Template talk:Extra track listing

message: There's an edit here that says this is meant to be used with Template:Song infobox.  It's not.  That template already had a chronology for album tracklistings.  I originally made this template to compensate for the fact that Template:Infobox Single didn't have this function.  The new settings of same colour for everything look, quite frankly, stupid.  To give an example, One (U2 song) was set to have this box twice.  Once for Achtung Baby (a studio album) and once for The Best of 1990-2000 (a compilation).  The colours were set for corresponding album types as in WP:ALBUM#Type_and_color but now they're both the same and confusing. I'm going to revert them back to their original purpose.  --Thetriangleguy 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've changed my mind about editing since i can't find a good place to revert to.  Could someone please have a look at it for me? --Thetriangleguy 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's confusing, It's completely clear and visible....just read...Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is used in both Single and Song infoboxes, which use different colors.  Therefore, we need to allow for the color to be specified.  —taestell 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template is a section of the Song Infobox, hence it makes sense for it to be the same colour as that.--Ashadeofgrey (talk contribs) 19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've alredy change the color. There won't be more confuses. And Ashad, please understand that the Song Infobox alredy has the track listing option. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that before you could define the background to what sort of album the track listing was from so it was the same as the colour of the album infobox. Now it is the same colour everytime.--Thetriangleguy 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: edit question

message: Does the song/single articles need this IMO I think this template is useless, why do we need to add a template in a single article just to put what the number is it on the CD and what the next song is, while there's a tracklisting in the album article and how about the other songs that don't have an article and this template don't really give much info. And the Infobox is already big no need to complicate it more.--HW-Barnstar PLS 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, don't really see the sense in this template when the track listing can be viewed on the album article — unless, perhaps, every track on an album had a separate article. If we're going to include this template, though, I'd like to know what guideline (if any) there is regarding remix and compilation albums (and similar releases) — some Mariah Carey songs, appear on as many as three such albums, and that's in addition to the studio album track listing and the singles chronology. I'm sure there are many acts who've released many more albums and whose songs appear on several of them. I'm worried that people are using the template in this way to include information that isn't really relevant and wouldn't fit elsewhere in the article, thus making the infobox bigger than it needs to be and essentially converting it into a substitute for the article. Again, I'm not talking about albums of newly recorded material. Extraordinary Machine 03:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use?

message: I propose this template be renamed to Template:Extra track listing to use the standard phrase "track listing" rather than the non-standard "tracklisting". Any objections? --PEJL 09:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object: I don't see any bother in moving it. I say it's fine as is. -- Reaper  X 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had forgotten about this. I do still think moving this would be appropriate. Any time we use a phrase other than "track listing" we make it more likely that someone will make a mistake about which phrase to use. I don't see much bother in moving it either, so I'm going to do so. (Existing uses will continue to work fine of course, via a redirect.) --PEJL 07:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose renaming 

message: I just noticed this behavior, which I think may be a mistake, but I am not sure. If you use the template like this:
 
It expands to this:
 |-
 ! colspan="3" scope="col" style="background:lightsteelblue;" | album name track listing
 |-
 | colspan="3" |
 Tracks here
 |-
Note the trailing "|-" which follows the "Tracks=" content and starts a new table row. I don't think that should be there. Can anyone explain why it is there? Can it be removed? John Cardinal 17:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've again rennovated the code to remove this problem and the second coloured bar when this template is used with the  field.  This came about after a discussion with User:PEJL.  Please feel free to revert or fix if a code problem crops up, but I believe I've tested every variation without incident. Documentation updated as well to show instances of the  field. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra row? 

message: The extra gray line at the top is back. It's ugly and unnecessary and should be removed. I've removed it once. Someone put it back so I figured I'd raise the issue here. John Cardinal 05:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know.  Someone reverted the edits made recently.  Once I find out why, I'll fix the problem. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Ugly and unnecessary. -- Reaper  X 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem resolved.  If any errors are noticed, either revert or describe error and its location here and I'll exact an immediate fix. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra gray line at top 

message: Hey folks,
Can we make the text for this template the same as the text used for Infobox Single Template? -- Phillip Kragulj (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: is quite different from this template. What do you want to be the same exactly? — John Cardinal (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, the text should be the same as the text used for Infobox Album Template? -- Phillip Kragulj (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not helpful. Maybe someone else will understand what text you mean exactly. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This template does not work on the sandbox version of the Infobox Single Template. -- Phillip Kragulj (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Let me show you an example:
You should probably discuss that on the  talk page. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Update: I expanded the testcases for  and the sandbox version shows the error you've demonstrated here (see Template:Infobox single/testcases). I added a talk page entry there. I am not sure if  the sandbox version of Infobox single is broken or this template depends on some inner details of the existing Infobox single template. In any case, the testcases I added should stimulate some discussion/action. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox edits 

message: please see Template talk:Infobox album#Syntax for chronology parameters. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax for chronology parameters 

message: If you want to remove the formatting without renaming the parameters, it'll probably require a bot run to edit the articles where this is used. Jc86035 (talk) Use to reply to me 02:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The current sandbox version doesn't work with uses of the existing template.  It would be good to make it consistent with other music templates. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose Module:String could remove extra formatting and pairs of quote marks, although that might not work for songs beginning and ending with apostrophes or quote marks (most are linked so it probably works anyway). Jc86035 (talk) Use to reply to me 14:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: A RfC has been opened at WT:SONGS#RfC: Should album track listings be removed from infobox song?.  Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should album track listings be removed from infobox song?  

message: help a brother out... I'm lost with regards to the deprecated params here. Can you take a look at the testcases and let me know what the final params should be? Is it just ? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are several others, although it looks like some of the removed parameters were left in the Unsubst-infobox configuration. Jc86035 (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what happened here, but it looks like maybe some parameters were removed from the template without being converted in articles. See . This edit to All-American Girl (song), for example, left behind parameters that were subsequently removed from the template with edit summaries like "remove uses of now-unused parameters" and "all deprecations have been fixed and all test cases passed with the Sandbox version". Do you have some idea of what might have been missed? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The replacement occurred before the parameters were removed, and Module:Check for unknown parameters was only added on 14 November. I wasn't heavily involved at that stage, although to me it seems likely that the categories-take-aeons-to-update issue struck again. Jc86035 (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: The template has parameters altalbum, label, length. The first one adds an additional section, and the other two only add information about the additional album. These parameters are not used anywhere on the wiki: https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Extra+track+listing . They are mentioned as deprecated in the editting history and are not listed in the documentation. Perhaps these three parameters should be removed from the code? