Template talk:Discography list

Layout

The current layout is a little unpleasant; the left side is a long list of items, but there's absolutely nothing in the right two-thirds of the box. Is it possible to move the album cover to the right of the actual text and make the cover 200x200px (twice its current dimensions)? ShadowHalo 14:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this? I've used this style on the Social Distortion discography but without a template. Downstream 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(Example Removed) Downstream 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to swap the two columns and remove the grey line between the headers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShadowHalo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

How about this? The only problem is that I'm not that good with templates (first try) and I don't know how to get rid of the line breaks if no info is entered. Check out what I mean here: User:Downstream/Test_template Downstream 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that - I figured it out! There shouldn't be any empty line breaks in this version. Downstream 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, when you put it into practice, it makes more sense to get rid of the border as you can see on this test page: User:Downstream/Test_multiple

Downstream 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(Example Removed) Downstream 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything back on this in quite a while - not sure if that means people don't care or they hate it. Here's a version I'm thinking of just throwing in there and seeing what shakes out. If people hate it or it doesn't work, its easy to roll back after all.

User:Downstream/Infobox_Discography

User:Downstream/Test_multiple

Downstream 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I really like that design. It's a lot better then the current one. - miketm - 15:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that you already implemented the change and went ahead and did it myself - not sure which version is better or if they are different at all but feel free to roll it back to yours if its better. Downstream 02:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm using it a lot lately, it's really good now. It summarizes a lot and prevents creation of new articles that may not be notable at all. -- Luigi-ish 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

# Signs in the track listings

I noticed that if users put # signs to initiate track numbers, the first one does not render as a number but simply as a # sign. Looking back, this was happening on the original version as well so I don't know that it is much of an issue. I personally feel that listing all tracks is a waste of space and unnecessary anyway. IMHO the Tracks option should be used only for EPs/singles where there will only be two or three listings which can be delineated by commas.Downstream 02:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What if you don't have detailed information on the album to create a page for each album, but you want to show the track listings? Example: Sung Si Kyung. Htruc 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest just listing the Singles with quotes and commas as delineators as shown in the example; those are probably the only important tracks if the album isn't quite important enough to warrant its own article. Downstream 01:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One way to fix the # symbol issue is to use a "<br>" tag on the first line like this:

| Tracks        = <br><!-- For use with Singles --->
# "Track one"
# "Track two"
# "Track three"

They will then appear numbered correctly. Downstream 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Non-standard album infoboxes

Would someone be so kind as to remove the parameter which places non-standard discography boxes into this category. This category is for album infoboxes only. You may wish to create Category:Non-standard discography infoboxes instead. Thanks very much. – B.hotep ^u/_t• 09:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't difficult to do it myself, so I did. :) – B.hotep ^u/_t• 09:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the "cover" parameter

I have removed the cover parameter. Lists of works such as discographies almost never satisfy the Wikipedia's policy on non-free image usage since there is no commentary on the covers themselves and the covers can not be said to identify the discography as a whole. Covers are generaly fine to use in an article about the spesific albums (asuming it's more than just a track listing), or in a section of text with critical commentary on the album (and preferably it's over), but not in mere discography lists. This is also stated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Discography. Also for those fammiliar with the recent "mass removals" of screenshots from lists of TV show episodes and such the same rationales pretty much apply here too. --Sherool (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It also says that it is disputed: Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Archive_11#Album_cover_art_in_discography_articles. I don't think you should go and edit hundreds of pages without a resolution to this issue. Downstream 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to go by the consensus (or, if there wasn't a consensus -- I'm not a judge -- the status quo) with episode lists, which no longer have screenshots, it would seem to be that discographies would not longer have album covers. Of course I am using inductive reasoning here which may not be correct, but to me it certainly seems correct. --Iamunknown 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a newbie to this whole issue, but I'm pretty sure screenshots are on a completely different level. The album artwork included is there to inform. They're also generally, widely distributed & promoted. The record companies put them out there to promote the CD. Screenshots, on the other hand, are user created and distributed without any agreement/approval by the broadcasting/whatever agency. They could also potentially contain spoilers to any viewers & such. I wouldn't be worried about covers and album artwork UNLESS people started posting the CD inserts/CD booklet INSIDE. Then, it would be distributing artwork w/o the permission of the record company. Therefore, I don't see how you can compare screenshots and CD cover art. Am I wrong? Snakeycactus 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a newbie to it and I agree with you. I've read talk pages that have decided it is not okay to use images in discographies and I've read pages where it's been decided that they are absolutely okay. I've read pages that have said it's okay as long as it's not a gallery or a list. Well, how about in a table? It's very confusing. I am more than willing to follow an established Wikipedia policy but I've yet to find one on this issue. My thoughts are that an album cover is marketing material freely produced and distributed in order to gain exposure for the artist. This is completely different from television episodes in my mind as you don't generally see those posted all over sites that are trying to sell the tv show's DVD (although you DO see the covers of the DVD which I see as being the same as album covers). I can't imagine a label would object to it's use as a method of identification in an encyclopedia - whether that be Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica. If someone could please point to a consensus on this issue, I'd appreciate it. Downstream 02:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (didn't realize I wasn't logged in)

