Template talk:Track listing/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

What about for comedy albums?

It says "All songs written by X", if you put in the "all_writing" parameter.

What about for a comedy album?

Is there a way to change it from "songs" to just "All material written by X" ?

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Colour

For the 120th track, the listed colour is #f7f7f. Shouldn't it be #f7f7f7, like with the other even-numbered tracks? 77topaz (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Grammar is not needed

This change is incorrect. Please revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. They're notes, not sentences – no verb required. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. TJRC (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the consensus is that we should seem like morons without any sense of how to construct a sentence, I'm not going to push the point. Yes, them notes no verb ok. Jimp 13:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you think all written constructions should be sentences? Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Who needs grammar anyway?

 – Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? Do we really want to come across as if we've never paid attention in primary school? Would it not be in WP's best interest to be taken seriously? Can we expect to be taken seriously if we cannot get simple grammar right? Jimp 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jimp: There are verbs, "written" and "composed". It's how the template has been for years: the text when |all_writing= is used (i.e. "All songs written and composed by") is unchanged from the original version (13:23, 12 February 2008); but the text for |all_lyrics= and |all_music= was changed slightly after less than eleven hours - from "All lyrics by ..., all music by ..." to "All lyrics written by ..., all music composed by ..." at 23:59, 12 February 2008, since when it has not changed for more than a short time. It's also how songwriting credits are often shown on record sleeves, CD inlay cards, etc.

A change like the one that you desire is the sort of thing that should be discussed - preferably somewhere like WT:ALBUMS - and not made unilaterally. It's not as if your change were uncontroversial either - three people (see above) had requested reversion before I went ahead and carried out the revert; also, previous attempts to change it have also been reverted, such as in September 2009. If it was discussed this time, it's not clear where: there is no link to a discussion in your edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say "all songs written by X" is about a thousand times more common in LP / CD sleeve notes than "all songs were written by X". If it's good enough for those morons, then it's good enough for me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, record sleeves have to contend with a couple of things, one of which we are free from here. Firstly, there is the question of space. This is not an issue here. Secondly, there are people without a decent grasp of grammar. I suppose we aren't free of this problem.

Yes, Red Rose, there was no discussion but you and I know that not every change need be discussed. Regarding the particular case in question, in which the change was to bring a template in line with ordinary English grammar which is as plain as the nose on your face, one would hope to be forgiven. I mean, really, who's got the time to sift through the discussion when it seems as simple a matter as correcting an error as plain as day?

I'm just saying that the error is so plain that I wouldn't have expected resistance to its correction. On the other hand, you should always expect resistance.

So, anyhow, if the consensus is to go with the ungrammatical construction which helps make Wikipedia look moronic, go ahead, of course, it's about consensus not an individual's view of correctness but I'll still lament that Wikipedia is being made to look stupid by bad grammar.

@Bretonbanquet: No, I don't think that all written constructions should be sentences. I'm merely suggesting that it's a good thing to strive to write coherently as opposed to writing like a half-wit.

Jimp 17:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a moot point but I think you're making a big exaggeration here – morons and half-wits etc. To suggest "all songs written by X" is incoherent is at best, inaccurate. I really don't think it's so common on record sleeves due to lack of space (it's only one word to add), nor to any question of those concerned having no decent grasp of grammar. I wouldn't 'correct' this construction any more than I would change a sign saying "No exit" to include a verb. I'm assuming your comments about grammatical competency were not intended to be insulting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Some exaggeration perhaps and, yes, it does seem a moot point since consensus is to continue with the ungrammatical. But, no, I have absolutely no intention of insulting anyone: it's how we seem to readers not how any individual one of us may. I'd rather we appeared as if we could manage to write a sentence with decent enough grammar. I'm not trying to point any particular culprit out as being poor at English. Though you write of signs and record sleeves; we're writing a thing of which a higher standard should be expected. Jimp 14:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've informed WP:ALBUMS. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to the change. The shorter wording is how its typically worded in album booklets/credits. It's not prose in an article, so it doesn't have to be a complete sentence. Its just more words being used to convey the same exact idea. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's fine as it was before Jimp's edit. – czar 15:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I just don't understand these arguments. Firstly, it is prose in an article (just look at a few examples, here's one). Secondly, we're writing articles not record sleeves; this would be like going to the pizza articles and suggesting we follow the grammar used on pizza boxes. Jimp 07:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Note and writer together

