Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 2

message: The infobox breaks when there are two exclamation marks one by one in a field (like at Mega!! Kung Fu Radio). Jogers (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have kludged this for now at that article.  Jkelly 18:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Kludged? I've fixed this in the infobox, since it was making a real mess of !!!'s pages. Flowerparty☀ 04:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kludge. Jkelly 05:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so wikipedia is a dictionary :) Flowerparty☀ 05:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One more problem with the recent update

message: Seeing the article Tomorrow (album), I wonder if it would it be possible to add an "Engineer =" line? Kingfish 18:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio engineers 

message: Do you think that it would be appropriate to add a chart position field for albums as well? 64.229.16.18 22:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A chart position field would make sense, you'd think. But these boxes can already be quite long, especially if there are a number of reviews listed. Personally, I'd prefer to do away with the reviews section and put the chart data in there instead, but I can't imagine that would be very popular. Flowerparty☀ 04:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put charts and certifications at the bottom of the article (more or less) in wikitable format - see The Unforgettable Fire. Fantailfan 14:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Chart_positions has chart information for singles, the equivalent should exist for albums as well to maintain consistency. Sparkhead 23:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. It's awkward having chart positions for singles but not for albums. --Remy Suen 21:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart Positions 

message: Please add Polish interwiki pl:Szablon:Album infobox.  TIA, Яǿǿ72 ✉ 11:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please someone could add the Spanish wiki link es:Plantilla:Álbum  thanks Clouded 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Jkelly 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pl interwiki 

message: Any chance that the template could automatically make the link into Electronic?  Otherwise, Electronic is going to keep climbing the WP:DPWL ladder.  At least, could any editor who reads this please be aware of the issue and manually set the tag?  Thanks. Tevildo 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that it has to be fixed manually. Jogers (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: N/P - list is now clear.  Let's hope that some people _do_ read this discussion page before using the template. :) Tevildo 20:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Electronic" genre 

message: When it can be done, I think this template should include a "cover artist" section : the name of the photographer, comic drawer, painter, etc. The reason is that it is fun to show the art without naming the artist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.72.115.229 (talk • contribs) .
:The infobox is intended to provide the reader with essential information. You can always name the artist in the article. Jogers (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The other artist 

message: could someone investigate in implementing that template's functionality in the main Album Infobox? Circeus 18:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of handling multiple album covers was discussed at WikiProject Albums some time ago. You may also want to take a look at my recent discussion with Jerkmonkee who created the  template. The solution using  template already became quite popular and I find it more elegant and flexible but if you don't like it for some reason I think it should be discussed again at WikiProject Albums. Jogers (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging [[Template:Dual Cover Album infobox]] 

message: I think this parameter should be added. Psychomelodic  12:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it'd have to be an optional field... I don't see any harm in adding it though.  DJR (T) 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be merged with the Label option. Psychomelodic  19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put the catalog number in  tags and parentheses after the record label--Surachit 04:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do the same. --FuriousFreddy 17:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalog number 

message: This page seems to have been protected for a long time, but I can't find anything on the protection log or the usual pages explaining why. Best guess would be 'highly used template', but there are others in similarly wide use which are not protected and that practice has become less common since it was determined that the 'server load' concerns attributed to it were inaccurate. I'm going to unprotect for now and we can see how it goes. --CBD 20:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about unprotecting  as well? Jogers (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see how this one works out first. --CBD 23:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Should we have a field for the album's certification (gold, platinum, etc.)?--MistaTee 11:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no because this could end up being quite a long list, given that every country gives these out seperately. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put them at the bottom of the page, in wikitable format (see The Joshua Tree#Certifications. Fantailfan 14:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certification 

