Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Time to Update the Infobox for the Industry and Accessibility

I think there's a few things in the infobox that can be clarified mainly to improve WP:ACCESS. I have several proposals. I'm listing them as numbered proposals.

• Proposal 1 - First I propose the creation of an an Executive producer field. The main reason for this is the unusual treatment of these producers across the project. Some editors omit them all together, others chose to list them, some even list them with notes alongside e.g. (exec.) or (also exec.). My main issue with this is shortening a small font (the infobox font is already small) is not WP:ACCESSIBLE to those who have impaired vision. Furthermore, without a possible guideline it makes it difficult to standardise their treatment thus making it difficult to know how to best treat "executive producer". Additionally, executive producers are different from regular record producers, in that they might curate an album as a whole, rather than individual tracks.

• Proposal 2 - Modify the word "Released" for singles where it says the "date" as some singles are only ever sent to radio (songs sent to radio are serviced not release) and in the UK "impact days" are becoming a popular method of release whereby the song is promoted to a certain date but not actually released as a separate download listing (i.e. only available as an album track) but promoted as a single. I would propose replacing "Released" with either Impacting or Available.

• Proposal 3 - The font size for the date, where the single is listed in the infobox is unnecessarily shrunk. It should be the same size as the rest of the text in the infobox per the principles of WP:ACCESS.

To direct the discussion I've listed separate sections for the poll (i.e. where you can support or oppose each of the proposals) and then discussion should take place in the section below so we can easily identify concerns/WP:CONSENSUS. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Poll

Please vote support or oppose for each of the proposals under the headings below.

Proposal 1 - Creation of an "Executive Producer" field

Older discussion and poll

*Support. — Status (talk · contribs) 00:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Comment - Are you suggesting there be a whole extra field in the infobox for executive producers? Maybe it should be done like it is at I Am Not a Human Being II widely, but I do not know about a whole other field for one to a usual maximum of five names. $TATic message me! 00:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I like how its been done at I Am Not A Human Being II, it would be good if one of the access experts can confirm that screen reading technology can read such formatting, otherwise essentially yes I am suggesting the creation of a new field for executive producers as quite often these havent produced tracks on the album but are credited with producing the entire album. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I would support it being done how it is at I Am Not A Human Being II, but I am still hesitant when it comes to adding a new parameter for just a few names, when we can work effectively with what we have. STATic message me! 02:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I would Strongly Support the addition of this form of the producers/exc. field. I've actually come to admire how it's done on I Am Not a Human Being II, and I will only support this proposal if it is carried out in this particular way or in a way that takes inspiration from this particular article. It's perfection in my eyes! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Support the addition of a new parameter that uses a correctly accessible format for executive producer. I've seen some very odd placement of it. If it can be implemented the way that it is at Template:Infobox musical artist, even better. To clarify, we would add each executive producer on new lines and started with an asterisk, as though it were a flat list, and the template then formats it correctly. If it's comma separated, we display it the same way. Don't force the editor to decide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I've always thought it a bit odd that we include record producers in the album infobox, but not writers. I think we should just get rid of the producer parameter altogether. It's slightly tangential, but editors may wish to note that {{infobox film}} discourages the addition of exec and co-producers to the producer field. Adabow (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Not really key information so should be covered in the article but not the infobox. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Not key information? If it's listed on the album, and at AllMusic, it's fairly key. It usually means the same as "producer" of a film. In other words, the person who get the money for the release and the one who oversees the production. The executive produce often determines if a mix needs to be changed before releasing or if there are too many songs of some particular style or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC) All sorts of people get listed on albums and at Allmusic - e.g. assistant engineers, mastering, arrangers, person who designed the lettering for the album art, stylists, concert master, photographer (all of these are credited on Thriller). This does not make these roles key information about the album that should be available 'at a glance' to the reader. --Michig (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC) You're right. Allmusic's credits and primary source material from liner notes would not support that argument. However, third-party literature on albums as notable as Thriller do go into extensive detail about the producers, and the production process is treated as key information by the best possible sources on albums, such as books and articles about an album. For instance, The MOJO Collection (2007) and its album guide. Since an album is ultimately a piece of recording, the pertinence shouldn't be questioned? Dan56 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I don't really understand your argument. If this detail is covered by reliable sources and is pertinent to the article, that's a reason to cover it in the article, not to include it all in the infobox. A reminder of what infoboxes are supposed to be used for (from the MOS): "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." An infobox is not supposed to contain all of the information about the subject. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC) How is the producer parameter an exercise in "include[ing] it all in the infobox"? This TMI argument from you and others doesn't make sense--what isn't too much information according to you? Everything as is but this parameter? Dan56 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Again I don't understand your argument. We already have a 'Producer' field, which is fine as the producer often has a major creative input to the album. The discussion here is whether we should have an additional field for 'Executive producer', who may just be someone who financed the recording. We may as well add 'Record company exec' as they may make a decision on whether or not to release the album. Most albums have a producer who produces the album. The idea that we should remove the Producer field and replace it with an Executive producer field is barmy. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Where did I say that I agreed with that idea? Dan56 (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Support. Question, though: since executive producers often produce individual songs on albums, would we be listing them in both the executive producer and producer fields, or just the executive producer parameter? WikiRedactor (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Looking at that I Am Not a Human Being II article, that is not how an infobox should look. An infobox should be a place where you can quickly glance at key information, not read a giant list of everyone who walked past the studio when the album was being recorded. At the point the infobox looks like that, the "Producer" field should simply be left blank and all that info should be listed in the Personnel section (probably with more headings than currently appear there). Adding another field to further expand the infobox is not a good idea, especially if it will make more infoboxes look like that mess. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Changed to my suggested compromise below in the Discussion section. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose inclusion of separate executive producer field. I would tend to think of the producer of an album is akin to the director of a movie, even though these day it seems like each track has a different set of producers, as opposed to just say Quincy Jones for an entire album. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Comment Upon reading all the above, I would like to recommend to re-name the "Producer" field to "Executive producer" as the infobox is supposed to be a summary. Then for the comprehensive list, put them all; i.e. "executive producer" and any other "producers" in the Personnel section.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC) That would cause the issue of all current producers being listed as executive producers, and most of those would be incorrect. The creation of an executive producer parameter and deletion of the producer parameter would work, however, with manual addition of executive producers. Adabow (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Why is the deletion of "Producers" even being considered? It's clearly relevant to most, if not all, of the articles that use this infobox; "executive producer" is not (Wikipedia:IBX#General_considerations). Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I fully agree with Dan56 on this one. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC) l support Adabow's revision to my recommendation. I'm not at all saying that "Producers" are irrelevant, just that that is too much material to be placed in an infobox. Why not just put the "Executive producers", as the qualifier "executive" means that they are calling them the most important ones. That should be sufficient for an infobox. Then list all "executive producers" and any other "producers" in the Personnel section.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC) They are not necessarily the most important ones, most of time executive producers do not do any record production, and are usually just the heads of the record label, the artist himself and their manager. Mostly it is just the people that handle the financial part of the album, among other legal things. STATic message me! 03:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Ok, then. Based upon STATic (above) and Gyrofrog (below) how about setting a MAXINUM number of entries to be placed in the field as "if there are that many people then it needs to be detailed in the text, not in the infobox."—Iknow23 (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Dan and Gyrofrog, the deletion of the producer section is being considered because producers (at least in modern popular music) usually produce individual songs, rather than a whole album. In this respect, they are similar to writers—both contribute to the sound of individual songs, and may produce or write the entire album, and may be the recording artist themself—yet we do not include writers in this infobox. The producer sections are often extremely bloated; they can easily include >10 names. By all means include producers in prose but remember that the infobox's purpose is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". Adabow (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC) If you're dealing with big-budget contemporary album releases by most top-40 recording artists, sure, you might find some bloated cases. But they don't even make up a significant minority of WP:ALBUMS articles. Dan56 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "producers (at least in modern popular music) usually produce individual songs, rather than a whole album" – This infobox is use on a lot of non-pop/rap albums: rock, metal, country, and many others, which generally only have a single producer, who produces the entire album. They are considered "producers", not "executive producers". Removing the "producer" parameter would be a bad idea. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I don't believe it's true that on modern albums producers generally produce individual tracks rather than a whole album. With some genres albums tend to be compilations of tracks recorded with several producers, but most albums still have one or two producers. If an album consists of 10-12 tracks produced by different people then none of those are the album producer, and the detail would be better spelt out in the body of the article rather than in the infobox. --Michig (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose; if there are that many people then it needs to be detailed in the text, not in the infobox. Generally I agree with MrMoustacheMM on this, and I also share Dan56's concern. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose the creation of a separate field, but I'd Support listing exec. producers among the rest of the producers and indicating them as (exec.). This is done in many articles at the moment and works pretty well in my opinion. As many said above, exec. producers usually have an important role in the process of creating the album, so they should not be omitted. 2Flows (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Comment, the field would be optional therefore if there were three or four exec producers they could be listed in the new field while existing producers could be left in the existing field. Alternatively for cases like Glassheart by Leona Lewis there is an exhaustive list of producers in the infobox. Its quite a lot of information for the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary. It would be better served just listing the exec. producers, the majority of albums are like this where there are LTS of producers. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note please see the discussion section below for the latest on the above proposal and a new compromise that is being discussed. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2 - Changing the word "Release" for Singles in the Infobox

