Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Italic title redux

Can anyone figure out why the title of The Naked Truth (Lil' Kim album) is only rendered in italics if the DISPLAYTITLE magic word is used? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an apostrophe limitation in {{Italic title}}. See Template talk:Italic title/Archive 2#Can't get it to work 2. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Linking language and WP:OVERLINK

Based on the WP:OVERLINK guideline,

Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking ... the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions. (emphasis mine)

should we be encouraging people to link common languages? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should not. I generally de-link common stuff like country names, languages, etc. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviews parameter

As the project to move infobox reviews into article space has just been completed, the reviews parameter and deprecation notice can now be entirely removed from the infobox album template without fear of losing any review scores. The quick explanation that reviews are not to be included in the infobox should still remain in the template documentation though. Thanks! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've sandboxed it; please verify that this is the desired change. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That looks like it would do the trick! Thanks Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Demo albums color

Can we change the color of demo albums? They are basically just a compilation album made up of demo versions of songs. I think that it should be green to go along with remix albums, greatest hits and box sets. What do you guys think? Zac (talk · contribs) 19:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} goes up after consensus is formed for the change. Demo albums are not compilation albums; you are confusing the two. "Demo albums" is meant for releases like Buddha and No Life 'til Leather, actual demo albums. Don't confuse these with compilation albums made up of demo material, ie. All Systems Go 3 or '99–'00 Demos. Just make sure you're using the correct "type". --IllaZilla (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If I'm correct, the proper use of a "demo album" is albums that aren't made available to buy? So Just Be Free, for example, would just be a compilation? Zac (talk · contribs) 20:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite A demo can be released commercially: see Nebraska (album) or Magnapop (album). Demos are recorded in certain way. They are frequently not available commercially, but this is not universal. Also, an album can be a compilation composed entirely of demos--these are not mutually exclusive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs a lyricist parameter

This template is widely used in almost all Bollywood soundtracks. Bollywood soundtracks almost always have a lyricist, who is a key figure of the soundtrack. Lyrics are considered one of the most important aspects of Bollywood soundtracks. We have some renowned lyricists, e.g. Oscar winner Gulzar. I wish there was an parameter for lyricist in this template. Thanks. Shivashree (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the "lyricist" the lyric writer or the singer? Either way, that info goes in either the writing credits (as part of the tracklist) or personnel sections. This infobox does not include composer/performer credits. --IllaZilla (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Album catalogue numbers

Please consider a field for the catalogue number of albums. For collectors, this field is invaluable because it helps us to identify pressings. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia caters to a general audience. Catalogue numbers in a field that says "label" is going to look confusing to most readers, who do not need to identify pressings. This piece of information can be placed in a release history table instead (MOS:ALBUM#Release history). Dan56 (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"This piece of information can be placed in a release history table instead (MOS:ALBUM#Release history)". This is correct, this information does not belong in the main infobox. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes include catalog numbers next to the label name, but even then it doesn't require a separate field to do so. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What should "video" entries be?

It appears that there is a common practice to label all home-video DVD/Blu-ray releases by an artist as a "Video". I recently came to realize that's not really accurate. For starters, the "Video" field links to "Music video". Such releases, such as Live at Roseland: Elements of 4, are really direct-to-video films and a release like Celebration: The Video Collection would be a "Video". Of course, I'm just saying how I feel about it to start a discussion. I think this something here definitely has to change.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Video It seems like "video" is best, since (as you point out) a "music video" is typically a promotional clip for a song and not a compilation of music videos or concert footage presented as a live album with video. For what it's worth, someone needs to remove the "[x] video chronology" and replace it with "[x] chronology" as video albums are included in the chain of an artists' chronology per WP:ALBUM. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(Whoops, I forgot about this discussion...) I'm not completely following you. I think we really have to develop a new way of this. Live albums work out fine, but when it comes to not having a audio release, that's where it gets messy. Maybe we could introduce a new field. Since it is a type of album by an artist, I don't think I would agree in using a film infobox for them.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Chronology

Wasn't there a rule before that chronology of albums was based on the type of album as well? I.E: studio albums follow studio albums and compilations follow other compilations? Is that still a standard, or has that since changed? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Chronologies Yes, it used to be that the chronology chains were by album type, but there is consensus that they should all be one unbroken string. I can dig up the link if you want, or you can search the archives of WT:ALBUM. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarify the use of other type?

In the Type field, "other" is italicized, indicating that it should not literally say "other", but what type the album really is. Yes? For example, a collection of field recordings such as Cho Oyu 8201m – Field Recordings from Tibet should have "type=Field recordings", not "type=other". Can we add an explanatory sentence to clarify usage of the "other" type? Something like "If the type of album is other than the linked codes in the chart, substitute other with what type the album really is." Kawayama (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Format

I find it odd that there is no 'format' parameter in the infobox to establish what format the album was initially released on (e.g. vinyl, CD or digital). Surely this is worth noting, no? Most articles I've seen don't establish this anywhere, which I think is akin to omitting the release date or the record label. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Most albums have been released in multiple formats, unless they're like pre-1960s albums, which have less articles on them. Format info can be placed in a release history table like this one, if conducive to the information available on the album. Dan56 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This comment is probably more appropriate in a 'manual of style' talkpage, so I've also started a discussion here, but I think it would be beneficial to the article to establish what format it was released on first (i.e. vinyl may be what it was initially released on while it may have been re-issued on CD or released digitally over the internet), probably within the lead section. I'll raise this issue somewhere else as well. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Duration TfD

Since the Duration template is used and encouraged to be used with this infobox, I felt those who watch this page should be aware of this discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 7#Template:Duration. If you have any comments, please make them there. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to require use of semicolon (;) instead of comma in infobox

Commas are currently used to separate multiple items in an infobox parameter – e.g. multiple genres listed in the 'Genre' field – but proper punctuation, I believe, would be to separate these with semicolons. See Semicolon. Lachlan Foley 08:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the article you linked, "Between items in a series or listing containing internal punctuation, especially parenthetic commas, where the semicolons function as serial commas". For example, "They travelled to Austin, Texas; Orlando, Florida; Brooklyn, New York; and Denver, Colorado." Because something like "city, state" comes with a comma before it's in a list form with others. How would genres, which before they're listed do not have commas yet, then require semicolons in list format? Dan56 (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Lists As pointed out by Dan, semicolons are used in lists where individual items have commas. Why would we change these to semicolons? When should one use commas? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Proper punctuation is to use commas to separate multiple items in a list. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Add to "recorded" parameter?

