Template talk:MusicBrainz release

tfd

• This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. _→AzaToth 21:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ad?

How is the MusicBrainz icon that goes with this template an ad? On the contrary, it serves as a tool for easy recognition. Cparker 05:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No other external links on Wikipedia use logos.. using the logo implies that Wikipedia endorses and promotes Musicbrainz. Rhobite 05:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the [TfD entry for this and related templates] and the general consensus was that the image was perfectly fine, and that perhaps other external links on Wikipedia should use logos after all. You seemed to be the only person who was opposed to having the images present within the templates. Cparker 06:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I fail to see how using a MusicBrainz icon serves as an endorsement, yet the link to the MusicBrainz site is not being interpreted as such. Do you consider the MusicBrainz article also an endorsement? There's a huge MB logo plastered on that very article. Cparker 06:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cryptic also opposed using the images. Rhobite 06:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Musicbrainz article describes the Musicbrainz service. It's fine to show their logo on that article. Doesn't imply endorsement, we're just illustrating their logo for readers. But there is a difference between the Musicbrainz article and hundreds of articles on musical albums and artists. An external link to Musicbrainz signifies that Wikipedia believes it's a useful resource - that's fine, if it is actually useful. Having an image on only the musicbrainz link implies that Wikipedia endorses MB above all other external links. It's the same as making the link bold, or green, or something. Rhobite 06:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

ParserFunctions

I've rolled all the other MB album templates into this one using the ParserFunctions. It now takes up to 10 discs, id1 … id10. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Release vs. release group

I'm in favor of this template being deprecated, with new links only using the release-group template. The release group is intended to encapsulate all releases of an album (vinyl, cassette, CD, online, remasters) as well as multi-disc releases. Comments? pbryan (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• In NGS, which will be introduced soon, release group will be much more usable, since it will cluster all release events in nice list: example. I'd say Release Group will be favoured template instead of Release one soon :-) LiDEL (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)