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.

---

• I don't like "impacted", as this sounds like radio-only terminology. "Available" is better, just still sounds a bit awkward... Adabow (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• I don't know if it's just that I'm so used to "released", but I just don't like "impacted" or "available". — Status (talk · contribs) 02:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Technically a radio release is still a release, and I am not a big fan of "impacted" or "available". Not to mention most first release dates come via digital download. STATic message me! 03:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Songs only sent to radio stations are not commercially released, which is the usual meaning of 'released'. I would question whether such tracks should even be listed as singles. --Michig (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see your point, but "released" seems like the simplest and most easily-understood wording to use. "Impacted" is radio-only terminology, and would seem especially inappropriate to use for pre-2000s albums which use the template (where singles radio release information is difficult to find). There are also many cases where the digital/physical release date precedes the radio release date.

"Available" is better than "impacted", but it reads awkwardly compared to "released". Perhaps a special field could be implemented especially for radio-only singles, or the notation "(radio)"/"(radio-only)" could be added (see Life Is Good as an example). The idea of two separate date fields, one for radio release and one for physical/digital release, also comes into mind (I think I remember a similar proposal for the singles infobox a few months back), but it may seem unnecessary to some users. Holiday56 (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, I prefer the original wording. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Released" may not be the most technically correct, but per WP:JARGON, "...editors should try to make [articles] understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon...". "Released" serves our purposes well enough. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment How about this? Add a field called "Radio". This avoids jargon and disambiguates the material (date) presented.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If a song is sent to radio, it is technically "released" to radio, no need to change that. 2Flows (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As initially pointed out by MrMoustacheMM, " 'Released' may not be the most technically correct...". Remember, we are reporting on the record industry, so we should do so correctly. When the industry does not call it "released to radio" it is improper for us to do so. They use such as "radio impact date", "going for adds", "sent to radio", etc. I don't insist upon the technical terms like "impact" to minimize jargon, but believe "officially sent to radio on xx date as the fourth single from xx album" is both correct usage AND understandable. This usage has been successfully applied to many such singles' articles in Wikipedia. "Sent to radio" of course is the record label sending (requesting) commencement of radio play on a specific date and not just random play by radio.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And presently, we have singles that were never released to radio, they were simply released as items for sale, being listed in this template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course, those are the easy ones. The difficulty really came up in the digital age wherein the record companies can sell any song as merely an album track. Even before an album release, sometimes they put tracks up for early sale on iTunes album pre-order page ONLY without their own "singles" page, thus these are not singles. The difficulty that needs to be addressed is the 'Radio-basis' singles (that due to past discussions) we are calling singles.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, since now in the digital age there is only two ways singles are released nowadays (digital and to radio) radio being the only way singles can be released after an album's release, since a separate digital download page is not released when it is already available as an album track. Using words as "impacted" or "sent" is great in prose, but the infobox should just be consistent in calling it "released" or "release date", the latter probably being a better choice. I mean when have you ever heard of a song "impacting iTunes" or "impacted Amazon", keep in mind the first release date of around half, if not more of the album's singles come via digital download on iTunes/Amazon. STATic message me! 06:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Radio doesn't have to be "the only way singles can be released after an album's release". It's just the record companies being lazy because they can. They know they don't have to do anything except send the song to radio (sometimes they make a video too) and people will just buy it from the album page as a track. They really could release singles after the album but no incentive for them to do so. As people view the album page to get the single, they hope people will go ahead and buy the entire album or perhaps more than just the one song they originally came for, thus selling additional product.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Promotional singles aren't actual singles in the first place, and in my opinion "Released" isn't an incorrect term for promos anyway! It's "released" to radio for Airplay, so that's a double no from me. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:04, 9 September 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.