Can an example be added for the "recorded" parameter? There's no consistent style of writing the recording date/year with the recording locations throughout WP:ALBUMS articles. The first example shown at this template page is Nirvana, which was recorded at Robert Lang Studios in Shoreline, Washington ([1]). Could this be added to the example in a recommended MOS? For example, "Recorded 1988–1994; Robert Lang Studios (Shoreline, Washington)", or "1988–1994 at Robert Lang Studios in Shoreline, Washington". Dan56 (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally prefer using Studio Name (Location), or if it was recorded at more than one studio in a city, Location (Studio Name, Studio Name). Zach 00:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's all the same to me, but MOS edit wars are pretty common, and this template page could be used as a point of reference just in case. Dan56 (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

How about "1988–1994 at Robert Lang Studios (Shoreline, Washington)"? Whatever is decided on, I do support the idea of having a standard formatting for people to reference here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Data granularity is important, especially when our content is parsed or scraped by software. We should subdivide the parameter into, say, |recording_dates= and |recording_studio=, even if we display them as one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Then we can have it automatically formatted in some specific way (or just shown as 2 visible parameters in the infobox). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Released section

Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section.

This need to changed to this:

"It should say Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section, except if the earliest release date is not of that of the artist country of origin."

• Eg. Spitfire (LeAnn Rimes album) was released in the UK first then in the US later but she is an American country music artist so the US is her country of origin so Released should post the earliest release date and country in which it was released THEN have the official US release as if it was later that way people don't get confused when the lead says one thing and the infobox says another.

The lead can mention all the release dates (or at least all the major ones), so that the infobox doesn't appear to contradict the lead ("This album was released on Jan 1, 2013, in the UK, and on Jan 3, 2013, in the US."). I don't think that the infobox should give the first date in the artist's country of origin, it should give the first date it was released period, regardless of location. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The artist's nationality is not an issue. All albums currently indicate the date where they were first released and not the location. There is no confusion if you link to the release section as suggested. The change is not needed as it simply clutters the infobox.

Further, what would you suggest if a British artist released a U.S.-only album that was then re-issued three years later in the UK? And what if an American artist released an EP in Switzerland to support a tour there that was later "released" to fan club members after returning to the U.S.? I know of albums like both of these. The infobox is simply to summarize key information about an album, not to help American readers realize that an album was released to them later than those in other countries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes then all those would need both. It helps with confusing. What doesn't help is people ignorant of today's society. Some people would ask question like "Why is this album listed with the UK release date and not the US release date if she is an American artists" then the whole well it is "because the UK release is the earliest release date" but it could be argued that it makes no sense, which I'm sorry but to me it does not make much sent to post only the UK release in there because it was earliest release and not post the US release on an American artist's page and nor would it make sense to do it of any other ethnicity, so why not just fix the issue with the exception as I stated and make everyone happy instead of being Anal-Annies about it and just change the thing so that it states

Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section, except if the earliest release date is not of that of the artist country of origin."

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.19.105 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is they wouldn't and neither does your pet project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Also it occurs to me that this rule is picked and choice anyway as if you look at The Best of LeAnn Rimes it seems to me that the three release dates, one for the UK, one for another country and one for the remix edition is okay? Personally there should be too pages one for the plan Best of and one for the Remixed edition but their condensed but it's okay to have the two separate release dates for that but not okay to post two different countries? Seems a bit pick and choice why not just make it so all do it or none at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.19.105 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to continue to point out articles that aren't following the suggested use. It's easy to clean them up.

Because the infobox shouldn't be cluttered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To you it is clutter. It is helpful and information and makes sense unlike what you guys are trying to pull that makes sense and who are you Walter Görlitz to say articles should and shouldn't do? Seems to me you like WP:Edit warring to me. There were no issues until you started messing with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.19.105 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There were issues and I cleaned them all up.

Now we're discussing a nationalistically-based change that makes no sense to at least two established editors, yet you want to tell us we're wrong. I'm sorry, the world don't work like that. It's an interesting idea, but there's no need for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not helpful to have all the release dates listed in the infobox; this will clutter up the infobox with unnecessary information. That is what a "Release history" section is intended to show. You can give all the various release dates, where they were released, on what label, etc, in a section dedicated to that information, while the infobox can summarize that information by giving just the first date (the date the album was initially released, wherever that may have happened). No location need be specified, no multiple release dates need be shown in the infobox. And as I said above, the lead can mention a couple of the major release dates (in this case, showing the difference in release dates for the US and the UK). I recommend looking at WP:MOSALBUM to get an idea of what sections an article can/should have.

Additionally, looking at that link pointing to Kww's talk page, as well as your own talk page, please read WP:OWN. No editor owns an article, and regardless of whatever work you have put into that article, other editors are free to make their own edits, especially if the article does not currently conform to accepted Wikipedia standards and they are fixing it to do so. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Separate code for "Reissue" type?

Instead of having "Reissue" just falling as a miscellaneous field under the "Other" category, I would suggest giving it its own code (given the increasing prevalence of re-releases like Thriller 25, Bad 25, Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded – The Re-Up, and Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection.) I would suggest coloring it like the "Studio album" field, given that all of the aforementioned albums are reissues of earlier studio albums, on top of the fact that it just looks better than the current "orangey-tangerineish" shade. (In this situation, the longtype can state what original album the reissue is paired with.) WikiRedactor (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Code A lot of albums are re-released in a lot of formats: most of them (if not all) should just be included in the main article and don't need an infobox for navigation in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some standard for reissue albums but am not entirely sure what it should be. Could "reissue" just be added in the longtype? Bonnie13J (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be more practical. A reissue isn't really an album type; a re-release of a studio album is still that studio album. But if music from a previously released source is bundled with previously unreleased material, couldn't it be argued that the album is then a compilation album? Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

True. The addition of unreleased material to previously released material complicates things. Any suggestions on how to label such albums? Bonnie13J (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Just leave them as studio albums. Normally a reissue doesnt receive a separate page, however there has been a recent spate of re-releases have indeed required separate articles given the available information. E.g. Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded is a studio album whilst its re-release Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded - The Re-Up is still a studio album as its the original album packaged with a eight new songs on a separate disc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 09:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

True, but I'm just concerned it might be a bit misleading to label them as studio albums because they might at a glance be confused as separate studio albums. The more I think about it, it seems like just leaving them as is would be our best option. The orange color is ugly, but it's the information that matters the most. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you feel about the suggestion to label it as a reissue in the longtype? Bonnie13J (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So so sorry it took me so long to respond! In response to Bonnie, it seems like mentioning reissues in the longtype is the best way to go right now. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm good with that as well. The type would still be "studio" then (or whatever the original release was)? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

How about using "studio" as the type, and put "reissue" in brackets in the longtype, like this?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I like that. Bonnie (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Cover artist

We should add a |cover_artist= parameter, for the person or agency that did the design work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem pertinent enough for a music release. Why not the mastering engineer too? 23:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea. Sometimes the album artwork is done by notable artists, so if there's an article about them we should be able to list them in the infobox. Category:Album covers by visual artist, and Category:Albums by cover artist are there for a reason. De728631 (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't key information about the album itself, so it should be left out of the infobox and covered elsewhere in the article. --Michig (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Most infoboxes display the album cover, so it would only be logical to provide a quickly accessible info about notable designers connected to that work. De728631 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

More often than not the album cover artist is not even revealed or discussed in depth. That information can always be present in a section/paragraph about the album cover in the article (if it is that notable). It would end up being a pointless parameter. STATic message me! 15:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Then we might as well remove the |compiler=. De728631 (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a parameter we should add; it is not important or relevant enough for the infobox. At most a mention in the article is sufficient. Agree with Michig and STATic. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Previously, I've always spoken against additional infobox parameters, but I think this one has some merit. As User:De728631 says "Most infoboxes display the album cover". These are only included under a claim of fair-use, so, where the artist is known, they should be credited. The argument that it could be an unused parameter is invalid, in that most templates have vast numbers of unused parameters, if it is not used, it will not show - as in the far less used parameter "complier"; which I can only recall seeing used once. - Arjayay (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Purpose_of_an_infobox, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, one of the general conditions for infoboxes is to avoid fields/parameters that will usually be empty. How often is an album's artwork done by someone who is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article on them? Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question - "How often is an album's artwork done by someone who is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article on them?" - Perhaps you can enlighten us all?
If you cannot answer this, then what are you actually basing your objection on?
In any case, I don't think anyone has said that the cover-artist should only be included if they already have an article.
As stated above, "compiler" is usually empty, as are numerous other fields in the Advanced usage - such as "longtype", "language", "chronology" and "misc". - Arjayay (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. Most album covers are not done by notable artists. And yes, De728631's first comment here presented that as a condition: "Sometimes the album artwork is done by notable artists, so if there's an article about them we should be able to list them in the infobox." Chill, just citing the MOS guideline. Dan56 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what Arjayay said regarding fair-use concerns. However, there is already a |caption= parameter that we could use for this. Otherwise (and I realize this doesn't have much to do with the infobox), if the credit's not mentioned in the infobox, then I believe it ought to be mentioned somewhere in the article, perhaps in the "Personnel" listing. (I can't say I've always adhered to this, myself – this discussion just got me to think about it again.) We may only be required to mention credit on the cover image's file page, but I think it ought to be mentioned in the article in which the cover image is used. (Strictly speaking, I'm not sure we should use any album covers in any article – even an article about that album – unless the article actually makes a substantial mention about album cover. I haven't followed that myself, though, seeing how no one else seems to interpret the fair use policy that way.) My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mentioned the |caption= parameter I do no longer think we need an additional spot for the cover artist. The artist is in fact best credited in the caption right below the image of the cover. De728631 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, |caption= should be sufficient for this. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

|caption= does not provide data granularity; it does not allow us to programmatically query infoboxes to find all album covers by a particular artist. A separate parameter would do this. It's also the case that many articles do not name the cover artist in the infobox image caption. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually that's a good point. De728631 (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this information is not important enough for the infobox. The infobox is intended to be a quick summary of key facts of the album, not a comprehensive collection of all information related to the album. The cover artist is rarely a key fact about the album, and at most the |caption= parameter is sufficient. Many do not name the artist because it is simply not important enough information for the infobox; information like that belongs in the Personnel section. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Chronology question

