Template talk:Infobox artist discography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Infobox Artist Discography: Fields

Can there be fields added for "Covers/Tributes" and "Soundtracks"? Also, is it possible to make the artist name have the option for an image so logos can be inserted (when not fair use). Image:FOBtourLogo.png, for example, is not copyrighted. Lara❤Love 05:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll get on it. --lincalinca 06:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I also added a parameter for each line to allow the person to change the location where the diagonal arrow links to (I've taken the liberty of applying both of these functions already over at the Fall Out Boy discography, since you seem to be interested in that one). Let me know if that's how you wanted it. --lincalinca 11:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Lara❤Love 13:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

B-sides

Why is there a B-sides field? What is that used for? -Freekee 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some discographies list b-sides released by an artist, such as the John Mayer discography. I didn't implement it for that; I was asked to, so I just put it in there. --lincalinca 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I take issue with the inclusion of that classification. First of all, I don't believe there is a good reason to have a section for b-sides. But more importantly, in that article, the section is a catch-all. It might as well be titled "Miscellaneous," and I don't think we should have a "misc." in the template. Not only is it a mix of released and unreleased songs, but they aren't even labeled as to which are which. So I recommend the removal of the B-sides classification. An alternative would be to have an "Unreleased recordings" classification, but since this is a discography template, and those songs aren't actually on disc, I'm not sure about that one. I'm sure there are few examples of other categories that aren't included in the template, and I don't recommend including them just for one or two usages. -Freekee 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

But B-sides are released recordings? I suppose we should only indicate the list of songs used for B-sides, and seperately list rarities and other contributions of the like. The John Mayer example is probably a poor one, since that's only a list of info that was freshly dumped into the page without sorting or collation, other than alphabetical (where it should obviously be chronological). Maybe I should find a more organised B-sides listing that I could add in there to give you an example. Should we keep this in there, I'll explain that the pale blue colour I selected is the same colour as the general "songs" colour, to line up with the infoboxes used. Ok, I just found the Powderfinger discography, which hasn't got the B-sides added, but I'll add them in the way I believe is appropriate. --lincalinca 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention the problem with that section at the article, because I suspected someone would fix it before too long. But I must ask why anyone would add a section for b-sides. If a song is released on its own, it qualifies as a released product, and goes into the discog. Likewise albums. But what about individual songs from an album? Album tracks are not listed in disogs because they're not products. Same for b-sides. As far as discogs are concerned, they're filler. And singles and albums chart, while b-sides don't. -Freekee 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a very valid point. I've just made a point of making a list of the B-sides for the Powderfinger discography in a framework I believe to be pretty basic and standard. To reference the validity of your comment, I do agree, however some B-sides mysteriously (well, it's mysterious to me) gain a greater degree of notability than the side tracks on the albums, especially things like remixes or live concerts (an example is John Mayer's "No Such Thing" which had a cover of Jimi Hendrix's "The Wind Cries Mary" which got to #97 on the charts here (Australia), higher than Jimi got it to over here, purely from radioplay, but it wasn' on any of his albums or even on any live recordings). --lincalinca 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that such songs are of note. They are perfect for including on the article about the single, or in a section in the artist's article, but it seems strange to me to have a section in the discography for songs that weren't released on their own, or weren't released at all. But if we do have such a section, what should it be called? -Freekee 03:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreleased songs? Rarities? B-sides often seem to fall into this collective also, and are often used as the term to categorise them, correct or not, it's the common use term, I think. --lincalinca 07:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Appearances on Compilations, 7-inches, and/or Variable fields