Proposal 3 - Modify the size of the date for singles in the infobox to match the rest of the infobox text

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.

---

• Support. — Status (talk · contribs) 00:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. — $TATic message me! 00:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support Easier to read for everyone, and smaller text doesn't really serve any purpose here. Adabow (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Holiday56 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, WikiRedactor (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Good idea. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. —Iknow23 (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support I never understood why it was small in the first place. I guess you could make the argument that it fits better into the special dimensions of the info box, but I'm pretty sure we can fit "Released: September 27, 2008" (the largest width of date) into the info box without creating an unwanted second line! I'm certain of it actually! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support The small text is unnecessary; let's make it consistent. Acalamari 13:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:02, 12 September 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.

Discussion

If I understand this correctly, and to be honest: I can be pretty dense sometimes, it seems that proposal 2 and 3 should be discussed at Template:Singles rather than here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

My bad! I completely forgot that {{Singles}} was a separate template. I'll leave a link on that discussion page. Best to keep it all in one place tbh. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If we're discussing that here, we should might want to discuss whether to indicate that the single is a air-play only, released as media only (45, cassingle, digital download, etc.) or a combination of the two. Bands and labels have started releasing tracks from upcoming albums early to help build hype for the upcoming albums. Radio never picks these "singles" up and they don't chart in airplay ratings only sales ratings. The single could have a border be coloured the way that different albums are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't think this is necessary. What you refer to are promotional singles / iTunes countdown singles. They shouldnt be mentioned in the infobox for albums as they're not fully released. They're just part of the album's pre-release marketing campaign. I don't think its necessary to confirm in the infobox whether a single was released to radio, on media or both, particularly as it can be difficult to reference in some cases. Also no offence but I don't wanna digree from the discussion already at hand which is based predominately on Accessibility. I think we could discuss it afterwards but I want to nail the above (either full support or full opposition) issues first. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think in another discussion we should talk about bringing in a separate template in the infobox for promotional singles. It might be of some use. — Status (talk · contribs) 02:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Since promotional singles are just for promotion and generally not notable, unless they chart, their mention in the articles are enough. We can leave the infobox for the real official singles. STATic message me! 03:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

MrMoustacheMM (talk · contribs) has a good point with infoboxes like IANAHB II looking too cluttered. Might I suggest instead that we completely replace the existing producers section with a new executive producers field? The more I think about it, I think it would probably best to only list the primary personnel of an album here to keep the infobox short and sweet. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Tbh I was toying with the idea of suggesting that we stop listing producers in the infobox and list just executive producers. Producers can remain in the track listing section alongside the tracks they've produced. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I would support that. Adabow (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That actually does make sense, I am not sure though since record producer(s) are definitely a very significant part of an album's creation. Not to mention, the amount of work that would be needed to remove record producers out of every single transclusion of this template. Also what about albums that only are produced by a single producer, but that person not credited as an "executive producer"? Also the Executive producer title is kind of thrown around a lot nowadays, without them doing much publicly sourced significance to the project (sometimes even the artist publicly saying they did not have much to do with the album), or some albums only listing the lead artist as an executive producer, which would defeat the purpose for the parameter entirely. STATic message me! 01:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There wouldn't be much work needed to be done, as the parameter can simply be deleted in the template. All uses of the template will not show the producer field at all, regardless of whether "Producer=Joe Bloggs" is present or not. Adabow (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:IBX#General considerations, "If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all." The mess at IANAHB II doesn't seem like a common one. Perhaps that's a separate case that requires it's own consensus? Producers are always applicable, exec's not. The latter seems more predominant in articles on more recent albums by high-profile/promoted artists. On the other hand, if those kind make up a significant amount of album articles, then maybe an optional parameter could exist for execs. How often are "longtype" or "extra chronology" used? Dan56 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely agree with you, I am not sure what the "mess" you are refering to is, I think me and ℧niquԐ were refering to the headings, but a optional parameter for exec's does also make sense in this scenario. I do not see why some are jumping to remove the record producers parameter, as that does not make a lick of sense to me. Record producers generally are responsible for around half of the final product of the album and are extremely significant to albums. STATic message me! 02:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The argument here is interesting. The infobox is supposed to be a summary and considering what everyone has said, Exec producers are usually arent attributed or linked to specific tracks but rather to the album as whole. Whereas producers are attributed to specific tracks and maybe they should be left in the track listing section alongside the tracks they produce? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What you refer to is true mostly for pop/hip-hop albums, but albums in other genres often have one or few producers who produce the entire album. 2Flows (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How about creating an executive producer field to use for albums that specifically label the executive producers, and leaving the existing producers field for albums to list primary producers that aren't officially titled as an executive? WikiRedactor (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Then that would leave it open to WP:OR, and violations of WP:NPOV on who thinks who is more important to the albums production, and who is a primary producer and so one and so forth. I mean, it is not like these things are usually labeled on the liner notes or anything.STATic message me! 16:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How is that WP:OR? Anyone who has purchased an album will know that in the album booklet 95% it lists the producers of an album usually alongside the tracks they produced and exec producers are listed separately along with people who did the artwork etc. There's no case of OR or POV. What Wikiredactor means is that the existing producer field would be left for producers of individual tracks etc. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