I wanted to ask if there's any way to add a second "extra chronology" to an article which already has two distinct artist chronologies in its infobox. The article in question is Daniel, Fred & Julie, a one-off collaboration between three solo artists who each have their own chronologies to contend with — but as things currently stand, I've used the base chronology fields and the "misc/extra" chronology option to fill in two of the artists' chronologies, but can't figure out how to plug in the third. Adding two "misc/extra" chronologies just causes the second one to replace the first; numbering them misc1 and misc2 doesn't work; leaving the miscs alone but numbering the entry fields inside the extra chronologies doesn't work. Is there any way to have all three artists reflected in the infobox, or am I stuck having to pick two of them and leave it at that? Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Debug I'm not sure why it didn't work when you tried it (I didn't look at the article's history) but see ETHWHT or Love This Giant. If you still need help, let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that actually solved it (Everything That Happens was the more helpful example, since LTG just has two chronologies.) Now I'm not sure why it didn't work the first time either, because that exact thing was the very first thing I tried. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

International Standard Musical Work Code

We should add an International Standard Musical Work Code parameter. It is likely that this UID will also be added to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's really not important enough for the infobox. We don't include catalogue numbers in the infobox (they belong in the release section of the main article); ISMWCs are even less important than catalogue numbers (in fact, looking at a few featured album articles, that information isn't given anywhere in the articles). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

flat list

On fields where it says listed items should be delimited by commas (such as genre or producer), should that be changed to use {{flatlist}}? A lot of album articles are starting to use them, and a similar discussion and change was done on Template:Infobox single. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The way that the member lists are? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's how I thought it would work at first myself, but an example is this edit to Thriller (album). There's apparently an initiative to change these based on WP:ACCESS. Just wondering if this template should be updated to reflect this or if a discussion and consensus should be attempted first. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as they're not bulleted, that would be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There are claims at Red (Taylor Swift album) that 1) bulleted flat lists "comply with Wikipedia's own guidelines WP:ACCESS" and 2) that they look better. Any comment? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the way it looked before I brought it back into line with the template's docs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

While I don't think how it looks is more important than accessibility, I preferred the comma delineation. Never seen bullets separating words before, and commas seem more grammatically correct. Dan56 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the guidelines I cannot see how commas violate accessibility though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well then I'm still down with commas. I've seen most of the bullet/flat lists used by editors of the articles on the more recent pop/R&B albums. Otherwise, I don't think it's used much. Can someone tell me where this "initiative" took place? Dan56 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Same with me, and someone shows me where commas violate WP:ACCESS we should update the docs to stipulate no use of them at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I support the use of flatlists. They look better and don't violate accessibility. Also, they are being used in many music articles, so... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Look better" is debatable. Recent usage is too (as I noted above, most articles don't). And grammatically, bullet points are not meant separate items in a list. Commas serve that purpose and unless someone can tell me how they violate accessibility... If they do, I'm fine with flat lists as well, but grammatically, it just doesn't seem (or look) right. Dan56 (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Bullets look stupid and commas don't violate accessibility either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Bullets look stupid" is debatable either. And well, the explanation below is the reason why bullets are better than commas. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with either bullets or commas looking stupid is debatable. I'm sorry I didn't add irony tags to my comment.

However the explanation below is pure opinion and is not supported with a single fact.

So far, we have a lot of personal preference and facts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Quoting RexxS on Template talk:Infobox single (which I assume a few people didn't bother to read):

There are a couple of good reasons for preferring to use {{flatlist}} and {{plainlist}} for lists of items in infoboxes and neither of them are related to the visual appearance. It is important to realise that whether list items are separated by commas or mid-dots is purely and simply a piece of personal preference and should carry no weight, unless we think we can decide on what the entire readership of Wikipedia would prefer to see.

The first reason for preferring a structured list in an infobox is on the grounds of accessibility. If we mark up a list with commas, as in running prose, then a screen-reader will simply read the items (along with punctuation if enabled). This isn't bad, because screen-reader users are accustomed to it, but we can do better. A real list, using on of the templates, can give the screen-reader user expanded information like "List of 3 items: first item, 7-inch single; second item, CD single; third item, digital download; end of list" if they want to get full information.

It's worse with vertical lists. Using <br /> leads a screen-reader reading Golden Brown to announce something like "... Producer, The Stranglers; new line; Steve Churchyard; new line; The Stranglers singles chronology ..." instead of something like "... Producer: List of two items: first item, The Stranglers; second item, Steve Churchyard; end of list; new line; The Stranglers singles chronology ...". We should not be using <br /> to separate list items ever. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists is utterly unambiguous about that: "Do not separate list items with line breaks (<br />). Use one of the following methods." - the "following methods" are {{flatlist}} and {{plainlist}}.

The important point here is that marking up a list as a list gives visually-impaired readers more choice and flexibility. We should not be denying them that opportunity just because we like commas and don't like mid-dots.

The second reason for preferring a structured list in an infobox is that third-party re-users of our content (like Google) use automated tools to scrape information from our content, and structured content works best for them. Those tools can recognise an infobox and can recognise a list within it. This makes it much more likely that they can recognise the producers of Golden Brown as two distinct entities: 'The Stranglers' and 'Steve Churchyard', rather than a single entity 'The Stranglers Steve Churchyard'. It's not crucial to try to make it more likely that Google gets it right when reading our content, but it's helpful.

So there are good reasons why we should prefer {{flatlist}} and {{plainlist}}, and the consensus documented at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists is not to be ignored lightly - certainly not with a reason like "I don't like mid-dots", which doesn't even apply to {{plainlist}}! Unless there are good reasons why we shouldn't be asking users of this template to comply with WP:ACCESS, I'll restore the documentation to a more accessibility-friendly state. Please feel free to explain any objections, but I'd be grateful if such objections were based on policy, rather than personal preference. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• And for those reasons above, I support it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I see non-proof that the opinion held by RexxS is supported. I will reserve my opinion until proof that the majority of screen readers and any third-party re-users have more difficulty recognizing comma separated lists than list items. I'd prefer the solution made at Template:Infobox musical artist where members are inherently a list and they become that way without the need for embedding a flatlist or similar template. If we're changing, that's the right way to do it.