message: Template breaks due to unique nature of the band's name. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got it to work for now by changing the artist link to "!!!", but there might be some better way to do it –Surachit 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has something to do with the  stuff in the infobox code. Does anybody have an idea how to fix it? Jogers (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want the s out of the infobox, it will take some work. I can help if you wish. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The solution basically means writing a bunch of simple HTML. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar problem  was fixed before  so I thought that this could be fixed too without much trouble. Anyway, I don't mind getting rid of the  thing completely and using simple HTML instead if no functionality of the infobox is lost. Jogers (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I came up with a simpler way to do it using URL encoding.  As to converting to HTML I am all for that.  In fact the template used to be HTML (and worked fine that way), but for reasons unknown some editors would rather use wiki-syntax, even at the cost of breaking the template. — Ian Moody (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the HTML version much easier to understand. Jogers (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have created the HTML version at Template:Infobox Album/HTML with tests on the talk page.  Please test with as many different infoboxes as you feel like, particularly esoteric and complicated ones.  Note it also required the creation of Template:Extra chronology/HTML for infoboxes with extra chronologies in the Misc parameter.  It currently works fine with both the !!! albums, a few I grabbed from "What links here", and a couple of complicated ones I created.  — Ian Moody (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to work fine. Good job! Jogers (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Was this actually fixed and then re-broken? These two pages render incorrectly still. Daniel Smith 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[!!! (album)]] and [[Louden Up Now]] 

message: Today Sunday September 3, 2006, the infobox will be changed with the proposed infobox per consensus reached in the past months. The change should be done by 18 UTC. The implementation of the change should be as clean as possible, as the new infobox keeps backwards compatibility with the old one, and will allow us:
* To create new types easily
* Allow users to forget about choosing the background color by just selecting the type
* Add a new Longtype parameter for extra information for the album type.
* Modify colors if we have usability problems
* Classify any album with a non-standard type in a category. We will be able to study these types, and either implement them if they are useful, or fix them if they have an error.
If you have came here because the template did break something in an album article you were reading, please do not roll back to the previous infobox. Instead, add a small note below with one indentation followed with a small explanation of the problem and the link to the article itself, so that we can check the problem and fix the template, or revert to the original template.
Hopefully there will be no or very few reports. Thank you! -- ReyBrujo 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... erm, it might be worth noting that I did something like that two weeks ago. Not sure exactly what you have planned, but the template already sets colors automatically by type. As you say, the change can be (and was) made such that nobody even noticed. You may want to use the  template I mentioned above or clear it out if this is going to follow some other structure. --CBD 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed that. For colors we will be using  and for linking, . We are also applying the new type creation/linking, and the automatic categorization if the type is not understood. -- ReyBrujo 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Now we have 5000 pages with a red category. Please don't add a new and undefined category to a high profile template, because this is going to confuse everybody. You can find exactly which pages link to the template using "What links here". So don't create a non-existing category especially not a page like this. KittenKlub 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to change the category, use a robot because nobody is ever going to edit 5000 pages. Category removed BTW KittenKlub 20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the category from the template. The idea is that the category will allow us to find out the templates that do not have a standard type. It will take some time for the server to update the template, though. The category wasn't created in case we were changing the category name. -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were already quicker with the removal. From the pages which I've made, the problem is that it say Album which is pretty common. So there are different ways it has been identified over the years. I guess the first point is to identify the different spellings. KittenKlub 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that the  template would recognize every type as non standard, because it wasn't configured to accept wikilinks (Type = Studio album, not Type = Album or any other variation). The discussion was started some minutes ago as to whether the link should be recognized or not, which links would be considered valid, and to request a bot to exchange the types that were not accepted into valid ones. -- ReyBrujo 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well most pages are created from another page, because that's the easiest way, so old systems get copied on many pages. Indeed a bot is the best way to exchange the different methods. So type = Album to type = Album; type = Album (music) to type = Album etc. But there are probably many systems still around. Just like Infobox album and album infobox are still both used. KittenKlub 20:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the idea is to be able to check every non standard type to either correct it or add it to the accepted types. We will be also trying to create a template system to create new albums with a predefined format, to prevent these "historical" errors from expanding. -- ReyBrujo 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm... I think every infobox does that (I remember having to remove that extra space from games and character's articles), but I could be wrong. What I also noticed is that the "current" chronology is a bit higher than the other titles in the sequence. I will see if I can spot these two alignment problems. -- ReyBrujo 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  doesn't do that (see e.g. Two Tribes). I remember adding this extra line to make pages easier to edit while making some more substantial edits (and it didn't change the way the article was rendered) :-) Jogers (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neat. It should be fixed now. The problem was the classification-part, the one adding automatic category, I had forgotten on adding a line break there. Once the types are standarized, we can add the category for non standard types again. -- ReyBrujo 22:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. Jogers (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if this is intentional. The opposite behaviour would be quite reasonable. Jogers (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... that is because Background is defined as nothing. I notice the chronology header goes grey, while the others disappear. What would be the best solution? I guess it could return the color as if Background did not exist, but it may be a bit complex. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox change coming 