Excellent infobox! I think a useful addition might be a "Compilation Appearances" field or something like that. This tends to be a less-used section in more popular bands, but it would be helpful in the discographies of some lesser known bands (such as The Make-Up discography and Lightning Bolt discography). And howabout a "7-inch" field? On a related note, would it be possible to add variable fields of some kinda (which may take care of my suggestions above). For example, in the Nine Inch Nails discography, an important section is the "Halo numbers" section. Since this is the only discog that's going to have such a section, it might be nice to have an option of adding this to the infobox only for the one article. Does that make sense? Any thoughts? Drewcifer 14:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting implementing a customisable row, able to be uniquely set for each article it's placed onto? Yeah, that'd be pretty easy to implement, but as to whether I'd condone it, I'm just not sure. --lincalinca 12:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm suggesting. Discographies are pretty varied, so a variable field or two would go a long way. Just a few examples of types of releases the current template doesn't cover: splits, vinyls, bootlegs, remix albums, appearances on compilations, mixtapes, unreleased material, etc. You can find all of those in many discographies, including Featured ones. And although you could argue the applicability of some of those release types, that's more of a case-by-case thing. I'm suggesting a variable field (instead of a split field, a vinyl field, a bootleg field, etc), since these types of releases aren't as common, and more than likely wouldn't apply to 3/4 of the discographies we make. -- Drewcifer (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just added one optional field, for a start. If there's a push for a second, I'll burn the bridge when it comes to it. Read the info, drew, and I'm sure it'll work for you. If you have any queries about it, just talk-page me. --lincalinca 03:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work! I think a second option would be nice though... Take for isntance The Make-Up discography and Lightning Bolt discography. Major portions of both lists are Splits and Compilations appearances, and it would be ideal to mention both. Though I'll let you be the judge of that. Drewcifer (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to spoil for choice, I've added and tested having 4 options and it works a charm. I've restored the halo numbers, left in the remix numbers and added seed numbers to the NIN discog

Sweet! One question, why is it that if you use none of or just one of the Option fields (such as Duran Duran discography, there's a big fat gap in the last box? Drewcifer (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Two more fixes needed?

Egad! This template could definitely use a image size attribute: diff. Also, why are many of the boxes in a bunch of discogs display with a bunch of space in them? Sorry for constantly asking for more to be done! Drewcifer (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As to the big gap, I really don't know. I've been trying to get it fixed (I've asked for help in a couple of places, but haven't been answered). I can't seem to figure out how to restrict the height of the cells (or something). As to the image size, I was thinking about that. I'll see about doing that a little later tonight. I'll let you know if and when I do. --lincalinca 10:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I can really help, but here's something I noticed: the template basically forces it's appearance to be 10 lines, even if there's only information for less than that. In other words, if there are 5 entries into the template, it will automatically add 5 additional blank spaces to produce 10 total. I think. Though I'm sure you already figure that out. Drewcifer (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're half right. I've diagnosed, but not prognosed. My diagnosis is that when more than one item is missing from the sequence, it forces the line to double, when there's three in a row missing, it triples and so on. I just don't know how to fix it, though. I've tried a few things, in vain. I'll figure it out, but really don't know what else to try. --lincalinca 11:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Spacing fixed. Let me know if any transclusion looks worse off by my changes. –Pomte 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hilary Duff discography

Can someone please fix the link to 'compilation albums' on the Hilary Duff discography article? I tried but i couldn't ;/ — Jhn* 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And there are also blank spaces under 'video albums' and 'b-sides' — Jhn* 17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the compilation issue (it's like references, you need to shorten the word to "Comp link" not "Compilations link") and the second issue is an ongoing one I've been trying to resolve in the template itself, but so far to no avail. --lincalinca 22:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :D — Jhn* 00:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

References and footnotes

What's the point? We don't need citations for the number of each type of release, as it's evident by the discography lists themselves. The table of contents, which links to the references footnotes section, is usually immediately to the left of this infobox. Is the intention to use __NOTOC__ on articles that use this parameter, to entirely replace the table of contents? –Pomte 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it seems kind of redundant to me as well...Drewcifer (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this is simply to link with the infobox to the references. Every individual piece of information on wikipedia is considered to be a "fact", however is considered to be a verified fact once it has a reference. This is an important section of the template and should be used. --lincalinca 03:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We know why references are important, we're just not sure they need to be linked from the infbox. Especially since they're linked from the Table of Contents, which is usually right next to the infobox. Drewcifer (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice

To whoever fixed the ugly blank spaces - thanks! Looks a lot cleaner and tidier suddenly. Seegoon (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

links

Would it not be better to have the words linked e.g. Studio albums rather than the little arrow at the end ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It'd take up too much space. The little arrow is for consistency and to make it clean. --lincalinca 03:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you click on "studio album" you might expect to go to an article about studio albums. -Freekee (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not if the real table of contents is hidden, making this look like the actual table of contents. –Pomte 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Logos

