Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Proposal for "Reissue" parameter

Currently, we have over 100 entries on Category:Reissue albums. Considering that all of the leads in these articles mention the original album being reissued, that information seems important enough to be included in the infobox.

I also think it's strange that the current infobox refers to some albums (like Let It Be: Special Edition, 1967 – Sunshine Tomorrow, Feel Flows, Thriller 25, Halycon Days, and The Layla Sessions) as a "studio album" or "compilation" (there seems to be no consensus as to whether these should be considered compilations or not) when they are introduced more accurately in the lead as "a reissue" or even "an expanded reissue." My proposed solution to this would be |Reissue=.

Using The Seaside: Original Edition as an example:

Example A

• Input:
  |Reissue=The Seaside
|Type=Reissue (probably best to automatically default to this if any value is inserted into |Reissue=)
  |Artist=Cardiacs
• Output: "Reissue of The Seaside by Cardiacs"

Alternatively (and I think this approach might be uglier),

Example B

• Input:
  |Reissue=The Seaside
|Type=Box set
|Artist=Cardiacs
• Output: "Box set by Cardiacs (reissue of The Seaside)"

Or we could simply add another subheader like "Reissue of" directly above the release date.

Any support/opposition? ili (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

A reissue can be either compilation album or a studio album depending on what the original album was. Its just an alternative release often with new cover and material but its an extension of the original album. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the situation can also be related to so-called re-recorded albums and we should come up with a universal solution for them as well. These are albums like:

Fearless (Taylor Swift album) -> Fearless (Taylor's Version)

Red (Taylor Swift album) -> Red (Taylor's Version)

and few others under "A" here: Category:Music infoboxes with unknown value for type.

Probably something like "Version of" would work better for that purpose? Then we could also use this parameter with infoboxes/articles of "deluxe versions" (Lil Uzi Vert vs. the World 2) and "box sets" as well. Solidest (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Solidest: Another idea would be to split |longtype= into |pre_type= and |post_type=

Examples C/D

• Input:
  |pre-type=Expanded reissue
|type=box set
|post_type=of The Seaside
|Artist=Cardiacs
• Output: "Expanded reissue box set of The Seaside by Cardiacs"

or

• Input:
  |pre-type=Re-recorded version of the
|type=studio
|post_type=Fearless
|Artist=Taylor Swift
• Output: "Re-recorded version of the studio album Fearless by Taylor Swift"

ili (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Or, we could simply even further by replacing |longtype= with |display_type=:

Example E

• Input:
  |display_type=Re-recorded version of the studio album Fearless
|type=studio
|Artist=Taylor Swift
• Output: "Re-recorded version of the studio album Fearless by Taylor Swift"

• reply is the issue not more that people are inputting "re-issue" as a type into the infobox in the first place? I don't think personally its significant enough information for inclusion. A reissue is just a different tracklist/release date/cover art of an existing project. In Taylor's case, she's re-releasing under a different label and copyright arrangement. The existing album types are perfectly adequate IMO - "re-release"/"reissue" bit goes in the lead section. The focus should be on encouraging and educating people how to use infoboxes correctly. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

When was an album recorded?

What dates should go next to the recording parameter? My understanding is that it should only include the dates on which released material was recorded. This is the standard applied at the FA for Sgt. Pepper. Secondary sources write that sessions for that album began on 24 November 1966 with the earliest recording of "Strawberry Fields Forever". That song didn't make it onto the album though, so the infobox instead lists 6 December 1966 as the beginning date, as that is when material which made it on the album was first recorded (specifically, the bare bones of "When I'm Sixty-Four").

I followed this same standard at Turn! Turn! Turn! by listing 28 August 1965 as the first date, since material the Byrds recorded on 28 June 1965 was re-recorded and did not make it onto the album. Kohoutek1138 removed it, conteding: "June 28 was when the album sessions began: the fact that nothing was used from that very first session is neither here nor there -- the songs they attempted eventually ended up on the LP or on [attendant] singles." My concern with this standard is that it strays towards WP:OR in requiring an editor's judgement over what qualifies as the earliest attempt at recording an album. The Beatles have a multitude of secondary sources making such judgements, but most bands do not.