message: I have just replaced the infobox. :Category:Non-standard album infoboxes reports around 4600 albums with non standard types, which is odd having around 29000 transclusions. Some articles with a unknown type will be displaying the Chronology background in grey, I am going to change this. -- ReyBrujo 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we have 5000 pages with a red category. Please don't add a new and undefined category to a high profile template, because this is going to confuse everybody. You can find exactly which pages link to the template using "What links here". So don't create a non-existing category especially not a page like this. KittenKlub 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to change the category, use a robot because nobody is ever going to edit 5000 pages. Category removed BTW KittenKlub 20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the category from the template. The idea is that the category will allow us to find out the templates that do not have a standard type. It will take some time for the server to update the template, though. The category wasn't created in case we were changing the category name. -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were already quicker with the removal. From the pages which I've made, the problem is that it say Album which is pretty common. So there are different ways it has been identified over the years. I guess the first point is to identify the different spellings. KittenKlub 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that the  template would recognize every type as non standard, because it wasn't configured to accept wikilinks (Type = Studio album, not Type = Album or any other variation). The discussion was started some minutes ago as to whether the link should be recognized or not, which links would be considered valid, and to request a bot to exchange the types that were not accepted into valid ones. -- ReyBrujo 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well most pages are created from another page, because that's the easiest way, so old systems get copied on many pages. Indeed a bot is the best way to exchange the different methods. So type = Album to type = Album; type = Album (music) to type = Album etc. But there are probably many systems still around. Just like Infobox album and album infobox are still both used. KittenKlub 20:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the idea is to be able to check every non standard type to either correct it or add it to the accepted types. We will be also trying to create a template system to create new albums with a predefined format, to prevent these "historical" errors from expanding. -- ReyBrujo 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: The text at e.g. Nevermind appears a little bit lower that it should. As far as I remember, a single line between the template and the rest of the article didn't make any difference before the update. Jogers (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I think every infobox does that (I remember having to remove that extra space from games and character's articles), but I could be wrong. What I also noticed is that the "current" chronology is a bit higher than the other titles in the sequence. I will see if I can spot these two alignment problems. -- ReyBrujo 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  doesn't do that (see e.g. Two Tribes). I remember adding this extra line to make pages easier to edit while making some more substantial edits (and it didn't change the way the article was rendered) :-) Jogers (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neat. It should be fixed now. The problem was the classification-part, the one adding automatic category, I had forgotten on adding a line break there. Once the types are standarized, we can add the category for non standard types again. -- ReyBrujo 22:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. Jogers (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very minor "problem" with the recent update

message: I guess I haven't been following very closely, but I've been trying out the new implementation. One question: as far as I can tell, automatic background colour doesn't work if the Background field is typed in but left blank. Correct? –Unint 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this is intentional. The opposite behaviour would be quite reasonable. Jogers (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... that is because Background is defined as nothing. I notice the chronology header goes grey, while the others disappear. What would be the best solution? I guess it could return the color as if Background did not exist, but it may be a bit complex. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Today the type has been given more priority than the background color. In other words, the infobox now determines the color based on the type, and the background color is completely dismissed. Please report any problem (color mixtures, types not working correctly, etc) to see how to fix them. Later (maybe in a couple of days) we can reimplement the category for non-standard types. -- ReyBrujo 06:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another change

message: Due the latest changes in the infobox, around 4,400 albums out of over 29,000 have been classified as non-standard and put into :Category:Non-standard album infoboxes. Some albums may have been broken when they are using a non-standard type AND use a background color in hexa, in example, Team Invasion Presents Keyshia Cole. I am trying to fix this out without having to drop the Background parameter at all. -- ReyBrujo 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should have a more strict overhaul, and say that Type must be EP/ep, not EP etc.. →AzaToth 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For example I made a new version of link, found at Template:Infobox Album/link/temp →AzaToth 16:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the original template was much more restrictive, thus you needed to use Studio album with no link. However, when I implemented the category for non standard types, 29,000 articles went there (all the albums), since all the current albums use non standard types. Thus, we modified the  template to handle several variations of the type, to prevent having 29000 articles in a category. The idea is that these 4400 items in the category have non-standard types that are pretty strange (as stated in the WikiProject talk page). Once these are fixed, we will begin removing one of the extra types in the parameter (in example, removing the ORIGINAL STUDIO ALBUM), and fixing those that appear in the category, until we have fixed them all. A bot would be very useful here, for sure, but we also wanted to have real numbers, not just approximations. -- ReyBrujo 17:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest changes 

