Template talk:Discography list

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, it wasn't difficult to do it myself, so I did. :) – B.hotep u/t• 09:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Non-standard album infoboxes]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of the "cover" parameter 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New /sandbox and /testcases 

message: Why doesn't this field work? Also, what about adding a field for bonus tracks? Lara❤Love 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It works, but the doc didn't say it was only for singles:

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Other info 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: It has wrong casing for the parameters, especially "from Album" should be "from album". Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this template still being developed?

message: 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)
replies: text: It has wrong casing for the parameters, especially "from Album" should be "from album". Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-asking the question

message: Would it be appropriate to add another line/param to indicate album review references?  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)
thread_title: Need a new line for reviews?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Template example is out of date 

message: For singles that are from an album, the  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)
thread_title:  Singles:  Sometimes the is "Title"; and others is Title? 

message: 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)
replies: text: . 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)
thread_title:  Table has no bottom 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox Discography]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing (mis?)usage at [[Illmind production discography]]