I searched through this talk page's archives but did not find any previous discussion on this matter. Perhaps the template's directions could be made more specific if we reach a consensus here. What are people's thoughts? Tkbrett (✉) 11:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's always going to be a hard and fast rule for this, but looking at most bands' recording histories, it's usually pretty obvious when the sessions for a particular album began. Not least because there's usually (although not always) a noticeable gap in recording between the end of the previous album sessions and the start of the new. But certainly, it's true to say that many albums end up not featuring any music from the earliest recording sessions for that album.

Look at The Beatles' Revolver for example: the first day's session on 6th April 1966 was spent recording the earliest version of "Tomorrow Never Knows", but that particular version recorded on that day went unreleased until the mid-90s' Anthology project. Yet, clearly April 6th was the start of the Revolver recording sessions, even though nothing recorded that day ended up on the album -- and as such, the Wikipedia article for Revolver accurately cites 6th April 1966 as the start of the album sessions. Likewise, the Byrds began the Turn! Turn! Turn! recording sessions on 28th June 1965, committing early versions of "The Times They Are a-Changin'" and "She Don't Care About Time" to tape, and although none of these were used at the time, versions of those songs from later on in the recording sessions were.

In fact, although I can't think of any examples right now, I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few instances of many months worth of recording sessions going unused in the case of some albums (because maybe a different musical approach was deemed necessary by the band, after weeks of fruitless recording sessions??).

Anyway, in closing, I think the way things are now with the "Recorded" field in the album infobox is correct: the album sessions start date is when the band began working on material that was intended for their next album and/or where a reliable third-party source says that the album sessions started – regardless of whether or not any of the material recorded at those earliest sessions actually ended up on an album or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohoutek1138 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say we only give a date for when music from that day/week/month actually made it onto the released album. There are many, quite famous, examples, of artists failing to create the music they want in the studio and abandoning sessions or discarding the early material. In some cases, this might mean close to a year's difference between an initial batch of sessions and recording for the album proper. It's the same as only listing producers whose work actually appears (credited) on the release; again, there are examples of a record company or artists deciding to switch producers early in a project. Same also, in fact, as how we handle Label: if an album was always meant to be on a certain label but, for whatever reason, it ends up being released by another record company, we wouldn't list the original record company. So, it's about stating what actually is, not what might or should have been. I'm afraid I don't buy the OR argument. Surely, if we know that material from early sessions was discarded, it's only because we're following what the sources say.

The backing track of Tomorrow Never Knows (official version) was recorded late on 6 April 1966, btw. That's why the infobox at Revolver gives that start date. JG66 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Category for a half-album

Hi, currently there is no category for a half-album in the |type= field. Note that a half-album is not an EP, but one half of a full studio album with two halves/parts -- first and second. Can this be included please? Thanks, Bostonite01310 ^talk 21:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you give an example of when this would be needed? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you give an example? In my eyes this is a psuedo type. There's only really two types of release:

• LP (long play) - an album
• SP (short play) - a single, maxi single

EPs are multi-type, as singles can be EPs so can albums. However, in terms of the music industry itself, the IFPI defines releases as either singles or albums. A half-album is still an album IMO. I'm reticent to create a category for a specific artist or release. Over the years, artists have used various typologies to describe their releases: mini albums, parts, chapters, pre-ludes etc. A release can only ever chart or be certified as a single or an album, I'm not sure what advantage there is for a psuedo typing like "half-album". >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf, Lil-unique1: Thank you for your replies. Here is an example: Cosmos (B.I album). The artist has specifically stated,¹ several times, that this is not an EP, but first half of his full studio album, and that he is going to release the second half soon. If "half" is not appropriate as a standard template, it could be a category for an album that is released in multiple parts. Bostonite01310 ^talk 22:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, anyone can say anything, I can call a spade a balloon if I want but it makes no difference if it's still a spade. According to the Official Charts Company, a release less than 25 minutes long would be classified as an EP if its made of different tracks. It's a bit like saying I'm not a human, I'm an alien. Biologically you're still human, despite what species you call yourself. I really don't think that "part 1" of an album or "part two" or albums released in multiple parts is that significant. Christina Aguilera did the same with her Aguilera (album) - it was released in chapters. Its really not all that significant or a defining characteristic because the whole project/era is still an album. Also we try to avoid primary sources for this exact reason. Another example is the american Artist JoJo did the same thing, releasing three singles simultaneously (a 'tringle') which was ultimately an EP >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

But this is a studio album. That designation seems sufficient. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Producer