Oh, and since you've have asked me not to talk to you on you talk page and immediately moved discussion to your archive so discussion cannot continue there, I'll suggest that that behaviour is not permitted. See WP:OWNTALK and Wikipedia:User pages, but thank you for discussing here and not edit warring on the Taylor Swift album article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those linked pages seem to discuss asking users to not comment on your own talk page (for the record, I did so as I deemed them to have a hostile nature), but that's besides the point. I will wait for RexxS (talk · contribs) to comment before going any further. I was initially against flat lists myself, but he convinced me otherwise (I have spent hours on end converting to flat lists...). The new feature Wikipedia has added will probably be enough notification.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

They both clearly indicate that a user's talk page is to be used for discussions and your actions are hostile to that and you clearly don't want me (and possibly other editors) from talking to you there. If it's a problem, take it to WP:ANI.

I'm not opposed to lists as is evidenced from my comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer the solution at Template:Infobox musical artist. If that can be applied to this and the song/single infobox templates, it would be better for everyone and avoids having to use {{flatlist}} directly. Stylistically, I like the use of commas better as a separator so I don't think it needs to be mandated to use one style over the other unless it comes from a deeper WP:ACCESS discussion. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any serious accessibility concern. Blind people know what commas are. Using commas in the infobox is no less intelligible than using them in a sentence. I don't have any preference but I see no reason to mandate either format. —Gendralman (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we just keep both? I've read the comments and I don't see any significant advantage of one over the other. I guess the editor who writes the article (or adds the infobox) can choose the one which they prefer. 2Flows (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Abiding by the major contributor's preference is recommended as a last resort by Wikipedia:Manual of Style if discussion cant resolve a dispute over this. If there are no advantages over each one's accessibility, then grammatically, commas are more correct. Other than at Wikipedia, I've never seen bullets used to delineate a list of things. Dan56 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We can keep both, but it would be better to standardize on one or the other.

Until we change to flatlists (or use the method employed by Template:Infobox musical artist and output flatlists) we should not be adding them.

If we decide to move to it, I'll be just ad diligent in keeping the lists flat. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think until a good consensus is achieved to change to flatlists on this template, then it should not be used in articles. The documentation and guideline for content says that lists should be separated by commas, so using flatlists would be incorrect. and go against what the the guideline for the template says. My opinion on the matter is that commas do look better, and are easier to use and list information then with the flatlists. From the conversation above I do not see any substantial proof of a WP:ACCESS issue. STATic message me! 22:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

there is an established consensus that {{Flat list}} is more accessible that standard commas and lists. Its already been implemented at {{Single infobox}}. On the principle its been accepted there I support its widespread use for infobox album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

But is there any proof that flat lists are actually more accessible? All I've seen so far is that someone said it is and others jumped on a bandwagon. Consensus is not proof. I have given notice that I will be removing the flatlists at the single infobox if no proof can be presented. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That is basically what happened at the other discussion lol. Lil-unique reverted my removal of the flat lists on Don't Look Down, before starting discussion here, even though since no changes have been made to this template using flat lists (bullets) goes against its guidelines. I am still waiting on the absent proof. STATic message me! 21:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, until someone can provide definitive proof that these flat lists are somehow better than commas (the universally accepted way of delimiting a list), this change should not be made. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If people bothered to read the discussions at WP:ACCESS when the template was designed and first used people would see that there is plenty of discussion about why the template is more accessible. The argument here is that some users dislike the mid-dot ( · ) which the template uses but personally I think that is selfish for able-sighted users to impose a preference that has no bearing on their usability of the article whereas {{flat list}} is significantly more accessible within relation to screen reading technology. There is actually a pretty detailed explanation from Rexxs which status has quote which clearly explains why the template is best practise as opposed to a list. The explanation isn't someone saying its more accessible and others jumping on the bandwagon at all, it is an explanation of how the template benefits users who use screen reading technology. For those who don't understand what that means: it means a user who is partially sighted or blind and who uses software to read the page out loud. The templates render lists differently for the software meaning that it is easier to understand. People at Project Access have a varying range of sight abilities and helped create the template in a way which benefits the screenreading technology. The inclusion of the template makes very little change or difference to an able-sighted user who is simply presented with dots instead of commas. This change from dots to commas is negligible for able sighted users; the only difference it makes is regarding personal preference. Its a minute inconvenience for an able-sighted user who dislikes the dots but its a massive accessibility improvement which is universal for screenreading software. Objecting to a change because one doesn't like or understand a proposal is not acceptable. The change to {{flat list}} in no way inconveniences an able-sighted user but does benefit one who uses screen-reading technology. I don't see any valid objection for the change other than "I haven't seen no proof its more accessible". The proof is in Rexx's explanation. Those objecting need to provide a valid reason as to why the change inconveniences their experience of wikipedia because those supporting the change have the acknowledgement that {{flat list}} is more accessible for screen reading technology. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 14:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt that separating flat text lists with a mid-dot is grammatically correct. Mid-dots are used only for vertical lists, where the data is on different rows. I read the explanation defending the flat list template and in my opinion it provides a rather minor advantage for users with screen readers, instead of the claimed "significant" advantage. A significant advantage would have been if the current lists were ignored by screen readers and only accessible with the flat list template, which is not the case. Screen readers can read all information in both cases. 2Flows (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We can argue over the significance of the advantage till we're blue in the face. It still boils down to the fact that across wikipedia throughout the Manuel of Style WP:ACCESS has been accepted as an important feature for all projects. Anything which is advantage to less-able sighted users is generally considered a worthwhile change. When so many of the other projects including {{Infobox single}} have already made the change it shouldn't be consider controversial to implement it here at the sister template to the infobox single. The debate should continue I would like to know if there's a particular advantage to using dots instead of commas but personally I'm more bothered about implementing the template itself which is considered an improvement to accessibility with negligible impacts on able sighted users. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 17:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Question is where do we go from here? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably the best way to move forward is to do here what was done at Template:Infobox musical artist and not use bullets, ever. Also, all we have seen is opinion that this satisfies ACCESS better than the current use of commas. No proof has been provided. So it's more likely to go nowhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Walter Görlitz, per the many points made above by myself, 2Flows, Görlitz, and Dan56. If it is decided not to use it, then we need to begin changing it back to commas on the various album articles they were added to. Even with the current guideline saying "use a comma-separated list", I am appalled that a minority of users have continued to push this. $TATic message me! 00:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The proof is supplied by RexxS (talk · contribs) in his explanation that the flat list template (and its use of bullets) renders the lists easier to read for screen reading software, thus improving data granularity. I haven't seen any legitimate POVs as to why it shouldn't be used other than there's no proof. The proof is in the pudding, when screen reading software is used where bullets are used instead of commas, data granularity is significantly improved. That is the measure of how accessible things such as infoboxes are (their level of data granularity). So far I've not see any legitimate reasons for opposing flat-list (apart from some concerns over grammar) and tbh WP:ACCESS is part of the Manual of Style so recommended changes are for the better. The impact on able readers such as myself is minimal, but the impact for a visually impaired reader is significant. Frankly where is the assumption of good faith in comments like "I am appalled that a minority of users have continued to push this." by User:STATicVerseatide. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The sky is yellow.