message: I think the new colour changes are fabolous but I had several technical issues on a number of articles that I maintain, mainly problems with the infobox templates, for the article Live in Japan (Beck, Bogert & Appice album), the infobox will remain the same steel blue when I have darkseaturquoise defined as the album cover. On the album Blind Faith (album) the chronology of Eric Clapton remains in the original orange despite the rest of the infobox being steel blue. If someone would be able to fix these issues on these pages it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks - Patman2648 08:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These kind of side effects will be common. Live in Japan (Beck, Bogert & Appice album) is apparently a live album, but its type is Album. Changed it to Live album, which fixed the problem. In Blind Faith (album), it was using the , which should be used only by the  template. For albums, use , specifying the type. I have replaced the Album type with Studio album, which will in the end be the correct type to use. -- ReyBrujo 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd Side Effects

message: have made a new template located at , mostly I have removed the background and incorperated that chronology. →AzaToth 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New draft 

message: Earlier, I added a bold typeface to the "This album" field. I realised that someone removed it and I understand that this is because edits made prior to the change won't appear correctly. I think if we can get a bot to find
'''''
in the field and replace it with
''
it should be fine. But I don't know how you do this. So if someone else could find out, that would be great - Ashadeofgrey 18:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolding of "This album"

message: just wanted to say I'm extremely happy that at least there will be a nice colour in infoboxes instead of that terrible orange which drove me crazy every time I looked up info on an album... many thanks to those who finally decided to change this. – Alensha  talk 11:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours

message: The small font for the album chronology paired with italics makes the titles slightly difficult to read. Can we make these bigger? Pele Merengue 06:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I increased it from 0.7 to 0.9em, that should be enough. -- ReyBrujo 15:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but 0.9em is just too big - especially in comparison with "Infobox Single". I think 0.7 perfect to read -- Noboyo 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, problems that had to do with the usability of the site take precedence. That is basically why we redesigned the infobox template, because someone may have a seizure due the bright orange. I will modify it to 0.8em, hopefully it will be small enough for us and big enough for our original poster. -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Last/This/Next Album" font size

message: I have several albums which make use of  - this template has no type; just a colour. Can the same "type" field be added to that template so that it can change with the rest of the infobox? Thanks. TheHYPO 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra album cover? 

message: It occurs to me that there are probably a number of albums that fall into the category of Demo CD.  I don't believe this would be considered the same as EP...  Perhaps "Demo" and/or "Demo album" could be included under Types, either as lightsalmon or lightsteelblue.  Thoughts?  (Note, I'm particularly thinking of Evanescence's Origin album here.)  -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion on the WikiProject Albums Talk page. -- Reaper  X 02:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demo albums 

message: Well, nothing serious actually, just:
* Changing cover size from 200x200 to 250x250px. The reason: gaining more of the template's space, making covers larger, and thus - clearer, for us, the Wikipedians.
* Changing the existent and pretty obsolete No Cover Available image: (Image:Nocover.png) to: (Image:Nocover.jpg), designed by me.
Example of that done!
I believe it's a pretty necessary improvement for Wikipedia's album-related articles. --Aston 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer :Image:Nocover.png and don't see any reason to change it. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a reason to remove the "No Cover Available" image completely.  It adds nothing to the presentation, it isn't consistent with other infoboxes (which don't include an image if, for example in a person infobox, an image of the person isn't entered), and it isn't consistent with other missing entries in the template.  If the Artist or Release field is left blank, there isn't text that states "Unavailable", it just doesn't show up. *Sparkhead 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums --Aston 12:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improved [[Template:Infobox Album]]

message: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Infobox Album: Should there be a "no cover" image? and please comment there. *Sparkhead 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be a "no cover" image? 