This generally refers to the person(s) responsible for producing the overall album? Or does it also mean people listed as producers of individual tracks on said album? Because my understanding has always been that it means the former, but ik of articles that contain the latter in the infobox, and while to me it seemed incorrect, I never asked anywhere for clarification to be 100% sure. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Its anyone who's worked on producing at least one song, but excluding co-producers, executive producers, additional producer and vocal producers (unless they worked on the whole album) per WP:NOEXEC. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I've read NOEXEC before but still couldn't tell. Thanks for clearing it up. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Italic title issue in articles that should not be in italics

If this template is placed inside an article that shouldn't be in italics (as a sub-section) then the only solution is |italic_title=no, however that disables the correct italicization of the template title. Am I missing something? Should {{Yesitalic}} be used or is there a different thing I should be using? Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where this might be the case? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Saw the issue at Find the 1st Prize, but that probably isn't the only place. Gonnym (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

{{yesitalic}} or italics markup in the name parameter appears to be the only solution. If double apostrophes are used together with Template:Infobox album#Chronology then the apostrophes will currently be rendered in the chronology section (example) due to too many consecutive apostrophes there. If we suggest <i>...</i> then a good faith editor may later replace it with apostrophes. I have updated the documentation to suggest {{yesitalic}}.[1] The infobox code could also be changed to use {{yesitalic}} in the chronology section so the name parameter can use double apostrophes like most editors will expect. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a discussion about how this infobox should be used here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#RfC:_album_chronology_in_infobox. All opinions welcome. Popcornfud (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"name" Parametre

Can someone change it please, along with other relevant infoboxes, so that it's optional, rather having to always add it. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Please explain further. Here is a list article which details untitled musical works. When I look at the album articles, such as Led Zeppelin IV, Untitled Korn album, and Untitled Rammstein album, I see that respectively, the infoboxes have been titled/named as Untitled, Untitled album, and Untitled Rammstein album. I find these solutions suitable, better than leaving the top of the infobox blank. I guess that without further detailing of need or desire, I would oppose making the name parameter optional. Mburrell (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

When using the "Inofbox political party", you don't have to add the "name" parametre for the page title to appear as the header of the template. See New Korea Party. The "name" parametre isn't used, but the page name appears at the top of the template. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Album article titles do not always represent the correct album title, many album articles include band or artist name in parenthesis, or album release year for bands that use the same album title several times. Going back to Led Zeppelin IV, that is not the album title, it is actually an untitled album with several unofficial names, such as Led Zeppelin IV or ZoSo or Runes. The article has been named Led Zeppelin IV rather than Untitled Led Zeppelin album, but even if it was renamed, should the name in the infobox be Unnamed, Unnamed album, or Untitled Led Zeppelin album? Should the infobox for Weezer (White Album) be the correct album title of Weezer, or Weezer (White Album)? You could say that because the name would be optional that the article creator could fill in the album name instead of defaulting. I would rather have no default action, that the album title be a required parameter so that some thought was placed into the naming in the infobox. Mburrell (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts from anybody else? Mburrell (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the parameter could be set up similarly to that for Template:Infobox song#name ("The title of the song. If not provided, the template uses the {{PAGENAMEBASE}} of the page.") Most editors fill in the parameter, but if they don't, the title of the page is used. It doesn't appear to have caused problems when using that infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Singles from deluxe issues not being counted as singles from the album is cherry picking.

If singles from deluxe edition re-issues should not be included as a single from their respective album then no bonus tracks should, like “Ours” by Taylor Swift, it is a bonus track on the deluxe edition of Speak Now and yet is included in the single section of the infobox. You cannot just cherry pick and pick and chose like that so that rule needs to be removed from the WP:Infobox album#Single section as it needs to apply to all deluxe edition bonus tracks or none at all. No picking and choosing. 2600:1015:B127:726B:C8A1:8DE1:197C:DBD0 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Would also like to add how WP:BIASED is a joke as the fact that a song cannot be considered a single from an album just because it is a reissue is biased editing in and of itself, especially if the artists’ are considering the song a single from the album and most people with logical and common sense thinking would also think the same thing that if the song is released and appears on the album, reissue or not, then it is a single from said album.

