed in "
gefilte fish" (see below). --
IllaZilla (
talk) 18:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Untitled |
---|
Excuse me, but why would you want to move the professional reviews box when many people have gotten use to looking at it from the top right hand corner box? It has caused a great INCONVENIENCE and I think something as big as this should be discussed with all the administrators in wikipedia, preferably a poll should be held. Moving the review box to another location is like moving somebody's pinky to the back of your palm. I think you should review this immediately before further complaints arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronpon ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the "Released" date should be the official date if it is known. The official date is the most reliable and is the one set but the artist. Any other dates are unreliable and are a variation of the official date set by the artist and their management. -- 98.234.74.77 ( talk) 10:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Why does the length section say to list as minutes and seconds even if the length is over an hour. If something (a CD or even a movie for example) was an hour and five minutes you wouldn't say its 65 minutes you would say its 1 hour 5 minutes. This is basic time format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This documentation should mention the optional "Border" field somewhere other than just the optional "Extra album cover" template. I have been editing Wikipedia for three years now and never knew this field was available until yesterday. After digging through the archives here I found this discussion Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 4#Edit request for image border from 2007 where this feature was was added to the infobox, but it looks like its use was never properly documented. Could we add this to the "Advanced usage" section? Fezmar9 ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Cover
a black field in the Advanced Usage section and I'm not sure how to fix it. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 18:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Compiler
and Chronology
should be made black as well. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 18:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)These secondary issues Koavf brought up have not been fixed. Fezmar9 ( talk) 13:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to setting the default image size to frameless
(obviously this would apply to {{
extra album cover}} as well)? In practise this would increase the default size from 200px to 220px, but the infobox can easily accomodate the extra width and there's no reason for the infobox image to be smaller than a standard thumbnail. This would also eliminate the need for a |Cover size=
parameter, as any small images would automatically display at full size. Thoughts?
PC78 (
talk) 11:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Apparently uncontroversial. Please update with the code at
Template:Infobox album/sandbox (
this revision) and update {{
extra album cover}} with the code at
Template:Extra album cover/sandbox (
this revision). I've also added a tracking category for use of the |Reviews=
parameter, per discussion above. Thanks!
PC78 (
talk) 22:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
{{px|{{{Image size|}}}|frameless}}
so that the image size can still be manually overridden if required.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) -
talk 10:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)|Cover size=
? I would expect so, and it would be good to keep it in harmony with |Cover=
. I don't personally have much objection to allowing for larger images so long as there is no standing concensus to the contrary, though I think there is at least some benefit in forcing a standard width and preventing users from arbitrarily making images bigger because it "looks better". It's worth bearing in mind that we're dealing almost exclusively with non-free images here, though of course they shouldn't be uploaded to any great size in the first place.
PC78 (
talk) 12:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Do not like the new size. Way too large. The 200px thumbnail was fine. – Chase ( talk) 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Redux PC78 has claimed "The increased image size does not affect the width of the infobox", but this would show otherwise, with a difference of 23 (!) pixels. Is there something I'm missing here? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. J04n( talk page) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
{{ Edit protected}} In the album type parameter, "EP" should be "extended play" - no reason to abbreviate the term especially when the linked article is extended play. – Chase ( talk) 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)