There's been a long and rather contentious discussion lately at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos over the use of non-free logos in the infoboxes of musical artist articles. I think some of the consensus and opinions from there are pertinent to this template as well. Of all the uses of logos discussed there, the one on which there was pretty clear consensus was that non-free logos do not belong in the "Name" or "Img" fields of the infobox. In fact, the wording of Template:Infobox Musical artist#Name was changed to reflect that: "The name of the group or artist ("the act") in plain text only. Logos and other graphics are to be avoided in this field in accordance with WP:ACCESS and WP:FAIR. This field is mandatory." I suggest that it might be pertinent to leave the "Artist" field of the discography infobox as a text-only field as well, since giving users the option to substitute it with a logo image (as the template page currently does) seems to encourage the use of non-free logos as decoration, which is clearly not in line with the intentions of WP:FAIR and also goes against WP:ACCESS (the ACCESS reason being that screen readers, often used by disabled readers, start with the text at the top of the page--the infobox--and will not translate image code into the name of the artist). --IllaZilla (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. I only really did that to make it easier since people would quite often foul up how they did it in the artist articles, so I figured if it was an alternative to listing the text based name, it'd be easier to make it that way, but if the consensus is geared against it, I'm not against its removal. I don't have time to do it, but feel free. Just check the articles which use it now to make sure they don't get screwed up by it. --rm 'w avu 10:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Drewcifer (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a few relevant policies & guidelines here too: WP:LOGO: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." Obviously in a discography no one is going to be discussing the artistic merits of the logo. We're just listing the band's releases. So this kind of decorative (aka promotional) use is against the spirit of WP:NONFREE. Then there's the issue of minimal use, per WP:NFC: "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Of course a logo isn't necessary in a discography; if it has some kind of significance or notability then it belongs in the main article about the band and only in that article. In a discography they clearly serve only decorative purposes, so they shouldn't be there. Since there seems to be agreement on this issue, would it be alright if I modified the template page to remove the option of inserting a logo, and made the "Name" field a text-only field? --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with you doing it, but I have to say that not all logos fall under nonfree, such as Maroon 5 or Fall Out Boy, since theirs fall under "commonly replicable logos" under the copyright infringements act, meaning that they're too similar to non-copyright fonts to be able to secure copyright. Nevertheless, it does kind of give licence to having nonfrees in there, which we don't want. --rm 'w avu 09:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

True. I looked at both those examples and thought about them before bringing up the issue here. I don't mean to exclude free images, but of course the majority of logos being used are non-free, and being able to change the field does give license to having non-free images in there. Thus it incindentally encourages the use of superfluous non-free content on WP. I wish it were the reverse case, where most logos were free images, but unfortunately it's not so I'm erring in favor of being conservative. And of course there's the access issue. I'll probably get on making the changes later today. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes today. I also added a section on "Fields" explaining the usage of the fields in basic usage. Some of this language was taken from Template:Infobox Musical artist, specifically the part about having the name in plain text. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Formatting in firefox?

Perhaps this is something specific to my computer, but it appears that in the latest version of firefox (but not internet explorer), the name of the band can overlap with the word "discography", as in NIN discography. Do other people get this problem? If so, the template probably needs to be fixed, as firefox is a fairly common browser to view wikipedia.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have noticed that changing the size of font in firefox (Ctrl++ / Ctrl--) and then changing it back seems to fix the problem, but whenever the page is loaded again, the problem occurs again. This could potentially be an issue with firefox, not the template, but I don't know enough about this to say. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Which version of Firefox exactly? I'm using 2.0.0.14, and it looks fine. Drewcifer (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14" - seems the same to me. It may just be a firefox issue, the code in the template looks fine. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

B-sides are kind of being phased out (?)

B-sides are become less-frequent in discography articles nominated at WP:FLC, mainly due to WP:DISCOG. So I believe they should be phased out of the infobox, so as to not encourage their inclusion, and also to avoid any conflict with style guidelines and trends. Thoughts? Drewcifer (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for new fields in this template

A request from a user, LetsGo67, has asked for 2 new fields to be added to this template. I have attempted to do this in the Template sandbox, and found my efforts thwarted by the complexity of the template syntax! Could there be 2 new fields, "Holiday Albums" (Christmas releases, etc) and also one for "Remixes". Thanks for your help all! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

An option for remix albums would be handy, yes. Rehevkor ✉ 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

These can be added as needed using the "option" parameters. There really is no limit to the number of optional types you could add. See the examples on the template page. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance due to my own stupid mistake

Thanks I just tried to make Template:Infobox Bibliography and it didn't go quite right:

• Two sections - Pamphlets and Scripts - won't display the number, but rather their name surrounded by curly brackets
• For several sections - but not all - the "link" text appears in the infobox instead of the number
• When I actually inserted it into a page, the caption and image fields do not work properly, although they show up just fine in the documentation.