Hello, on this article I added the template with note and writer for each track, but it's only showing the note: Uns geht's prima.... Can someone check what's wrong here? Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Evil IP address: The template needed "writing_credits = yes", like this. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Screwing up page formatting

I see that this template has just started causing formatting problems when infoboxes, etc. are long enough to come down beside the track lists. The template table used to resize down to a shorter width to allow the infobox to fit next to it. However, now it pushes the track list table past the end of the infobox, making some pages look horrible. For examples see: Siempre en Mi Corazón — Always in My Heart and The Three Tenors: Paris 1998. The formatting on these pages used to look fine, but now they look pretty dreadful with huge white spaces. PLEASE, fix this as soon as possible. A lot of pages are being affected by this serious defect. (By the way, I'm using the latest version of Internet Explorer.) Rmm413 (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rmm413: Yep. That'll be the 100% thing mentioned at #Broken template above. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that does look pretty bad. I've rolled out the fix mentioned above, so this particular formatting issue should now be fixed, at the expense of the "Show" link appearing in the wrong place in Chrome. If anyone can fix both of those things at the same time, please go ahead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Broken template

I'm using Chrome and for the last several weeks I've noticed that when track lists are collapsed, there are linebreaks in between every word.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Looks OK to me. Which particular pages are you seeing problems on? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Every single one. Here's an example--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's how I see it; this is in Chrome version 44.0.2403.125 m.

BTW are you aware of WP:WPSHOT? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, forgot to mention I'm using Version 46.0.2467.2 dev-m (64-bit). Other browsers work fine.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same thing in Chrome (but not Internet Explorer or Firefox), for example the various editions of Smoke + Mirrors made the page look hideous, and that was after I removed the extra words (it was even worse before). Hzh (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Any idea why the track listing templates, when collapsed, are turning into square boxes instead of single line rectangles? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. I see it in Chrome, but not Firefox. I suspect it's as a result of a recent change there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I am experiencing the same kind of issue in Chrome; is there no fix to it that we are aware of? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You can use {{nowrap|example title}} for the headline title, that should stop it from wrapping. Hzh (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reported the issue to WP:VPT — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Things are made somewhat better by adding width: 100%; to the opening <table> element's style attribute. But after doing that, the location of the "show" and "hide" labels is still wrong, and the individual tracks still overflow the end of the table. Not sure how to fix those yet. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Caused by the user agent stylesheet for chrome adding table {display:table;}. I’m able to override it by defining any other value, say for instance table {display:block;} in chrome dev tools. - NQ-Alt (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This template is totally broken... It tells the browser it's 10 columns wide, while usually it's only 4. It's also supposed to be narrow in the collapsed state, since that's enough space to show the title. The fact that it doesn't do that in other browsers is indicative of a problem in the template code. The HTML validator also says that this template is generating broken code. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the colspan so that it now adjusts in a similar fashion to the row containing "Total length:" - this should correspond with the cells in the row beginning "No." --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement, but we are still seeing problems at e.g. Smoke + Mirrors#Track listing. After some playing around with the expanded code from that article in my sandbox, it looks like the solution should be to add width: 100%; to the <table> element, remove the empty cells from the headline row, and make all of the other columns match up by removing empty cells and/or adjusting colspans. I think that might be impossible to do properly in template code, as we would need to check the parameters for every track every time we wanted to find out how many columns we have. This would be much easier to do in Lua, however - would people mind me converting it? The alternative is that we trust editors to use the right number of arguments for each track that they input, and sometimes they are bound to get it wrong. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, ignore what I said about it being impossible to work out how many columns we have using template code. On closer inspection of Template:Track listing/Track I worked out that this is precisely what the |writing_credits=, |music_credits=, |lyrics_credits= and |extra_column= parameters were being used to do. So I made a helper template to calculate the number of columns, Template:Track listing/Columns, and fixed the template without converting it to Lua. Although converting it still might be a good idea to remove all the duplicated parts. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