message: The singles infobox states [band]'s singles chronology, but the album equivalent is just [band]'s chronology. Shouldn't there be some consistency here? Apparently it's beyond me how to change this myself. - Dudesleeper 02:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the album infobox, it's obvious that you're talking about album chronology. In a single or song infobox, you can mix in another chronology to show both single and album track chronology. Therefore, the differentiation is needed for songs. -Freekee 15:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [band]'s chronology 

message: For holiday albums (particularly Christmas albums), should these not be filed as cover/tribute albums, as they are usually not considered regular studio albums? Has this already be discussed? --FuriousFreddy 03:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holiday releases. 

message: I have just added a language field. I thought it seemed useful, so just added it. Anyone disagree? - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast number of albums here will be in English. I don't think a field that will only be used by a very small percentage (under 1% in my guess) is a good idea.  I'm not firm about having it removed, but would just like to avoid field creep. *Spark* 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think a considerable amount would have another language in addittion to English. I would also think that non-English albums would make up a larger portion than 1%. Any popular artist who sings in English, but didn't/doesn't always, usually has pages for the other albums (e.g. Gloria Estefan, Shakira - well Estefan actually only has one Spanish album page from what I can tell). It's not mandatory, so you could maybe use it only when the album isn't in English (i.e. in English unless specified otherwise). - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 11:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Need to change this line:
| 
to this:
| 
Thanks. *Spark* 13:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks for the clear instructions. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorizing templates without images 

message: There's an internal link to "External links on this page", and the external links section is no longer here!  Can someone roll back to where they were and put them back in.  Thanks.  11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My error.  Thought I caught all those when I transcluded the doc.  It links back to the album project page which has a list of review sites.  I've changed the section title there and fixed the link here. *Spark* 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Would someone please change the line
| 
to 
| 
That will change all of the articles over to the new category, won't it? That one drives me crazy, because even though I know what the category is about, I still can't stop thinking, just for an instant, there are albums without cover art? ;-) -Freekee 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to cover art category 

message: It seems to me that a standardised format is needed as many articles have a "Pitchfork Feb. 2002" and a "Rolling Stone 21 January 2003".  It seems like the more abbreviated the better, as the format of the infobox lends itself to awkward line arrangements with long entries here. Furste 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardised Date Format for 'Professional Reviews' Section

message: What about a field for the format of the album, i.e., CD, LP, etc.? Sam 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's covered under the Type field.  If you want to get more specific than those formatted option, then use the Longtype field in addition. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean the type of the release, I mean the actual media it's stored on (Compact disc, cassette tape, etc.). I think it'd be useful information to include. Sam 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha.  Well, if worded correctly, Longtype could still be used (e.g. Studio album CD, LP record, Greatest hits cassette), but it's possible another field could be added.  Anyone else have thoughts? -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At one time people suggested a type that included the format, like Live LP. There are too many options to consider them all, though. I have seen some to add the format in the release section, so that it may say Released: January 1, 2007 (LP)January 2, 2007 (EP) in example. -- ReyBrujo 03:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, I suggest you to bring this topic to WP:ALBUM, where you will get more feedback. -- ReyBrujo 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format field 

message: Could somebody change  to 
Non-standard album infoboxes categorization functionality was removed without explanation (perhaps unintentionally) in this edit. Jogers (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I have also left a comment there to discuss at WikiProject Albums before trying to remove the categorization. -- ReyBrujo 02:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that you have removed albums without cover art categorization and the note about the template protection by the way. Could somebody fix this, please? Jogers (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, sorry about that. -- ReyBrujo 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard album infoboxes categorization 

message: Don't know whether this has ever been asked, but is it possible to code-in the formatting in the infobox (italics for "last" and "next", bold italics for "this") so that these fields can be  entered sans-wiki-formatting? It might mean the year would need another field, but I don't see a problem with it having the same style as the album name. Just a thought. Bubba HoTep 15:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is done this way on Polish Wikipedia. I like the idea. However, the implementation would be somewhat problematic because it requires updating thousands of pages. Jogers (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it may be worthwhile. Filling the infobox would be so much more straightforward... It would require a bot assist, without a doubt, but few other nice things could be done by the way - e.g. finally standardizing the type field. How about bringing this to WP:ALBUMS? Jogers (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology formatting 

message: Could anybody add this line to the infobox code:

It will add articles using infoboxes with "cover" field specified as "Nocover.gif" to the maintenance category :Category:Albums without cover art which already contains articles with this field left blank. Jogers (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed edit request for now. Why don't we consolidate the nocover image? Currently we have :Image:Nocover.gif, :Image:Nocover.jpg and :Image:Nocover.png, we would need to add ifs for each of those... -- ReyBrujo 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is no reason for keeping :Image:Nocover.gif and :Image:Nocover.jpg.  I will start removing links to these, so they can be deleted. Alex valavanis 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll try to help a bit. Jogers (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have just deleted :Image:Nocover.JPG, which had a fair use tag. I am guessing there are other Nocover images around... -- ReyBrujo 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is :Image:Noimage.jpg, which is not used exclusively for albums (as far as I can tell, it's used for WikiProject talk page templates that are missing images for some reason); however, it is being used for listings on pages like Atom Bomb (Fluke song). –Unint 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Four more: :Image:NoCover.jpeg (bubbles?), :Image:Nocover-old.gif (apparently the old version of Nocover), :Image:Nocover1987.gif (I have no idea what this is; the contributor has uploaded some very inexplicable and unused images), and :Image:Nocoverphoto.gif (taken from some other website). These are almost completely unused; once these are deleted, note replacements will be needed at Wintley Phipps discography and A-ha discography. –Unint 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Still more: :Image:Nocdimage.jpg (too small anyway) and :Image:Noimageforcd.gif. But that's just the ones I found that were specifically for albums; there are many, many more of these for who knows what, and most are orphaned or used in a non-standard fashion. (For starters, do "no DVD cover" images fall under our jurisdiction?) I really want to take this to some kind of policy discussion, but which part of Wikipedia covers this anyway? –Unint 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only idea is to list them for deletion on individual basis. Jogers (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:Nocover.jpg is now unused, so I think it can be deleted. Alex valavanis 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Requested speedy deletion Alex valavanis 10:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Changed to regular deletion process Alex valavanis 11:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Same applies for :Image:Nocover.gif.  Any thoughts on deletion yet? Alex valavanis 10:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Nocover.gif could be speedy deleted straight away as per CSD I1 but it is still protected. Jogers (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. How do we get the protection removed? Alex valavanis 10:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: All links to :Image:Noimage.jpg removed from albums/singles etc.  It's still being used for other types of article however.  Alex valavanis 10:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we will leave this one. Jogers (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:NoCover.jpeg is unused.  I have requested speedy deletion Alex valavanis 10:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Changed to regular deletion Alex valavanis 11:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto :Image:Nocover-old.gif Alex valavanis 11:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changer to regular deletion Alex valavanis 11:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto :Image:Nocover1987.gif Alex valavanis 11:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is one thing we missed about this speedy deletion criterion. It says any image that is a redundant copy, in the same image file format and same or lower resolution. Also, I don't think that images other than :Image:Nocover.gif qualify as copies of :Image:Nocover.png. Let's just list the images at images and media for deletion. Jogers (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops!  OK, I'll sort this out in a second Alex valavanis 11:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:Nocoverphoto.gif has no file links.  Deletion requested Alex valavanis 11:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Changed to regular deletion Alex valavanis 12:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto :Image:Nocdimage.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex valavanis (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto :Image:Noimageforcd.gif Alex valavanis 14:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Done, along with Charlotte' suggestion. -- ReyBrujo 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another orphan.  Deletion requested Alex valavanis 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album articles without cover art 