Clearly, I am not a templates whiz, but I was even worse at making one than I thought. If someone wants to help me fix this, I'd appreciate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway I got some help desk assistance. If you want to take a look, comment, modify, or use it, it should be working now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Alt text for image

At present, this template does not accept an |Alt= parameter for the image. As far as I can see, on line 5 of the definition, the "Caption" - or failing that the BASEPAGENAME - is used to produce alt text for the image. Neither of these is particularly useful for anyone using a screen reader (probably the best test of the value of alt text). I've now modified the template to accept an |Alt= parameter and updated the documentation, but there may be a little overlap of the example boxes for those with low-res monitors. --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Further: If the image is replaced by a logo, that should also have alt text. However, I can see from one of the discussions above that the expectation is that the logo would be translated by a screen-reader as the name of the artist. Since the |Logo= parameter, if used, produces an image with alt text set the the |Artist= parameter, can anybody see a reason to need to include different alt text? If not, the template doesn't need the modification (replacing the first 'Artist' with 'Alt' in line 2). --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text should always describe the visual appearance of the image. I expect that we'll need a Logo_Alt parameter, or something like that. But before diving in, can you give an example of a real infobox using a logo? The Logo parameter doesn't seem to be documented. Eubulides (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the template, |Logo uses an image, fixed width 180px, alt text set to |Artist (or PAGENAME) followed by "|Artist discography". It seems to me that anyone could just use |Image and |Caption to do that just as well. There's some discussion in the section above titled "Logos". The point about using |Artist for the alt text is that presumably a logo is a representation of the artist's name - so rendering it as such may be sensible for a screen-reader. Or should we be insisting on describing (for example) The-Artist-Formerly-Known-As-Prince's logo as its geometric shape? On the other hand, I haven't yet found a discography using the |Logo parameter: maybe we can cut through this by just removing it from the template! --RexxS (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Often logos are not representations of the artist's name, and generally speaking I'd expect that using the artist's name for the logo's alt text is not that productive. I just now attempted "Logo. Hollow circle above downward arrow crossed with a curlicued horn-shaped symbol and then a short bar" as alt text for Image:Theartist.jpg. If nobody uses the Logo= argument then we should remove it. It's not documented. Eubulides (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect to logos it should be a moot point, as logos shouldn't be used in the infobox. This was the subject of a long and heated debate at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist last year, and the consensus was that the field for the artist's name should be text-only, in accordance with WP:ACCESS and WP:FAIR (as placing images instead of text can hamper reader comprehension and as the vast majority of logos are non-free). Even when the logo is free, the proper place for it isn't the infobox. It adds nothing to a discography box other than decoration. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that the template coding still includes support for logos; guess that was never removed after the consensus last year. I'd do it, but I'm not very good with coding and I'm afraid of screwing the whole thing up. Could someone more knowledgeable remove the logo parameter from the template coding? Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Eubulides (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) --IllaZilla (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DJ Mix Compilations in the infobox

Snow Patrol discography is currently being reviewed for FL. The band released DJ Mix Compilations. Are these considered the same as compilations? It's at least related so I wondered why it isn't under Compilations in the infobox. Is there maybe a parameter for this kind of compilation or should it just be 3 Compilations instead of 1 ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