You now have the same level of proof that the sky is yellow as we have that bulleted lists are preferred by screen readers. Take that to the bank.

I have refuted the statement before and I'll do so again now. He offers no proof only opinion. Show me a list of screen readers that cannot read existing lists with percentage of users. Show me a list of screen readers that prefer bulleted lists over comma list, or even flat lists. Until then, stop offering this supposed proof.

The only legitimate reason for not changing the style is no proof has been offered, only opinion, and quite frankly I am appalled that a minority of users have continued to push this without any proof. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And honestly, as Wikipedians, if a statement in an article is lacking proof, we won't accept it. Nor should we here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

At no point has anyone said "screen readers" cannot read commas and nor had anyone asserted that screen readers themselves prefer bulleted lists. In ordinary circumstances, when the screen reading software reads a list it would read the words and then the punctuation for example "one, two, three" would read out loud as "one commma two comma three. The use of either {{flat list}} or {{ubl}} would allow the screen reader to do the following, it would read out loud as "list of three: one (pause) two (pause), end of list". Now if you can imagine that you couldn't see the page this information would be better conveyed to a reader. For example the producer field would read as "Producer, list of three: One (pause) Two (pause) Three, end of list" whereas if the template wasn't used it would read as "Producer, One Comma Two Comma Three". Therefore to improve the granularity of the data i.e. each spoken piece of information the templates (UBL and Flatlist) allow the screen reader to recognise each individual item in the list giving it ample emphasis and pauses before and after so that someone listening could understand each item of the list better than if it was just formatted using commas. So its not a case of either/or whereby Commas are bad and flat is is good, its a case of we can improve the situation by using the flat list template or the UBL template where there are fewer items in the infobox. Now does that make more sense? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Since no one has said that screen readers cannot read comma separated lists. So this discussion is over. There's no need to change the formatting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The need to change the formatting is for an improvement that vastly improves reader understanding for when screen reading technology is used. This discussion isn't over because you've decided it isn't required. Just for one second consider the above explanation and one should be able to logically see that the recommended changes are for the better. The impact on every day readers is minimal but the impact on the visually impaired is minimal. Why are you denying the visually impaired "access" to the information in a better manor? Its starting to sound a lot like just don't like it. When its been adopted across many wikipedia projects we're going to need something more concrete for the grounds of objection. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to replace 'studio album' with 'album'

Having 'studio album' as an option doesn't work with notable albums which weren't recorded in a recording studio either at all (see Daniel Johnston) or partially (albums containing live/demo/self-recorded tracks in addition to studio tracks), which is what a studio album is according to its article. We could use the 'other' parameter and specify 'Album' or 'Non-studio album', but really, I think it makes things unnecessarily complicated and I don't understand why we need to have this bias over studio-recorded albums.

It is also general practice to write "Such-and-such is the [whichever number] studio album by So-and-so" at the start of articles on albums, so what does Wikipedia propose we write on albums that aren't studio works, in part or in full?

To conclude, I think when people refer to "albums" they are not referring specifically to professionally-recorded ones (even though a large percentage of notable albums were professionally recorded), just to long-play records in general. People don't and aren't interested in making such a distinction, so neither should Wikipedia. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A home studio is still a studio, but 'Home recording' would be an option. As I have argued before, we should separate format (type of release) and content (type of recording) into two separate fields. For example 'Live' and 'EP' are not mutually exclusive in the real world but they are in this infobox field. An album consisting of home recordings (I can think of several other artists that this would apply to - Lou Barlow, Beck, several blues artists recorded by Alan Lomax, etc.) might benefit from having a specific value for 'type of recording' but we don't have such a field at the moment. For albums containing 'live/demo/self-recorded tracks in addition to studio tracks', the example given above, we could have type of release = Album, type of recording = Mixed. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: Michig's proposal to separate the fields.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Catalog numbers next to label

I have encountered some opposition at Talk:Converge / Napalm Death over the use of catalog numbers in the album infobox. In searching through the archives, I see that the issue of catalog numbers has been brought up a few times. Several users have suggested to implement a separate catalog field. This suggestion is rejected every time, however in at least two discussions (Archive2 & Achive8) other users chime in and say that they've been adding catalog numbers next to the label, and this is never rejected or even commented on further, which seems to suggest it's okay.

I would like to argue that adding a catalog number to an infobox, at least for independent releases, makes sense for two reasons: 1) it adds value and 2) it doesn't make sense to start a release history section.