He said to leave the regular producers field to "primary producers". My response was related to other editors making their own original research to who is a "primary producer" or IPs attempting promote/advertise certain producers by including them in the hypothetical section. STATic message me! 20:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

For albums that don't specifically list executive producers, what if we were to establish a policy where producers that oversee x-amount of tracks are mentioned in the infobox, with a link referring readers to the rest in the track listing? I would think that that avoids neutrality disputes because we are simply listing the most prominent producers of the project. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How about setting a maximum number of names to put in the Producers field in the infobox. If exceeded, list NONE in the infobox, and put ALL in a separate Producers template (create a Producers template for this purpose)...like how the Professional ratings template was split off from the infobox? It can have separate fields for 'Executive producers' and 'Producers'. ALL with word exec go in exec field. Can still have parenthetical notes; such as (vocal) or other however they are officially credited.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't need another box. Inclusion in prose is sufficient for large numbers of producers. The idea of a maximum number sounds tempting, but at the end of the day will be arbitrary and just weird, especially to people who aren't active album article editors ("there are producers for this one, why not this one?"). To be honest, the only options I can envisage are those that apply to every single use of the infobox: executive producer field (or not) and producer field (or not). Adabow (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(response to WikiRedactor's comment above) "with a link referring readers to the rest in the track listing" – Per WP:IBX, "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." So no, there should not be a link referring readers to the rest in the track listing. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should do one of the following, 1) we create a separate executive producers field which can be used where there are several exec producers and if there are LOADs of producers i.e. more than 8, then only the execs get listed in the exec field and normal producers remain in the track listing section. 2) we only only list executive producers in the infobox in a new field called Exec producers and the 'producer' field is decommissioned. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Number 2 is a bad idea, as producers of albums are "key information". For example, Metallica's Death Magnetic wouldn't sound the way it does if someone other than Rick Rubin had produced it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with MrMoustacheMM that deleting the existing |producer= field is ill-advised. I am not sure whether that's being seriously considered (I hope not). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's enough support at the moment for the exec producer field. I might let the above discussion die out a bit and then re-suggest an exec producer-only field. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like again to suggest a maximium number of names (maybe 10) to list in the infobox as producers. We have placed similar limits such as 10 record charts on Discog pages. However, if MORE THAN 10 producers (including exec.), I PROPOSE LISTING NONE. This will prevent warring over WHICH 10 are to be listed. In such case, just place a link (See personnel section) in the Producers field. I do realize a conflict with WP:IBX#Purpose of an infobox as pointed out by MrMoustacheMM, "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." I wish to point out some other considerations shown there as well, such as; "to summarize key facts" and "to identify key facts at a glance". We can't have it both ways. So why is it so wrong to link "(See personnel section)" when it is a huge comprehensive list? "(See personnel section)" is only 3 words and keeps the infobox short, while not downgrading the importance of Producers by eliminating the field altogether (as suggested by some). It is just recognizing that it is too much material to be included in a summary. Further I would recommend (since their importance and that they make up such a comprehensive list) that the Personnel section be separated/started with an Executive Producer subsection in alpha order OR as per credited and then a Producer subsection similarly. This would be followed by the rest of the personnel in usual alpha order. Example I Am Not a Human Being II:

Personnel

Executive producers

• Ronald "Slim" Williams
• Birdman
• Lil Wayne
• Cortez Bryant
• G. Roberson
• Mack Maine

Producers

• A+
• Christian Davis Stalnecker
• Cool & Dre
• Crazy Mike
• David Banner
• Detail
• Diplo
• DVLP
• ELEW
• Fabio Marascuillo
• Filthy
• Hudson Mohawke
• Juicy J
• Lunice
• Mike Banger
• Mike WiLL Made It
• Nikhil Seetharam
• Rasool Diaz
• Sarom
• Soulja Boy
• Streetrunner
• T-Minus

Other personnel

• 2 Chainz - Featured Artist
• Danny Arrondo - Assistant Engineer
• Chris Athens - Mastering
• Joshua Berkman - A&R
• Sam Bohl - Mixing Assistant
• ...

—Iknow23 (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

See now you've done that it makes me think that if the infobox is a summary then just the exec. should go in the box. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If anything, we should just have an executive producers parameter, and then have 10 regular record producers in the infobox. We should not just leave out such significant info, and record producers are already mentioned in the personnel. After reading about a max of 10 record producers sounds perfect. The record producers would be the ones that produced the most amount of tracks on the album, however the infobox would still list them in the alphabetical order. In the case of a tie that would make it go over 10, then neither of them get listed. Sounds easy. STATic message me! 15:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you decide which ten producers go in the infobox? If an album had ten tracks, each track had two producers. Each track was produced by different producers, i.e. no two producers did more than one track, how would you distinguish which ones go in the infobox? I think it should just be all producers or no producers (and then exec producers or no exec producers). → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Then in that case, like I already said none would be listed, only the executive producers. The point of the newly defined parameter would be to list producers that produce multiple tracks, maybe give more weight to a sole producer of a successful single. STATic message me! 15:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I can be near certain that such a proposal will result in arguments and edit wars as its too subjective. The whole point of this discussion was to return infoboxes to their rightful purpose - a summary. Producers are best served in the track listing section next to tracks they produced. Exec producers are more often then not, credited to a project as a while rather than individual tracks. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried to compromise, thanks for the negativity, but it does not matter since judging from above the consensus is for keeping the section. A lot of record producers are credited to entire albums, examples Rick Rubin's various works, a lot of rock/metal albums, hip hop albums such as Return of the Mac, and The Kolexxxion. I have seen primary record producers billed on physical albums just as prominently as executive producers, sometimes more prominently than the execs. STATic message me! 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on Lil-unique1's argument that adding an executive producer parameter "will result in arguments and edit wars as its too subjective" we should remove all of the parameters since I have seen arguments and edit wars over every parameter including time (CD length is different than LP or digital download) and even label.