References & footnotes

Why do we have a parameter for putting a "References and footnotes" link in the infobox? In my opinion it should be removed. First of all, every article should have a references section. Second, if the article has more than a few sections then the references section will already be linked via the table of contents. In general it is discouraged to link from the infobox to subsections of the same article that the infobox is in, as this is effectively redunant to the ToC. We make an obvious exception here for the different release types (though I'm not really sure why), but this seems less redundant than the References link. I can't think of any other infobox that has a "References and footnotes" link within it. Would anyone object to removal of that parameter? --IllaZilla (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree; a link to the references and footnotes is unnecessary clutter. Besides a link is already provided, in the table of contents. I'd be all for it's removal. Drewcifer (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the removal of the References parameter? It's been 2½ months, so if there aren't any objections in the next couple days I'm going to set about removing it. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going for it... I'm not that great with template coding so hopefully I won't screw it up. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. If that causes any problems, please feel free to revert or adjust it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Image size in infobox

Since my bold edit was reverted, time to get a discussion going. The reason I changed the size in the infobox from 250 pixels to 200 pixels was for two reasons. Firstly, under Template:Infobox artist discography#Image, it states: The image is set to be 200px wide by default. If this needs to be adjusted, use the parameter Image size, which should be less than 200px. To set the image to its automatic size, set it to auto. Makes sense to actually match the description. Secondly, from my experience, all other infoboxes that I use related to music use smaller sizes (including {{Infobox musical artist}} (220 pixels), {{Infobox single}}, {{Infobox album}} (both 200 pixels), etc.). I don't feel there's a real need to have the image blown up to 250 pixels, though I wouldn't oppose using 220 pixels to correspond with {{Infobox musical artist}}. — ξ^xplicit 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Phish discography

I'm attempting to add this infobox to the Phish discography page, and the image is coming out laughably large: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phish_discography&oldid=333323667. Any help would be appreciated. — MusicMaker5376 18:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Background

I propose to add functionality for |Background=, like in {{Infobox musical artist}}, then request a BOT to copy the parameters from artist articles to discography infoboxes. In addition to adding consistent background colours to the template's title bar, this will allow us to programmatically determine whether the infobox refers to an individual or a group, etc. Any comments or objections? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, this infobox doesn't refer to an individual or group. As these are discography articles, the infobox refers to an artist's releases and not to the artist themselves. Whether the artist in question is an individual or a group doesn't make a whit of difference as far as this infobox is concerned. with {{Infobox musical artist}}, whether the subject is an individual or group affects which other parameters one will use, as the template is meant to be multi-functional. This infobox has only 1 application, and whether the artist is an individual or group doesn't affect any of the other parameters. I just don't see what the point of this would be, other than to add color. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The infobox refers, unambiguously, to the releases of a person or of a group. It therefore refers to that person or group. Aside from adding colours (and thus maintaining consistency), the proposed change would allow the use of an hCard microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The support for hCard microformat sounds like a good idea. I don't think we need any more color though; we have a veritable rainbow in the infobox as it is. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox song list

Template:Infobox song list has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox artist discography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Counts in each category

Is there any method to automate the count for each section? For example some artists like Johnny Cash discography has over 150 singles. If someone happens to find a single missing from the table and adds it, there is no verification that the Info box is updated as well. Maybe there is a way to build a bot that looks at each discography article and counts the rows in each section and reports it as a comment to the talk page if it differs from the current count. I have no experience in creating such a bot, but it seems very useful considering the incredible number of discography articles in Wikipedia. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Link display

Currently, if you use one of the link parameters, the display still shows the preset. For example:

Markup	Renders as
{{Infobox artist discography |Studio = 10 |Studio link = Live and studio albums}}	Infobox artist discography/Archive 1 discography Studio albums 10

I sandboxed version that changes the display:

Markup	Renders as
{{Infobox artist discography/sandbox |Studio = 10 |Studio link = Live and studio albums}}	Infobox artist discography/Archive 1 discography Studio albums 10

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Parserfunction: includes bug for CSS color masking

Parserfunction tag for correct display of the standard color coding in the optional sections added, see the german template and Bug 12974

Example:

{{{Option Color|#ccc}}} 
replaced by:
{{#if:{{{Option Color|}}}|{{#tag:nowiki|{{{Option Color}}}}}|{{#tag:nowiki|#ccc}}}}

--Blueser2805 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: left-align by default

This template is aligned with the right edge of the screen, which looks really awkward on modern wide displays (I have a 1680x1050 monitor), especially in articles where the topmost discography table is not very wide and there's a huge white gap between the tables and the infobox. As an example, here is the original right-aligned layout and here's the suggested left-aligned layout.