Catalog numbers from independent record labels, as opposed to major label catalogs, actually have face-value meaning. A catalog number from a major label is some garbled mess of 10 numbers or letters, but an independent catalog number indicates the order in which the album's contract was signed. It says to the reader how far along in the label's existence the album was released. So, if the catalog number is 005, then this was one of the label's earliest releases. If the catalog number is 150, then this album was probably released at least a decade into the label's existence. It holds about the same weight as saying "this is <band's> n-th album" in the lead of every album article. It doesn't make sense to add a release history section because most indie label albums are only released once on one release date, with one label and one catalog number. Why devote an entire section to this when one can simply add a small number to the infobox? I really don't see this as cluttering or harmful to the article or infobox in anyway. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that catalogue numbers are important enough for a Wikipedia article. They are minor trivia at best, and at most might deserve mention in a Release History section. I certainly think they don't belong in the infobox. WP:IBX says "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." A catalogue number is hardly a "key fact", and I think most readers won't care what the catalogue number is. It's just unnecessary information that clutters up the infobox, and I think information like catalogue numbers is better suited for a site like Discogs than Wikipedia. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Which catalogue number? The original pressing (as we usually request), the "most common" pressing? An album that was originally released in the late 70s or early 80s would have three catalogue numbers: LP, 8-track and cassette. Then it would have another catalogue number when it was released on CD. Then occasionally, the label reorganized their catalogue and the LP and cassette would get new catalogue numbers. And then there's the question about which country. The catalogue number could be different between North American and Europe. I had an Bruce Springsteen album that I was given as a gift here in Canada and misplaced it. I was in Germany and bought a replacement. When I brought it home, I found the other album and they had different numbers. So I'll ask again: which catalogue number? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with MrmoustacheMM. I'm unsure what walter is referring to.Lucia Black (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple catalogue numbers for every release and so we'll end up having edit wars over them, particularly if multiple sources are found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

But their incredibly easy to verify because its sole purpose to help buyers find it. That's what I don't this is encyclopedic. ISBN however is there to verify it being an actual published book.Lucia Black (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, they're not easy to verify. What's the catalogue number for Bruce Springsteen's Darkness on the Edge of Town? There's a catalogue number for the 8-track, LP, cassette and CD. That's the album that also has a different catalogue number for the LP pressed in the US and Spain. So what's the one that we use in the article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For most it is. Maybe not so easy for 8-track or cassete but again, their just ways to find it in some retail site. I don't think we should use catalogue numbers "at all" even if there are multiple ones. As long as we can verify its release, then we're good.Lucia Black (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't deny that for some it may be easy, but the question is, what the catalogue number for a digital download? Now that some albums are released on vinyl again, there are at least two catalogue numbers.

And so if you have no RS for a catalogue number, should it be excluded?

And if you have multiple catalogue numbers (US, Canada, UK, Australia, Europe, Africa, Japan, China, etc.) which is the correct one?

I say no to the parameter since it's an edit war waiting to happen and it's an unreferenced source waiting to happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well there is no correct one if released in multi-format. I'm starting to think we should update the infobox so its not divided into formats but rather we add a "platform" parameter. So multi infoboxes can do so.Lucia Black (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As MrMoustacheMM said, infoboxes are there to summarize key facts from the article, not to introduce new information. Even if a catalog number is mentioned in the Release section, it is still not important enough to be in the infobox, too. 2Flows (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For the majority of the articles that I edit, there is only one catalog number. It's only released in one region on one release date. Period. Your comparison of Bruce Springsteen is incommensurable to what I'm talking about here — it's an entirely different discussion. I am not suggesting that Wikipedia goes wild and starts adding catalog numbers to every single infobox just because. I'm saying under certain conditions it's warranted and adds value to the article. The catalog number for the album in question is CONCULT03. This indicates that it's the third release from the band since they decided to start independently releasing their own EPs. For the last year, that has been the only number to identify this release and will continue to be the only number to identify this release for the foreseeable future. Why is it such a tragedy to add this to the article? What's the harm? Personally, I don't think the "general audience" gives a flying fuck about the duration of an album. And yet, that's considered "essential information". Fezmar9 (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

But what benefits exactly? Its not a tragedy to add, but its not essential nor informative to encyclopedia's standards. The duration of an album is like saying how books get out of print. A completely different category. What makes them useful?Lucia Black (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with MrmoustacheMM, catalogue numbers are not important enough to be included in the infobox. If they must be included, then the "Release" section is the place for it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't be content discussing the majority of releases. There are far too many albums that are released on one label in the US and a different label in Europe or Japan or elsewhere in Asia. They would obviously have different catalogue numbers.

And I agree that it's not key information about the vast majority of releases.

In short, it's a bad idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please no. I don't even want to see Catalog numbers in Release history tables.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I came here to suggest this precise thing: a field for catalogue numbers, particularly where the catalogue numbers are a relevant and noteworthy thing (e.g., Factory Records releases, where collectors are mad on the FAC numbers). And of course they should be referenced - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for "producer" field

Is there a way to modify the "producer" field so that it generates a category if it's vacant or missing? See my suggestion here. Some works have unknown producers, and I would bet that some just have the "producer" field left vacant by mistake, so finding every instance would be helpful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Yes, that would be very easy to do. What would you like the name of the category to be? And would you like to use the same category for both this template and for infobox single? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the change could be made to Template:Infobox album/sandbox and then we can just copy it over. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: For {{infobox album}}, Category:Albums with unknown producers. For {{Infobox single}}, Category:Song recordings with unknown producers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Also include {{Infobox song}} in the Category:Song recordings with unknown producers.——Iknow23 (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What if the earlier suggestion of multiple producers discussed above is implemented? As a reminder, we were suggesting that if the album had different producers or production teams for each track, then we leave the field empty and suggest that the track listing should be visited instead. The same could happen with compilation albums. In that case the album does have known producers but they're not appropriate to add to the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of leaving the producer field blank if an album has a huge list of producers, when {{flatlist}} seems to work just fine. But if someone wants to do it that way, why not just put something like "Various" in the producer field to ensure that it's not falsely tagged as unknown? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You may not have read the discussion above, but in short, some albums of 14 songs would have 30 producers. In other words, individual tracks have producers while the album as a whole did not have a producer. We are inventing truth to state that the album had a producer. Also, flatlist never work at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Then why not just put "various" or "multiple" in the producer field? To me, it just looks wrong to not have something there, and it'd prevent any issues in auto-categorizing albums with unknown or missing producers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