message: This documentation page is transcluded to WP:ALBUM. All of the interwikis on this page show up on that page too. How can this be prevented, and can someone take care of it? -Freekee 04:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the categories and interwikis from the documentation to the infobox page (which I think should have been the original way, since the documentation is bound to be transcluded from other pages). Apparently this fixed that. -- ReyBrujo 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That did it. Thanks! Now if we can just get all those inapplicable categories off that page too. They come in with other templates. Sometimes those annoy me, and sometimes I just tell myself that if anyone is checking :Category:Albums without cover art it will be obvious the WP:ALBUM is not an album article missing artwork. :-) The interwikis are not so obvious, so thanks for fixing it. -Freekee 05:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't get rid of that category unless we use a cover. I "think" we can use Nocover.png|200px as cover name as a hack to make the infobox think we have given it a custom cover (it would check for "Nocover.png", not "Nocover.png|200px"). Not sure if that would work, or if it may confuse users (they may edit the documentation to see how it is used, and noticing the 200px, they may add them to their articles). We can use a free image as cover, though. Feel free to search for a free image and use it at  (which is not protected). -- ReyBrujo 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not use an alternate image, for the reason you stated. I'd like to use the actual cover, but we can't for Fair Use reasons. The only other option I can think of is for someone to create a free image that could be used. Like something with the words, pretend this is the actual album cover. ;-) But then I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble. :-) -Freekee 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, creating a new "pretend this is the actual album cover" would take us back to this problem, don't you think? :-) -- ReyBrujo 06:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As another hack, would it work if we included a check for  in the template so that categories will not be included if the template is used on WP:ALBUMS.  Not ideal, but it would avoid hacks in the infoboxes that new users might copy. Alex valavanis 09:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I took five minutes to make an image. Check it out. WP:ALBUM. What do you think? It's not a real cover, so doesn't cause a problem with fair use, nobody will mistake it for the real album's cover, and it doesn't add the page to a category. -Freekee 01:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff.  I still think it may be better to find a way to do this without hacking the infobox on the project page and without introducing a new image.  If we do keep this image, are you OK converting it to PNG? Alex valavanis 02:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why? That must be a free format, huh? Funny, I never heard that before. The advantage to having an image, is that it can be used in other ways as well... probably. -Freekee 02:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I get this feeling that the "no cover" image started like this, then someone who did not like it created another, and so on until we had like 20 or so no covers. :-) Nice stuff! -- ReyBrujo 03:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha! You're probably right. But they didn't have the no-artwork category. One man's bright idea is another man's headache. :-) -Freekee 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, actually SVG would be best, as it stores a vector description of the image (like "put the letter 'a' here, draw a line there" etc).  This makes it possible to generate the image at any size at perfect quality, so it's great for simple images that you make yourself.  JPEG uses compression that's great for photos and complex images, but it leaves weird artifacts in simple images and the quality normally drops if you edit it and save it again.  PNG compression is better for converting existing simple images.  See this comparison for details. Alex valavanis 08:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Trivia point -- the cover of The Postal Service's Give Up was freely licensed by Sub Pop.  Jkelly 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty damn cool. Get that sucker in the German Wikipedia! So... why do you mention it here? -Freekee 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To give us a free image to use as example, I guess. Or to demonstrate there are free covers available. The main problem is that new users could misunderstand that and use any fair use image as example cover without knowing the difference in licenses (many guys license things with  when uploading them because they scanned the cover, in example). -- ReyBrujo 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Yeah, we could use that album as our example on the project page. I agree that it could be a problem, though. -Freekee 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've replaced the images on the page with the standard :Image:Example.png.  This saves us from needing a new placeholder image!  Also, I noticed that the example infoboxes on the page use deprecated syntax!  I have corrected this. Alex valavanis 09:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we don't need a new a new placeholder image, since I already created that one. :-D By the way, thanks for transcluding the stub list. I had been thinking about that a couple of days ago. -Freekee 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and in your edit summary, you called it a "disputed image." I'd hardly call it disputed, since we were just trying to come up with a solution, and were still open to suggestions. -Freekee 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - that wasn't meant to appear confrontational.  "disputed" was the first word that came to mind to indicate that the image was tagged for deletion.  I just wanted to put something there which was free, generic and not being discussed for deletion.  Alex valavanis 04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a big deal, really. It is certainly an appropriate image. I just thought it was odd that while we were discussing it, it was replaced without mention. But what do you mean by "being discussed for deletion"? -Freekee 16:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops - my mistake!  I thought I'd seen an  tag on the image page.  I must have been looking at the wrong tab.  That was my main reason for replacing it.  Maybe I should avoid beer while editing in future :S - Alex valavanis 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried that. Doesn't work. :) Bubba hotep 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki transclusion

message: ... tr:Şablon:Müzik albümü. Thnx in advance...
Doruk Salancı 18:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- ReyBrujo 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add...