“Ours” was not released from a reissue. Simply from a deluxe that was released the same day as the standard version of the album. A reissue is when the artist releases a new version of the album at some point in the future from when the first version was released. That’s the difference. 2601:48:8100:5A60:70BB:A90B:21CA:84B9 (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Extra Chronology

It is now recommended that additional chronologies be used "for split albums, collaborative albums, and series of albums". However, for many artists such as Taylor Swift and Garth Brooks, releases like live albums or box sets are so common that it is hard to jump from the page of one studio album to the page of another. In fact, "studio album chronology" edits are quite not uncommon (e.g. see pages of Sonic Youth's studio albums). Moreover, it seems that additional chronologies are especially fit for many rappers' mixtape series (e.g. Young Thug and Lil Wayne), while in practice such practices are rarely seen. Maybe we can offer a better guidance on this issue here. Jason211pacem (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus during an RfC is "to use a single chronology encompassing all album types. In case of collaborative album, a single chronology is applied for each artists involved." So, separate chronos for studio, live, compilations, box sets, etc., should not be used, with an exception for collaborations. A navbox at the bottom of the article would be a better solution if an artist's album history is particularly complicated. Loading up infoboxes with a lot of details unrelated to the actual album article content is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Is that what's going on with edits like this? Not a fan of that. Either have the chronology strictly for studio albums (like it was around a decade ago) or every album type. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for detailed info. Put the "studio album chronology" issue aside, I'm still a little confused about what constitutes "series of albums". Personally I find it a bit redundant to make a separate chrono for, say, Sonic Youth's SYR series or Lil Wayne's tha Carter series. But I guess such a practice would be appropriate for the following examples (if they're made into separate articles): B.o.B.'s Elements (as a compilation of four mixtapes), Jessie J's R.O.S.E. (constituted of four separate parts) and Denzel Curry's Ta13oo (constituted of three sections). Jason211pacem (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The wording "series of albums" appears in the first template guidance that was added in 2007[2] and there doesn't seem to be any further explanation or discussion. If identifying the series is really needed, a navbox is the better solution IMO, as was also done for the "SYR series" in Template:Sonic Youth. Otherwise, it might need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, i.e., something for discussion on the article or artist talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think an all encomppassing chronology makes sense when so many artists have a lot of non-notable compilation, live, etc. albums that don't have articles and so break the chronology chain. At least, the requirement should be that an article exists for the album. --Mika1h (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not but it was a comprehensive discussion that ended with "one single chronology". The chronology is about information not navigation. Having a link/page has never been a requirement. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting tweak that will affect what ends up in Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover

Greetings, see this edit made to the infobox album sandbox. Would like to make this change to this infox. Currently, any usage of the infox without an entry in the "cover" field places the page in Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover, which currently contains over 12,000 pages. Many of these pages are for movies, video games, or TV shows with a subsection for their soundtrack album. Adding a cover image into these secondary infoboxes does not meet the fair use policy. So what we currently have is a category cluttered up with thousands of pages that appropriately do not have a cover image. This requested edit would only include pages with infobox album in the lead section, making the category much easier to maintain. J04n(talk page) 23:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I believe that this change does not work with redirects, such as {{Album infobox}} or {{Infobox EP}}, but if you replace the redirect with the canonical template, the categorization should work properly. It may take a day or more for the category population to adjust. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Spectacular! I am so appreciative, thank you. J04n(talk page) 23:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the category has cleared out all but 1,560 legitimate entries. I checked about 20 of the remaining articles and they all appear to be actual album articles that are missing cover art. Let me know if you see any false positives. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Labels from countries

@Zmbro, can you explain for these?([3][4]) Also there's another discussions at Talk:The_Storm_Before_the_Calm#Euro_label, you can make any comment below. ​​​​ 2402:1980:82B1:74F9:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As QuietHere said over there, per Template:Infobox_album#label "it says "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified." "Originally" in this case is referring to release date, not nationality, and from everything I've seen the release was day-and-date simultaneous in all territories." There were more than four labels in the linked cases, and they were all released simultaneously, therefore they all belong there. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

But also says "record label should be mentioned in the article, for example in a Release history section (in different countries in this case)." For example: Ellie Goulding albums were released by Polydor in the UK and Interscope in the U.S., then @SnapSnap prefers Polydor as the main label. ([5][6][7]) 2001:D08:2950:669B:17B0:DC3A:526A:7BAF (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

television season articles and this template, a new error

Since television season articles have now been moved and they've lost their disambiguation, there are now possible display title clashes between {{Infobox television season}} and this template. To fix this, editors should use |italic_title=no on this template. Another possible more general fix is to place the italic code inside Module:Is infobox in lead so only when this template is the lead template it should handle italicization of the article title. Gonnym (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)