Granted, the idea to have the infobox float at the right for a more efficient layout is not a bad one, it's just very difficult to combine with discography tables, many of which are much narrower than screen-width on modern displays. Even on smaller displays though, the right-aligned layout is only meaningful and useful when the combination of discography table and infobox happens to fit right into the screen width.

So, I'd suggest making the infobox left-aligned by default. --87.79.129.120 (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this template is designed for use in discography articles, in which it serves as an infobox. Infoboxes are aligned top-right across Wikipedia for consistency. I don't see a reason why this one shouldn't be. If your problem is whitespace, you probably don't have enough of a lead section: A list article like a discography should still have a lead, ideally a couple of short paragraphs summarizing the history of the artist's releases. For examples see some of our FLs: Bauhaus discography, Death Cab for Cutie discography, and Foo Fighters discography. In your Divine Comedy example, the discography section is large enough that it should probably be summarized and split into a stand-alone article, with its own lead section. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

this template is designed for use in discography articles -- I provided diffs to a band's main article which uses the template. Since all discographies are only spin-off pages, there shouldn't be any templates specifically designed for discography lists that don't work just as well in discography sections that are integrated within the band's main article (such as in the example I provided diffs for). The reason to spin off sections is never when that section is "large enough", the only valid rationale to spin off sections into separate pages is when the main article gets overlong. So all of my reasoning still stands. Anyone else? --84.44.229.184 (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the very first 2 lines of the infobox documentation: "Infobox artist discography is the standard infobox for discography articles. This template is designed for use in discography articles within Category:Discographies." Yes, the template works perfectly well in artist articles as well (I have used it this way on several occasions), but it works just fine right-aligned in those articles as well; There is no advantage to having it left-aligned. Since its main purpose is to be used as an infobox in discography articles, not artist articles, it should right-align by default as all infoboxes do. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Color shades

I've noticed the default colors render bold in the name column and softer in the quantity column. The optional colors render bold in both name and quantity. Can this be fixed or is there a code to patch the inconsistency? My76Strat (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not withstanding the absence of an answer, I have taken liberty to append a correction for this inconsistency. It involves the addition of an "s-color" option with default values in place when not designated. I have updated the documentation to reflect this change. If I have been overly bold with this change, revert and discuss, are fair consequences. I hope users will appreciate the change, and if interested, I have developed a few more elaborations that users of this template are welcome to consider. Currently I am using raw code but will soon publish a template intended for use with music producers. An example may be seen by viewing Richard Landis discography. Cheers my music loving wiki colleagues. My76Strat (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Standard infobox

I updated {{Infobox artist discography/sandbox2}} to use the standard {{infobox}}:

Markup

{{Infobox artist discography
| Artist          = [[Fall Out Boy]]
| Image           = Bad Title Example.png
| Image size      = 150px
| Caption         = Fall Out Boy, 2007
| Alt             = A spiral made up of a compass, clock and the Earth, with the word Wikipedia below,

| Studio          = 5
| Studio link     = Albums
| Live            = 2
| Live link       = Albums
| Compilation     = 2
| Comp link       = Albums
| Internet        = 7
| Internet link   = Internet releases
| Video           = 7
| Video link      = Music videos
| Music videos    = 12
| MV link         = Videography
| EP              = 5
| EPs link        =
| Singles         = 27
| Singles link    =
| B-sides         = 15
| B link          = B-sides and other releases
| Soundtrack      = 1
| Soundtrack link =
| Tribute         = 1
| Trib link       = Other appearances

| Option          = 5
| Option name     = Side projects
| Option link     = Side projects and collaborations
| Option color    = turquoise

| 1Option         = 3
| 1Option name    = Demos
| 1Option link    = Demos
| 1Option color   =

| 2Option         = 2
| 2Option name    = Mash-ups
| 2Option link    = Mash-ups
| 2Option color   = limegreen

| 3Option         = 11
| 3Option name    = Sample contributions
| 3Option link    = Samples
| 3Option color   = orange
}}

Current

Fall Out Boy discography
Fall Out Boy, 2007
Studio albums	5
EPs	5
Soundtrack albums	1
Live albums	2
Compilation albums	2
Tribute albums	1
Singles	27
B-sides	15
Video albums	7
Music videos	12
Side projects	5
Demos	3
Mash-ups	2
Sample contributions	11