How difficult is it to

1. add the parameter
2. explain in the template's documentation that the producers and executive producers must be discussed in a production section and that the material must be referenced there?

Of course people won't read the documentation--they don't now--but we simply set the example and trust that editors will learn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken... I said it likely create arguments and edit wars if we imposed a ten-producer limit and introduced the primary producer rule for the infobox. I merely suggest implementing an exec producer field as IMO this is more summative than a list of producers. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes every single parameter in every single infobox is prone to edit wars, it is not hard to direct someone to the documentation and the rules. The people listed as executive producers are usually 1) the lead artist, 2+3) the heads of his/her record labels, 4) Their manager, and 5) Someone else usually not a record producer. Their touch on the project is usually only financial backing, creative ideas, and promotion/clearances etc. How is that more informational or summartive, then the individuals that create the projects sound, which is definitely more significant than songwriters (which was argued earlier). STATic message me! 16:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

10 is a ridiculously large number of people to list in the infobox under one parameter. We should be making the infobox shorter, not longer. We removed reviews from this template for exactly this reason; even limited to 10 reviews, it was way too much information for the infobox. Remember WP:IBX: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." This is why I think the infobox at I Am Not a Human Being II is a mess; that amount of information is far too much for the infobox. It seems to me that these "executive producers" on albums like this are the same as (or at least reasonably similar to) a "producer" for an album by a rock group: they co-ordinate and oversee the creation of the entire album. So for albums like I Am Not a Human Being II, we would list the executive producers in the infobox, and the per-track producers in the Personnel section (and/or the Track listing template). That one producer created one song on an album is not a "key fact" about that album (just a key fact about the song itself).

But how about this for a compromise? Make an Executive Producer parameter, and make it and the Producer parameter either/or. Someone with coding experience makes it so if the Executive Producer parameter is used, the Producer parameter isn't shown, nor is any data entered next to that parameter. This will prevent the kind of overloaded infobox shown at I Am Not a Human Being II, while giving the correct title to the executive producers.

Regarding including links within the article in the infobox, is it really so hard as a reader to look slightly to the left of the infobox to see the table of contents and click on the link to "Personnel" and/or "Track listing" given there? I really don't think we should be contravening WP:IBX on this. I trust that our readers are smart enough to figure out where to look for a link. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would support User:MrMoustacheMM's compromise. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, I think everyone will be happy with this. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as long as the Personnel section will still be separated/started with an Executive Producer subsection in alpha order OR as per credited and then a Producer subsection similarly. This would be followed by the rest of the personnel in usual alpha order as I have shown above.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is a good caveat User:Iknow23 → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If there are different producers for each track, then there is no album producer.

Is that a correct assumption?

I have seen projects where two or possibly three production teams work on songs, but if there are ten or more producers, there are some serious issues with the album.

Also, making producer and executive producer an either/or situation isn't a good solution since executive producers are often just as key as the producers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Taking the I Am Not a Human Being II example above, the either/or situation and the proposed guideline would mean that it only the five exec producers would be included in the infobox and the other producers would remain in the track listing and personal section. Where say ten or less producers created an album then the exec producer field would be ignored and all ten producers would be included in the producer field (if I've understand what User:MrMoustacheMM has proposed. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

So take Heart in Motion as an example. In the production section of the article there are three producers (that's a sensible number) and two executive producers. If I read the compromise correctly, the two executive producers would be displayed and the producers would not be.

I Am Not a Human Being II is an extreme case where the producers produced tracks and not the album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not like this "if it is over 10 producers then we do not include it". What if we have one or two producers that produced 11 tracks on the album, and a combined eleven others produced the other seven tracks, then the producers that produced the majority of the album do not get mentioned, that does not add up. I say instead of this more than ten we leave it off completely, we list producers that produced at least three (two for albums with <10 tracks) tracks on the album, then less then ten would definitely be listed. Then there would always be a record producers field, but it would be left for the significant producers of the project. STATic message me! 01:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I submit that this situation could not be summarized, at least not for use in an infobox. Leave it blank and go into details in "Personnel" or "Track listing." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

How about this...we only include such parameter if there is a specific producer that was credited over all the others if there's no specific producer. If there is, we still look for RS to see which one is credited over all. And if there isn't, we don't add the parameter.Lucia Black (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Liner notes are RSes by definition. See template:Cite AV media notes.

First, unless we count the items (or use a flatlist or bulleted list) we can't exclude at a certain number of producers.

Second, we could just indicate something along the lines of the following the documentation: "If producers are specific to individual tracks, they should not be listed in the infobox, they should be discussed in a production section and listed alongside the tracks they edited." Parochial doesn't usually work well as editors can be ingenious on how to get around limitations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok I think Walter has almost nailed this. I would like to clarify that this means we will have an exec producer field for situations were producers attached to individual tracks so that only the exec are listed? But that in situations like Hotel Cabana the current situation is ok? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 23:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to get this going again, hopefully the RfC tag will help. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add 'Copyright' information field into the infobox

Reasoning for this proposal

• The 'copyright' information has more significant meanings than 'label', especially in the era of digital music. The 'copyright' claim information is being more and more widely used, as websites like iTunes use copyright claims to indicate the releasing records for an album.
• The 'copyright' claim is mostly unique for different pressings and editions of an album released in different areas, but 'labels' usually vary from one to another.
• The phonographic copyright doesn't frequently change, except for special cases.