I work on another site that uses galleries of album covers on its discographies pages and the issue has never arisen. To be fair it's not a site as large or as well known as Wikipedia but obviously the rules regaring fair use would be the same. IMO the use of album covers is generally encouraged by artists and labels in any critical or informative work on their recordings. The only issue that could arise is if the artwork is modified in some way. This is where "screen shots" become an issue, because a "screen shot" is basically an image of an image created by someone other than the original copyright holder. Either way, it is probably something that needs to be sorted out, because a gallery would certainly make discographies look better.BrianFG 22:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that other site free? Based on what you've said, it's unlikely. Wikipedia is allows others to reuse its content for any purpose (including commercial), so we can't be using unfree content unless it would significantly hamper the article to not include it. (And no, not having a cover next to a title and release date does not significantly hamper an article.) ShadowHalo 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do websites that specialise in such things as musical artist reveiws and/or biographies stand with regards to the use of album artwork. There are hundreds of them and if none of them are free then I assume that they could one day end up like all the song and lyrics servers and be closed down. In any case, I've yet to come across a musician yet who's objected to having the cover of their album used in conjunction with an analysis of that album or in an article about themselves. It would kind of defeat the purpose of promoting their art if they did.BrianFG 05:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see more than one or two Wikipedia editors in agreement on this prior to one person deciding to change the appearance of every discography that uses album cover art. It's a pain to have to drop the infobox and manually construct a discography just to overcome this. Scott Johnson 15:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that unless there are "extraordinary" reasons to do so discographies (and other lists) should not be decorated with non-free images, this has been discussed at length elsewhere (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content for one). If you are manualy constructing discographis with images you are most likely wasting your time since they will be removed on sight in most cases unless you have a very solid fair use rationale to justify the use. --Sherool (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Basis

Is there any basis for the use of this infobox? I really think it makes discographies look incomprehensible and ugly. I've seen it being reverted several times, (even the prime example Social Distortion discography), and I tend to revert these infoboxes too. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 13:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually no one reverted it after I implemented it on the Social Distortion discography page until someone came and removed the cover art variable from the template. I then reverted it on the Social D discography rather than getting into an edit war over this template. Can you give us an example of a page that is "incomprehensible and ugly" that uses this template? Maybe it can be improved. Downstream 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This new infobox was added to Alchemist and then reverted almost immediately because it was considered to be unclear and ambiguous. I agree. I'm thinking it might be easier to have one template for "albums" (however they may be defined) and another for "singles and EPs". It would make the disambiguation between release types easier to determine. BrianFG 21:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: This infobox should be used only when most/all albums lack their own article; it would then be a useful repository of all the information not available elsewhere on Wikipedia. On the other hand, for band articles that have most/all of their albums into a separate article, this infobox becomes IMO a divisise horror that will cause edit wars, and is just plain useless.

For instance, I just copyedited stuff on the band Lord and their album pages. When I look at a Discography section on a band's article, I expect a compact and synthetical list of one-liners with the date and album title, possibly a comment such as "live album" or "compilation", and that's it. Something nice and synthetical such as:

Discography

• 2003 - A Personal Journey – studio album
• 2007 - Ascendence – studio album

But instead I see this long and indiscriminate mass of data - permalink to Lord (band), and there are only two albums yet, I can't imagine the horror for a band with 10 albums. Since all that info is already at the album articles, that's just overkill. For a synthetical discog, I don't need to know it's a CD format or who was the producer, especially when it takes so much room to do it.

So I strongly suggest to limit this template to when it is actually useful (no articles for most of the albums) and to say so very clearly at the beginning of the template's documentation, in boldface if needed. Also, I'm going to remove it from Lord (band), just once, to see if it'll be missed or not. I'm not going to edit-war on this, but I reckon a lot of pissed people will justifiably do so. Just my .02 on how to make good use of this template without overreaching it. — Komusou ^talk @ 01:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Type of album: demo

Hi, there is currently no code for a "demo" type of album. Could one be added? --AusBruce 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have created "demo" album type variable, as I thought it would be necessary due to it being in appearing in Template:Infobox Album. Hpfan9374 11:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

New /sandbox and /testcases

FYI, I initialized the standard /sandbox and /testcases pages, as per Wikipedia:Template test cases. The template's page has automatically detected them and now says at the top "This template has a sandbox (edit) and testcases for editors to experiment", but it's hard to notice it's just appeared. Also, the example in the testcases may not be the best for development purposes, I just copy-pasted the doc's example. — Komusou ^talk @ 02:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Other info

Why doesn't this field work? Also, what about adding a field for bonus tracks? Lara❤Love 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It works, but the doc didn't say it was only for singles:

{{Discography list
 | Type          = Studio
 | Name          = NAME
 | Released      = 1234
 | from Album    = FROM ALBUM
 | Tracks        = TRACKS
 | Other info    = OTHER INFO
}}