Sandbox2

Fall Out Boy discography

Fall Out Boy, 2007
Releases
Studio albums	5
Internet albums	7
Live albums	2
Compilation albums	2
EPs	5
Singles	27
B-sides	15
Video albums	7
Music videos	12
Soundtracks	1
Tribute and cover albums	1
Side projects	5
Demos	3
Mash-ups	2
Sample contributions	11

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

By the example shown, it appears you decided, or inadvertently eliminated the secondary color from the quantity column. I would lament this, if it were decided, as I have developed and am determined to use, a discography with alternate shading. I am reluctant to say much else on the subject. My76Strat (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I missed the s-color parameters. I think we can only change the row color, and not by column. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah- s-color got reverted from the current version. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it did, and that is fine. I looked at the sandbox and like the format and result. The fix to bring this example to the equivalent standard involves designating a secondary background color at the data field for each occurrence. If you desire, I will provide a formatted example. Cheers. My76Strat (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks alright to me, but can we get rid of the "V-T-E" at the bottom? I don't think it's necessary, and it's not something I usually see on infoboxes (navboxes yes, but not infoboxes). Removing this would also help it not to appear so much longer vertically than the current version. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire difference using the "class" parameters are the inclusion of the v-t-e links, and a style addition for padding cells (notice the additional space between cells). Otherwise the biggest change involves lost options. For example the sandbox example will not support optional link changes as the in use example does. Also the sandbox examplt allocates 75% of the row to the link name and 25% to the quantity. the live example uses a 67/33 ratio. If you prefer 75/25, the current template can be style changed. Adding v-t-e is a style span and can also be added. Before I vest considerable time modifying the infobox template to render this template example, I would like to know if it is even necessary. Personally I dislike the additional padding, and IllaZilla has opined against the v-t-e. Perhaps more discussion is in order. My76Strat (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

VTE is gone, label cells are 67% v 75%, but will have to fiddle with "Tribute and cover albums" a bit. Not sure what "optional link changes" are. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the optional link, it is supported. That is to say if the parameter (Studio link = ) is left blank, the default link is "Studio albums", if it is appended, the link is active to the appended section. In the example the default link for "Studio albums" has been changed to "Albums", and it is functional. It was the title of the link, ie "Studio albums" which appears in the 2/3rds margin of the row that is hard coded and unchanging. That was my bad. I changed the cellspacing at bodystyle, but as you see, it is still using the "5" generated by the class. Gadget, you probably already know this, but if not; this special page is very excelent as a tool for working with templates. Cheers My76Strat (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah— see #Link display. Cell spacing is now 2px. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Any other issues? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No discussion; abandoned. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Template index appears to be offset

The index for this template appears to be offset by one. In the Powderfinger example, the Studio albums links to the Live Albums parameter etc. Thanks 009o9 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. The arrow seems to span across two rows. See the example on the template page: Tribute and cover albums spans across soundtracks while studio albums can only be reached by clicking next to releases. --SlashMe (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This template seems to not be working properly for any artist discographies. For just a few examples see: Dannii Minogue discography, La Toya Jackson discography, Lady Gaga discography. Am86 (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to happen only at my office computer (Firefox/Windows XP). At home, the links are correct (Firefox/Ubuntu). Maybe a font issue? --SlashMe (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It still has this problem. The first occurrence of an arrow link ends up on the Releases row. I can't find any problems with its code. The only strange thing I noticed is colspan="3" (2 occurrences on top of the code) for a 2-col table. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, this seems to be a font problem. The arrow sign magically spans across three rows: one above, one below. On the computer I'm using right now, everything is alright. I checked using Firebug, and there it looked strange, too (the sign took three lines in height). --SlashMe (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's a font problem. It (only?) happens with Firefox (various versions) and seems to be related to the line-height of some Unicode characters (including the South West Arrow [↙] (U+2199) used in this template), as rendered by Firefox on some Win OSs (XP, Vista) with Office 2007 and/or "Cambria Math" font installed. I really think this problem belongs to the Firefox/Gecko/Mozilla development team.
Anyway, I've changed the colspan value from 3 to 2. If you want to use a colspan of 3 then all other rows want 3 columns and from 1 to 3 (joined or not joined) cells.
Happy Editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1