Therefore I would like to propose that Wikipedia may consider create a 'copyright' field into the album infobox to show the copyright ownership for an album.

Discussions

Currently there is only a 'label' section inside the infobox to indicate the releasing records for an album. However, as far as I'm concerned, the 'copyright' information has more important meanings than 'label', because for one album, 'label' may vary from different pressings and editions released in different areas, but the 'copyright' claim for an album doesn't usually change (since the pressings may change but the music contents do not change). Let me use an example to further illustrate this.

For Lady Gaga's album The Fame, we can see Wikipedia gives four labels for it: Streamline, Kon Live, Cherrytree, Interscope. But actually, different pressings for this album have different "label sets" as we can easily see from the detail page at discog.com .

On the other hand, the 'copyright' information for this album is more or less the same. We can get this copyright claim information from the back cover or on the disc surface of the album: ℗ & © 2008 Interscope Records.

So now you can see that 'label' is usually not the same as 'copyright holder' for an album, and the 'copyright' claim information is being more widely used especially in some digital music stores or websites like iTunes and Spotify. Therefore I would like to propose that Wikipedia may consider add 'copyright' section into the album infobox to show the copyright holder for an album.

By the way, I am a new comer to Wikipedia. I look forward to the help and guides from you all. Thanks and best wishes!

Dumbbirdvip (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, Dumbbirdvip. :) Copyright is generally pretty complex and may be nonobvious. See [1] and [2], for instance. I think we're better off with the obvious and easily sourceable parameter on what labels released the album and leaving any significant copyright information (such as documented battles over rights) to the article itself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright ownership can change, and I wouldn't really see the copyright owner as either key information about an album, or something that would be easy to source for a lot of releases (we can often tell who owned the copyright when an album was released, but it could have changed since then). Regarding label. it should be the label(s) of the original release - there should only be more than one specified in the infobox if it was originally released simultaneously on different labels, e.g. for releases in different countries. --Michig (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Michig mentioned that copyright ownership can change and also the label should be according to the original release. Then why can't copyright ownership also be included according to the original release? Moreover, although the copyright information currently may not be so obvious, I can see the trends shifting from "CD labels" to "Music contents copyright" since the released format for music works is currently moving from CD towards digital. So I believe in the near future, more and more people would like to put attention to copyright information instead of label. :) --Dumbbirdvip (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

And where would we get the copyright information then, when we can no longer "get this copyright claim information from the back cover or on the disc surface of the album"? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

At present, we can also get the information from iTunes album page, for example, Lady Gaga's The Fame .--Dumbbirdvip (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And also from discogs.com as well . --Dumbbirdvip (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That section of iTunes is usually used for the record labels, in a very small minority of cases does it only list the copyright holder. Also discogs is user-generated, making it not a reliable source. Also the concern was for older album's where it would be harder to find the information, so using an album that only released four years ago does not refute that point. STATic message me! 06:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that that section of iTunes is NOT usually used for labels, instead most of the album pages in iTunes are showing the copyright claims. As for discogs, most of the album copyright information is based on the CD back cover scans (the copyright claims are shown there), and the scans are stored and can be checked inside the picture section of discogs.com (see [3] for instance). Therefore, I would say discogs and iTunes would be a reliable source at least for copyright information.

For those albums which are too old to chase the copyright holders, we can of course only use labels to show the releasing records. My proposal is to add copyright section but not to replace label section with copyright.

Agree with STATic, "discogs is user-generated, making it not a reliable source." Scans have a possibility of being tampered with.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Then how about iTunes? iTunes should be a reliable source, right? If scans have a possibility of tampering, then labels have the same concerns too. Dumbbirdvip (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Poll: Creation of the "(Phonographic) Copyright" (i.e. ℗ & ©) field

(Please correct me if my format is not proper.) Please vote support or oppose under this heading.

Language parameter for English-only albums?

Over the last three days, more than a thousand articles have been given the language = English parameter. (See the contributions by Jb423.) I do not think this parameter is useful or needed if the album is entirely in English. I think the guideline should say that English-only albums do not need the parameter to be filled out and added. This instruction would help us avoid bloating the infobox with extraneous information. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it should only be filled in if the album is in another language (either in part or wholly). I think adding that to the guideline is a good idea. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Michig (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there a way to batch-revert Jb423's adds (instead of one at a time)? --Musdan77 (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I will write a bit of guidance into the instructions—I want everyone to comment on it or tweak it as needed.

Regarding batch reversals, perhaps Jb423 has a bot, and can be convinced to undo the work. The fastest action seen in contributions was about 1 edit every 25 seconds. Also: Twinkle's rollback feature will work pretty quickly. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I appended the following sentence:

• Do not use this field for albums entirely in the English language, by English-speaking artists.

Please comment on the change or tweak the instructions as you see fit. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Like — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --Michig (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagree (somewhat): I agree there's a problem to be fixed, my watchlist brought me here. However, I think the above wording is brutal overreaction – here are some of the deal-breakers, for me:

1. I think the "English-speaking" generalisation, within a negative precept, has WP:CSB issues, e.g. Rainbirds release predominantly English-lyrics music, so they are an 'English-speaking' act – However, they're (all?) German and their releases are not overwhelmingly of English lyrics (some, esp' early hits' lyrics are Deutsche), while the above negative generalisation precludes use of the field on their releases – where, I think, demarcation would be extremely useful to many Rainbirds readers.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
2. IMO, the English dialect used on an album is often at least as informative to a releases character, as a genre-sub-field (especially true for {post-}imperial languages: Spanish, US English, Mandarin, Portuguese, etc.), and much of any contrary opinion is based in WP:BIAS, e.g. London grime is predominantly in Multicultural London English, in the case of The Streets' Original Pirate Material I recall some of their MTV videos were sub-titled – yet the above wording would preclude clarification in the Infobox.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
3. "artists" → "acts" (better encompass bands / 'solo's / individuals / etc.)   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
4. <to be continued (something else I was thinking of earlier)>