One thing that isn't quite working as it apparently should is the behaviour of the template when surrounded by floats: see this test case. The width: 100% is forcing the floats below, whereas before they were displayed to the side. I've tried playing around with different CSS but I can't get anything that looks right in Chrome. (With display: block; and max-width: 100%; it looks almost right, but the "show" link ends up in the wrong place.) If anyone else can see a good fix, please go ahead and add it to the template (or the sandbox). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The fix is definitely great, especially in Chrome! Thank you so much! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just adding that at times, it doesn't give you the option to expand; it merely is already non-collapsed and is embedded within the article. Is that a coding issue, or? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: It sounds like you need to add |collapsed=yes to the ones that don't collapse. The default is for the template not to be collapsible. (Of course, you'll need a consensus to do that - it might not be set to be collapsible for a reason.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Even with |collapsed=yes activated, it sometimes does not collapse; it stays opened and embedded with a thicker black border. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Could you give me an example of a page you're seeing this on? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Track listing standard

Being that there is no standard for track listings on Wikipedia, which is more suitable for a new set standard. Format one - Standard edition, etc. format, or format two - ''Album Title'' {{nobold|– Standard edition}}, etc. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 17:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on the principle set in MOS:HEADINGS: "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article". It's clear that the album track listing is for the article's album. Why would we repeat it? With that in mind, format one would be the one I prefer.

Example for format one

Standard edition

No.	Title	Length

{{Track listing | headline = Standard edition }}

Example for format two

Album Title – Standard edition

No.	Title	Length

{{Track listing | headline = ''Album Title'' {{nobold|– Standard edition}} }} Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Call me dense, but I don't understand exactly what you're referring to. Can you make it a bit clearer with, perhaps a couple of examples, even on a sandbox page? BlackCab (TALK) 11:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@BlackCab: You can find better examples here. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 13:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, so apologies, but speaking of redundancy I'm not a fan of using the template at all when the track listing is a simple one, e.g. all songs have the same writer and the only information to impart is song title and timing. It's not so bad on a cellphone/mobile, but on a computer screen all you end up with is song titles on the far left of the screen and track times on the far right, and a great big empty space between them. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

And yes, format one is better - no need to repeat the album title in an article about that album. Richard3120 (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Format one is better. And I strongly agree with Richard3120 about the use of the track list template. I hate it. BlackCab (TALK) 23:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Why no curly quotes?

Noticed in the history that implementing typographic quotation marks “” instead of the incorrect straight quotes "" was frowned upon. Why is that? If there is no technical reason, en.wikipedia should stick to English type conventions wherever possible, no? Best, —93.229.255.137 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

To be in compliance with MOS:QUOTE, the third section, "Typographic conformity", reads in part,

"These should all be straight, not curly or slanted."

It then goes into further detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Width of table

Whenever this template is used, then unless an infobox squashes it up, it fills the width of the screen. Please allow the editor to define how wide the end result looks. An example of such a use can be seen in Guru (soundtrack) where the editor has used HTML instead of wiki markup resulting in a better (in my opinion) display. I tried to use template:track listing on this article but didn't feel that it improved the display because it filled the width of the screen with lots of (unnecessary) white space. Jodosma (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never cared much for this template and feel quite strongly that where little or no further information needs to be included apart from the track title and its length, a list format should be the preferred option. In the case that you have quoted above, the template has to be used as each song has different singers, so you need the extra column. One thing we need to be aware of is that the display on a computer screen is different to that on a mobile device... I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how having customisable column widths would look on the two different devices. Richard3120 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the fundamental principles of web design is that you should never make assumptions about the dimensions and other characteristics of another user's screen. Don't design for particular widths or layouts, as the chances of Joe Blow having the same setup are practically nil. Go to any Wikipedia page, look at it on screen; then print it. It's a lot different. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many articles in Wikipedia which specify a width for a table. I just want template:track listing to allow the same. Jodosma (talk)