But we currently don't auto-catagorize it, do we? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I know. I'm just saying that if we do. Or maybe the template can be further tweaked to disable autocategorization if desired. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We could also add a parameter to suppress the category, for the cases where a producer value would not be desirable. This could be done on an infobox-wide level (e.g. |nocat=true) or just for the individual category (e.g. |producercat=no). Or you could just make it a style guideline to add "multiple" or "various" in such cases as TenPoundHammer suggested. Which of these would you like to do? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think, the 30-producers-Infobox problem would be reduced beyond negligible, as well as improving info-cohesion, by: (a) limiting producer-field entries to those who've (co-)produced more than one track and/or, optionally, a [[#Track listing| per-track]] value. Such would, IMO, e.g. significantly improve the like of Fire Within (Birdy album). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like there is still discussion to be had about exactly how this change should work, so I'm disabling the edit request for now. Please enable it again and/or ping me when you've worked out what to do. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Parental Advisory parameter?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since its introduction, the Parental Advisory has become a prominent label in the music industry. However, it often goes unrecognized and unmentioned in articles of albums in which it appears. This may be due to Wikipedia's preference of uploading album artwork without the label, in addition to the fact that several articles simply leave that particular information out. Since we include parameters for other important information in the infobox (label, duration, etc.) I suggest we add a field for the appearance of a Parental Advisory label. More specifically, I would suggest that the field be formatted in such a way where users can input a simple yes or no response, though we can certainly discuss the exact functionally below. Thoughts and comments are appreciated! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Parental Advisory parameter poll

Please vote support or oppose under this heading. I ask that all discussions be held in the heading below, in order to better organize the poll.

• Oppose: Definitely not a "key fact" about the album. In fact, I don't think it's really worth noting in the article at all, unless it was somehow significant and covered by reliable sources. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons MrMoustacheMM stated and the fact that it's an American-only thing. The advisory may appear on albums that originate in the US, but it is not globally recognized (or should I say recognised) as a feature of the album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose it also only applies to albums released through labels that are affiliated with the Recording Industry Association of America. Albums released through indie labels or self-released albums with explicit lyrics don't have this sticker. It's really only notable in cases such as Frank Zappa or Dead Kennedys where there was some reaction toward the sticker. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as above said it's not a "key fact" and only applies to albums under RIAA. 2Flows (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's not a key-fact & something no one's bothered about. →Davey2010→→Talk→ 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per MrMoustacheMM and the fact that it's not international and could be confusing and/or irrelevant to most of our audience. theonesean 01:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, I guess. It is a somewhat important fact, it's probably useful to some readers, and I'm not that convinced by the "only RIAA in the USA" argument, since that covers a lot of albums and we have plenty of infoboxes with fields that apply to some subset of the entity they describe. However, if we're talking about the album infobox, I don't want to add another line if we can avoid it. I'd rather see a line for the chief engineer or something if we're going to add a line. It's fine to mention it in the body of article, though. Herostratus (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, not a defining feature of an album, not all albums that are PA are released in censored versions because often artists have to release censored version of singles. Not sure about the argument about it being RIAA only. If there's some significant coverage regarding the PA sticker, this could be explained in the text but its really not relevant particularly as albums get released in different versions by different labels in different territories. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. {{Infobox film}} doesn't have a "rating" parameter, which I would consider much more of a defining characteristic than a simple PA. I think the reason for that is the lack of internationalization of ratings and advisories on these types of media, which I would concur with. I "might" support the idea if it could be a conditional parameter that only shows to those in areas which use the ratings/advisories. Doing that at this time would over-complicate this template however. I would support the idea of a userscript that users can opt-in to that would go out and retrieve this information and add it to the infobox for just those users. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page and we can discuss such a thing and I'll see if I can't find someone to help write it (I have a few people (Writ Keeper—Theopolisme—Launchballer) in mind that "may" be able to help as they have familiarity with JavaScript, certain film/media APIs, and places to get such information like top music charts). Technical 13 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose While such material could be covered in the article in an attributed manner (e.g. "the xyz organization in (country name) has given it an "abc" rating") a rating from one organization in one country is not an overall attribute of an album. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Parental Advisory parameter discussion

Please express any ideas or concerns under this heading. I ask that all final votes be listed in the heading above, in order to better organize the poll.

• Suggestion, would an "explicit lyrics" field be more suitable for non-American releases? WikiRedactor (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Again, this is not a "key fact" about the album. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. Please don't jump straight into "let's have a 'vote'" (see also WP:!VOTE) without some discussion first. Only if there seems to be no chance of unanimity should a straw poll be started. Adabow (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It isn't key information about an album, and only applies to certain albums released in one country. Infoboxes are not there to record every fact that could possibly be recorded about a subject. --Michig (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. I thought it might be resourceful to have that information available at a quick glance, though I have no problem closing the discussion since the community is fine leaving the template as-is. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, for most films shown in theaters in the USA, the MPAA has a rating -- G, PG, R, etc. -- and this is pretty important, but we don't have a field for this in the film infobox, so maybe we shouldn't here either. Herostratus (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.