Overall, I am against restatement of the obvious but, I'm strongly WP:CSB and, not for muting relevant cultural refinements / cross-culturalisms, i.e. I'd rather have the chaff that the above clause (of anything so generalised). Thus, I think, a broad negative constraint is a wrong approach to solution and limited-inclusivity (positive) clause would better a winnowing, e.g. of the form – "English language per se, many only used in this field under the following circumstances: ...". That way, there's less risk of trampling significant/valuable culture and provide a better means of refinement, where trampling becomes apparent later.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree: This has been discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums several times, including here, here, and here. The consensus has been that in the English Wikipedia, English is assumed and need not be specified. This is also consistent with stuff like books. HairyWombat 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion should have taken place over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, not here. Also, no action should have taken place (except to ask User:Jb423 to pause) until there had been a discussion and a consensus reached. One day is insufficient time for this to happen. The process, here, has been flawed. HairyWombat 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a note pointing here from the Albums Project talk page. I don't see such a terribly flawed process as you do. I figure we can hammer out the proper wording without too much drama. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reply to DjScrawl: You make good points... I realize there are different ways to word the restriction, some of which will allow unusual-but-useful deviation from the main recommendation. The artist/act that releases most of their albums in English but a few in another language might be an exception. And I recognize that the description of the artist/act as "English-speaking" is not clear enough for useful deviation. I think it is more about whether the artist's album is widely known/expected/assumed to be in English. An edge case worthy of discussion might be the album Viva! La Woman by a Japanese duo living in New York City. The album's lyrics are primarily in English but it also has some French, Italian and Japanese bits inserted into various (primarily English) songs. Is English the expected language of the group's albums? Or is English a surprise because the two founding members were born in Japan? Should the other three minor languages be listed along with English in the infobox? Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree as well. Mentioning that an album is in English should only be used on multilingual albums such as Dreaming of You (Selena album) and Euphoria (Enrique Iglesias album). Erick (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with changing it to "acts" instead of "artists", but otherwise I think it looks fine. Simple, straight to the point, and if there are any corner cases where saying "English" might be worthwhile (as mentinoed by DjScrawl above), then the talk pages for those articles can discuss it and come to a consensus to ignore this guideline in those rare cases. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Various proposed wordings

Not everybody is happy with the new wording so I propose the following few examples. Feel free to add more examples and we can discuss them. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Do not use this field for albums entirely in the English language, by English-speaking artists. (The recently added wording.)
2. Do not use this field for albums entirely in the English language, by English-speaking acts.
3. This field should typically be empty for English-only albums.
4. This field should be empty for most English-only albums. Local consensus may determine the usefulness of showing the album to be in the English language, or in a specific English dialect.

I see no point in trying to dictate all the corner cases (because there are too many). To me, 3 looks the best because: a) it is the simplest, and b) critically, it contains the word "typically" and so permits exceptions for corner cases. HairyWombat 17:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, 3 looks best, and allows for corner cases. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Question/criticism

English I have never understood why users of this encyclopedia should/could/would assume that a creative work is in English just because this edition of Wikipedia is. That makes no sense to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Because users of this encyclopedia have learnt from experience that such an assumption is correct almost all of the time. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, which is why there is the parameter |language=. HairyWombat 01:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Award and recognition parameters for single, song, and album

I can't see any parameters for album awards, which surprises me. I think the nearest there is to this for {{infobox album}}, {{infobox single}}, or {{infobox song}} is 'Certification' for the latter. Surely it would be greatly useful for nominations and won awards such as Academy Awards and Grammy Awards to be summarised in the infobox. Is there any consensus to this? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see these as being "key facts" about an album. It also seems unlikely that enough albums would have significant awards to be listed here, and thus will not be relevant to enough articles to merit inclusion. Lastly, at what threshold do we include awards in the infobox (in other words, what constitutes a significant award)? Just Grammy winners? MTV Video Music Awards? Youtube Music Awards? Teen Choice Awards? Terrorizer's Top 100 Black Metal Album Awards? And so on. I think it's another parameter that will either not be used on most articles, or will become full of the most insignificant awards, bloating the infobox unreasonably. I think inclusion in the article is enough for this information. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How should 'previous album' and 'next album' be used?

Should these be used only for "main" studio albums, or also include things like compilation albums, live albums, remix albums, EPs and so on? I've seen it used differently for different artists, and there's no guidance on the template page. Popcornduff (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Previously, the album project wanted to have a separate chain for studio albums, live albums, EPs, etc. But after a discussion in 2010, the project now wants one single chain of all releases. If you see a chronology field being used to only display "main" albums, it's likely because it hasn't been updated since the 2010 discussion. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your answer. I'll do some updating. It seems to me the "album" tag is now misnamed, because it's unclear what "album" encompasses (is an EP an album?). I think this could also be explained more in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there ever has been a consensus on how to use this and there certainly isn't any consistent usage. That outcome of the discussion from 2010 appears to be 'maybe we should have a poll'. Leaving it blank would be preferable in a lot of cases. And no, EPs are not albums. --Michig (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me we should get a consensus! Popcornduff (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood Popcornduff's question, as I don't believe "leaving it blank would be preferable in a lot of cases" is an acceptable answer unless we're talking about the beginning or ending of a chronology chain. I thought he was asking about the "next" and "previous" album fields in general... Fezmar9 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was. I don't understand what "leaving it blank would be preferable in a lot of cases" means either. Popcornduff (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

After doing some digging, the change was implemented on August 31, 2011, and according to the edit summary, consensus was achieved. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work! Can this information be added to the template description? edit: I'm being stupid, it's already there. Popcornduff (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Should labels be pluralized?