"NAME" (OTHER INFO) from the album FROM ALBUM

• Released: 1234
• Tracks: TRACKS

I reckon it's for having "Singlename (U.S. version)" vs. "Singlename (Japan version)" or something. — Komusou ^talk @ 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. : I've added your "Bonus tracks" and support for "Other info" in any case (see overhauled documentation):

{{Discography list
 | Type          = Studio
 | Name          = NAME
 | Tracks        = ONE, TWO, THREE
 | Bonus tracks  = FOUR
 | Other info    = OTHER INFO
}}

NAME (OTHER INFO)

• Tracks: ONE, TWO, THREE
• Bonus tracks: FOUR

Mind, I'm not sure that's useful, you could have put it at the end of Tracks=

NAME

• Tracks: ONE, TWO, THREE (bonus on Japan edition: FOUR)

But it's there anyway. Just preferably don't use it if you have an actual article for the album. (Cf. updated doc.) Cheers — Komusou ^talk @ 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a comprehensive discography listing? I find this template to be frustratingly restrictive in its present form. --lincalinca 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already said what I thought of this template at #Basis above... (and now I've overhauled the doc to reflect it). For comprehensive large discographies, you can look how they do it for, say, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Tangerine Dream, or Klaus Schulze. — Komusou ^talk @ 02:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this template still being developed?

I've seen this on one or two discography pages, and I'm wondering if this is becoming some kind of new standard format for album/song listings. Seems really long-winded and elaborate to me and I question the boldfacing of all the titles and the repetitive nature of it... especially when it is used for songs. Is it still being tweaked? - eo 14:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

More on this

Here's a current example: Fall Out Boy discography

I'm just trying to figure out why this new infobox is better than a straightforward bullet-list or the wikitable that has been in use. Seems that each infobox shows a bunch of data that is already in the album/song article's infobox, and the data arranged this way seems much more jumbled. I thought that organizing an artist's works into a list provided a quick and easy way for a reader to get a very basic overview, and if he or she wants more info, a wikilink is provided to an article which contains all the details. This new layout seems way more confusing. Do we really need the record label, the writer, the producer and the formats shown on each and every entry? Do we really need the album name wikilinked, plus all the singles released from it wikilinked, only to have the individual songs wikilinked again further down the page, then the album the song comes from wikilinked again? If an artist has like two albums this just might work, but otherwise I don't see how this format is very useful..... - eo 15:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. See my similar comments (and solution) above in #Basis. Since there's been no disagreement on my suggestion (or nobody no more to read it), I'm going to implement it on the template's documentation. — Komusou ^talk @ 22:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Template overhauled, doc updated both for technical content and usage. (Note that I'm neither creator nor maintainer of this template, though.) — Komusou ^talk @ 02:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What purpose does a wikilink to the date, or even year, of release serve ? An increasing number of albums initially released on vinyl, were then issued on CD, and have since been re-mastered with bonus tracks to fill the rest of the CD. This does not seem to fit the template, without excessive repetition. Some bands seem to change line ups for almost every album. Is the line up not as important, if not more so, than say, the producer? Are we trying for a "one size fits all" solution, whilst the output of different bands may suit different templates? ... Arjayay 13:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-asking the question

Thankfully I have not seen this format in too many articles, but I ask again - is it still being developed? When I do come across it, I find it to be painfully cumbersome and confusing. Is there a specific reason why this layout is better than, say, a bullet list or the widely-used table for albums and/or singles? - eo (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It has wrong casing for the parameters, especially "from Album" should be "from album". Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

Need a new line for reviews?

Would it be appropriate to add another line/param to indicate album review references? {{Infobox album}} has a parameter for these, and a reviews item in the discography infobox could help demonstrate notability/verifiability. Dl2000 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Template example is out of date

the example template page given, for Social Distortion, has been changed to the standard table list format, and validly should be. a new example template page should be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romnempire (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Singles: Sometimes the is "Title"; and others is Title?

For singles that are from an album, the {{Discography list}} template will place quotations around the track name. If the single is just a 45 rpm single or a split-single, the template does not place any quotes. Is it something I've done? Please see The White Wires. Also, if you don't mind, can someone please comment on my usage of the template in this article? I'm guessing it is correct; I can't find a class=FL or FA on whitch to compare. I have to agree with Romnempire, the example is dated. In fact, there's not enough of them. Argolin (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Table has no bottom

How do you create the bottom of this table? Now it just ends in white space and looks ridiculous. Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. I don't know why this took so long for someone to fix. Ping me here if this change broke something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Discography

I have decided to retarget Template:Infobox Discography, a redirect of this template, to Template:Infobox artist discography, as this template does not appear to be an infobox. All incoming transclusions have been fixed prior to this retargeting. If anyone is opposed to this, please let me know. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Confusing (mis?)usage at Illmind production discography

Can anyone who understands this template sort out its usage at Illmind production discography? It appears to be used incorrectly, but I am unclear on how to fix it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)