It's usually a percentage; and about the only one you can rely on is 100%. Specifying a narrower width using percentages may sqeeze things unduly; and specifying a width in terms of pixels, ems or some other absolute measure is asking for trouble. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish somebody with a more positive view would join in. It must be possible. Jodosma (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason why the table needs to be 100% width. If we were using wikitable class for the table, the width would not be 100% so why should this table be 100%? No one is asking for adjustable width, in fact the example (while not very nice from a formatting point of view is essentially the following:

Track #	Song	Singer(s)	Duration

Imminently more manageable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Walter. I was simply looking for a quick way to reduce the white space while still using the track listing template. Incidentally did you mean eminently instead of imminently? Jodosma (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jodosma: Just to clarify, I'm not against your suggestion... I too hate the empty white space, which is why I prefer the list option to the template for simple track listings. For example, when I added the track listing for The Take Off and Landing of Everything I did it as a list, as the writing credits are the same for all songs... to my annoyance somebody felt obliged to change it to the template (which is against Wikipedia guidelines that say you shouldn't change an editor's choice of track listing format without good reason), and now the song titles and running times are separated by the width of the page, which I don't find useful or attractive. But on my phone it looks fine... this was my reason for caution, I don't know if the coding you propose would mess this up. If a way can be found to display the template properly on both PC and phone, I support your proposal. Richard3120 (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope someone with the required access permission and coding knowledge will consider the change. It's used in a lot of articles so a change would need to be done with some care. Jodosma (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 March 2016

Please change this line:

<th class="tlheader" scope="col" style="width: 2em; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; text-align: right; background-color: #eee">No.</th>

to the following:

<th class="tlheader" scope="col" style="width: 2em; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; text-align: right; background-color: #eee">{{abbr|No.|Number}}</th>

Basically, change No. to {{abbr|No.|Number}}. This is for accessibility for screen reader users in accordance with MOS:NUMERO. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 19:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Consistency when numbering vinyl disk sides.

I would like some discussion on the logic of numbering disk sides, especially multi-disk albums.

This page uses The Beatles (album) as an example. The pattern seems to be to continuously number the tracks for each disk. Therefore side two continues the numbering from side one. Then side three starts over and side four continues from side three.

WHAT is the logic for this? When the original vinyl album was produced, each side was numbered separately. The possible reasons I can think of are: (1) It treats each disk on its own. (2) This is typically how they end up being numbered on a CD.

IF THE ANSWER IS #1, it goes against the original packaging and diminishes the reason for listing the sides at all.

Also, some multi-disk albums, like Woodstock: Music from the Original Soundtrack and More, backed sides one and six on a disk, sides two and five, and sides three and four. There is no way to continuously number albums like this that makes sense.

IF THE ANSWER IS #2, then other problems arise:

Sometimes a two-disk set is squeezed onto a single CD. Should all four sides be numbered continuously?

In the case of The Concert for Bangladesh (album) or the Grateful Dead's Europe '72, a three-disk album is put onto two CDs with the second disk (sides 3 and 4) split between the disks. How do we number these?

THEREFORE, I would like to humbly suggest that albums which were originally issued on vinyl have tracks listed by sides and that each side be numbered on its own.

Reactions, please.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Where sides are 1/6, 2/5. 3/4 this facilitates playing on an autochanger - you put the three discs on the spindle in the order (bottom to top) 6-1-5-2-4-3, so that when side 1 has played through, the next disc drops and side 2 plays; when side 3 has played through, you just turn the whole stack over and sides 4, 5, 6 will play through in the correct order without shuffling the discs. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)