On Template:Infobox single, one of the labels is Writer(s). On Template:Infobox album, the labels that could possibly have more than one value (e.g. genre, label, producer) don't have the "(s)". I added a few instances of "(s)" in the sandbox - see Template:Infobox album/testcases. Should these be added? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I support adding those. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think adding (s) to things looks ugly. Is there some way we can just write "Genres", "Writers" etc when they're plural, on a case-by-case basis? Popcornduff (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support adding plurals. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Music infobox genre

Hello, I have proposed a change to the genre field in infoboxes related to music (albums, singles, music artists, etc.) here. If any user could comment on it it would be greatly appreciated it. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition of a "format" parameter

I would argue that the arbitrators did a terrible job of informing the various projects about the ArbCom case or its outcome. They're worse than most of the admins who pick and choose which cases they will discipline and which they won't. Thanks for telling us now and I suggest that you go back to both arbitrators and tell them to do a better job. And furthermore, BrownHairedGirl, don't scold us for things you think we should know when you've never made an effort to inform us of it prior to now as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Misc - Singles list in Infobox album

Just checked a few albums and it seems that the 'Singles' list with respective release dates which can be added as a miscellaneous extra at the end of the infobox has become all squashed up and unreadable. Would it be possible to fix this please? Richard3120 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, and have no idea what is causing this issue! The template itself wasn't edited. — Status (talk · contribs) 01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

RazorEye has correctly identified my terrible description above as Template:Singles and raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music – hopefully somebody will be able to look into this. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's been sorted, one way or another. Richard3120 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Repetitive artist link in infobox album

The current album infobox template yields two links to the artist, which is not MoS compliant:

Studio album by The Beatles

The Beatles chronology

Singles chronology

I suggest that the second rendering of the artist page should be changed to album so that instead of Artist name chronology it renders Album chronology, which would increase consistency with the Singles chronology field and remove the duplicate link. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

disagree, I bought this up when we formed WP:DISCOGSTYLE and I was told that in tables, the same link appearing in multiple fields in a table is fine. On that basis, an infobox is more like a table (with special formatting) rather than text or prose. Also, if you dont want the link there you can physically type the artists name using the "chronology =" field without square brackets. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 17:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

1) It looks like a mistake to me, and while perhaps not expressly prohibited, its not ideal to link twice to the same page in such a short span. 2) Why not render consistently? Why have The Beatles chronology for albums and then Singles chronology for singles, when it really means album chronology? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm.... I think I might have misunderstood you. Do you want to mock up a change in the Template sandbox so we have a working example? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty green when it comes to template stuff, but all I am suggesting is that the artist name be rendered only once at the top, and instead of the second link to the artist it should render Album chronology. Maybe GoingBatty can provide some assistance. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1 and GabeMc: I made this edit to Template:Infobox album/sandbox - see the results at Template:Infobox album/testcases. GoingBatty (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, GB; looks good! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah! I see what you mean now! Good work, but for data granularity I can't help but feel like it should be "xxx artist" album chronology tbh! → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 18:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean like this?

Studio album by The Beatles

The Beatles album chronology

Singles chronology GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup that's exactly what I mean. I think that reads a lot better. I'm not sure if there's a way to render that with a without links options. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 19:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The repetitive and inconsistent nature of the coding looks amateurish, IMO. Why do you think its necessary to list the artist name more than once in an infobox? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

because it improves data granularity. For a limited/no sight reader (using screen reader technology) who doesn't have the privilege of being able to look at the infobox up and down, it is easier to understand if it says "xxx artist" album chronology" as it shows a better relationship between the data i.e. what the heading is saying and the information being listed below it. In the field of data mining we refer to that relationship as data granularity. For example how do we know its not a chronology of the album's released that year, that genre, that week etc? I know I'm being a little extreme but I listing the artist in front of the chronology makes sense. Also, consider collaborative albums, we need to be able to say:

• 'XXX Studio album by Kanye West and Jay Z
• Kanye West Album Chronology
• Jay Z Album Chronology
• Singles from ""Album XXX"

Simply saying "album chronology" doesn't allow us that freedom and offers zero granularity if there were multiple chronologies to be used.

^ that is an example → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So, we make every single album infobox look bad for the few who cannot read them? Why would there be multiple chronologies? You only have a chronology of the artist that released the work. In this example, there is no need for both a Kanye West and Jay Z album chronology. We would only list the albums that these two artists have done together. How would you apply this to a collection such as the Now series with 8-10 artists per album? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't your example render:

Studio album by Kanye West and Jay Z

Kanye West and Jay Z album chronology

Singles chronology ? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@GabeMc: Your suggestion would only change the default text for the album chronology. See Template:Infobox album#Advanced usage for an example of using |Chronology= and {{Extra chronology}}. GoingBatty (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess I don't speak template, but all I'm suggesting is that instead of repeating the artist name several times in a very short span, the template should assume that the reader already knows which artist we are talking about and doesn't need it repeated over and over again in the infobox as if the second section might be about some other artist or album as the third or first. Look at Abbey Road, the Beatles is repeated three times in the infobox, which makes us look like a bunch of coding amateurs. IMO, its aesthetically disappointing and jarring and it repeats at every single album article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but what about those instances where the infobox is for an album of two artists? The template lists one example, but in jazz, it happens quite frequently. In rock, split-EPs, where one band has two to four songs and another band has two to four, are not uncommon. The band name would need to be duplicated there, but not linked as it's already linked above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Then the coding should allow for customization at each article based on the need there, versus a cookie cutter that renders like a mistake for 90% of rock albums. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why can't the template yield individual chronologies where appropriate without repeating the artist name over and over in cases where there is only one act to be named? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not indicate it correctly in the docs and only change the template to not WP:REPEATLINK? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@GabeMc and Walter Görlitz: The small change I made in the sandbox would cause the default to not repeat the artist name & link, while maintaining the flexibility to override the default in the case of multiple artists. GoingBatty (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So, what's the next step? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@GabeMc: I think it's asking if Lil-unique1 (or someone else) wants to take a stab at changing the sandbox to have the default discography description include the unlinked artist name. GoingBatty (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)