Template talk:Infobox album

Chronology

Per WP:INFOBOXUSE the chronology field should contain links to existing articles. Occasionally I come upon an album infobox which contains a red or black link because the next chronological album doesn't yet have an article or isn't notable enough for an article (and may possibly never be notable enough), but there are articles on succeeding albums which cannot be reached via the navigation field of the album infobox, meaning I have to either scroll down to the bottom of the article to open up the nav box down there, or go to the artist's discography to find which is the next album we have an article on. I propose a return to the original wording which was amended after this discussion about including all album types. The wording "This group of fields establishes a chain connecting articles about an artist's album" - which makes it clear that the field is for navigation between articles, to "This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases". I can see how in the general flow of the discussion in which the participants were reaching for inclusivity of album types, that the word "timeline" was used, but the result is that it makes it appear as though all albums should be placed there, regardless of whether we have an article, which is at odds with the purpose of the navigation field per WP:SIDEBAR to navigate readers to related articles. My proposal is that the first paragraph be changed from:

This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases. In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date (singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain). Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies which may warrant more than one chain. If the previous or next release has a Wikipedia article, link the title to the corresponding article. Take care to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when release "A" points to "B" as the next release, "B" points back to "A" as the previous release.

to:

This group of fields connects existing Wikipedia articles on an artist's releases in chronological order. In general, albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date (singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain). Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies which may warrant more than one chain. Articles should be linked: if there is no existing article, then per WP:INFOBOXUSE, do not use a red link, but move to the next existing article. Take care to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when release "A" points to "B" as the next release, "B" points back to "A" as the previous release.

Comments? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Chronology has a specific meaning – "the arrangement of events or dates in the order of their occurrence" (OED) – that should not be ignored. To only include albums that have articles is for navigation purposes and not a true chronology. WP:INFOBOXUSE does not mention anything about chronologies, only "Avoid redlinks". The "integrity of chains" may seem like a good idea, but may be misleading about actual chronological sequence. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, though the infobox is not able to provide a complete chronology, that is served by the discographies of the artist. I agree, though, that having access to the complete chronology or discography is useful, however there have been several requests over the years to add a discography link, and there has not yet been consensus for this, as such a link is generally provided by a nav box at the bottom of the page. Personally I would find it more useful to have a discography link on the infobox, and it would certainly be more useful than having the artist's article page linked twice in the infobox. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"not a true chronology". Chronologies are by their very nature selective. They list things in order of occurrence, but what is actually listed is always going to be a set defined by those creating the chronology. In this case the suggested set is "albums by the artist which have a Wikipedia article". That meets the guidelines for infoboxes and aids the average reader navigate through our articles. The current set up of "any and all albums, regardless of notability" leads to oddities like this: Dogs Under Stress. You can't go backwards, and if you click forwards you are redirected to the main Moe Tucker article because the article on GRL-GRUP was redirected to the main artist article per WP:NALBUMS. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should not rely on fuzzy interpretations. "Chronology" should reflect real time, not the next WP article. Or change it to something less specific "X albums".—Ojorojo (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Chronology means exactly that. INFOBOXUSE simply says to avoid redlinks, not to avoid listing objects without articles. Producers and studios don't always have articles, are we not to list them based on your interpretation of this guideline? MOS:DATE and WP:OVERLINK state not to link to dates, but the infobox lists recording dates. Based on your interpretation, we should not list that either. No, your interpretation is wrong and consensus is to include recordings immediately before and immediately after in the infobox even when not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Deprecate field entirely an infobox is supposed to focus on the article subject itself (in this case, the album/EP), not what was released after or before it. Such details are better for article prose (if anywhere in the article). In certain cases, it can also violate WP:CIRCULAR for solely depending on another article's content to determine placement. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the dissenting opinions. Idk if it's been said or not--I skimmed most of this--but there seems to almost always be enough information online about an album or EP to at least create an article with basic information such as personnel, track listing, and release details--at least a stub or start quality article--especially if there was enough information online to know such a release is part of a discography from the start. Allowing red links in the chronology field would also encourage the creation of that article more than excluding them would. Dan56 (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose I can see where SilkTork is coming from, but I have to disagree with him on this occasion. As others have noted, the word "chronology" has a specific meaning and, as such, the next album in the chronology should be listed (without a redlink, ideally), irrespective of whether that album has a WP article or not. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC at WikiProject Songs

A request for comments has been opened at WT:WikiProject Songs#RfC: Should Infobox single and Infobox song be merged? Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Italic title

@Jc86035: Your last edits removed italic title from a lot of articles, e.g. London Calling Did you test your edits any place - this template is transcluded by 144098 pages. Christian75 (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Christian75: Sorry about that, should be fixed now. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Christian75 (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Chronology/prev_title header

@Jc86035: if there is no |chronology= in the infobox, it produces "Artist chronology" in the header; if it is included but empty (chronology=[is empty]), it produces just "chronology". I think these should both produce "Artist album chronology" (the current {{Infobox single}} follows this, with both producing "Artist singles chronology"). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: My mistake, I forgot how parameters behave when specified but empty. Should be fixed now. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 17:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Almost, both seem to only produce "Artist chronology", rather than "Artist album chronology". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: The infobox can be used for EPs and other things as well, so adding "album" might not be appropriate here. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 18:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Yes, good point. I'll add it to the documentation. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: |tracks= and/or {{Extra collapsed text}} seems to be causing problems with infobox songs (fields pushed to right) (see song's from Beggars Banquet before I removed the field). —Ojorojo (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If |track_no= is filled in, it seems to display properly. Without it, it's pushed to the right. —Ojorojo (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Fixed now, forgot to add a colspan in the TfM notice. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 02:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: There's still a problem with some songs (from Sticky Fingers: "Sway", "I Got the Blues", "Dead Flowers", but other songs from the album are OK). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Performing a null edit on each page (adding an extra line at the end of the page, then saving) should work. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: A null edit will work; but you shouldn't need to add any lines at all - or make any other alteration. Just click any "edit" link and then save changes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Is something broken?

What is with the shift I see in some track listings? Odd (Shinee album) is an example. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The subtemplates were in |Next album= instead of |misc=. I've fixed that article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Another problem

@Jc86035: I've reverted the bot's attempted substitution at Babylon 5, as it left a pile of wikicode visible down in the "Music and scoring" section. When I edited the bot's revision, removed the HTML comment after "Infobox album", and tried "Show changes", the subst went through correctly. So possibly an HTML comment in that position is confusing Module:Unsubst-infobox? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@John of Reading: I think the issue is that if the comment is in the template name then MediaWiki won't substitute it. This probably isn't solvable using the module, although maybe AnomieBOT's code could be changed to account for this; @Anomie: would this be possible and is it necessary? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: There are over 3000 of these so we'd better delay any large-scale bot run. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@John of Reading: of course; I was testing it to see if it would go through every transclusion or keep trying to edit the same article (since it returns itself). There are still a few separate issues to be ironed out with the Infobox song/Infobox single and Audiosample/Extra music sample mergers and Module:Unsubst-infobox, so it'll be a while. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with modules, nor with this infobox. There are a number of things that will defeat an attempt to WP:SUBST - these include: redlinked template; newlines between the subst: and the template name; HTML comment tags at any point between the opening braces and the first pipe. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)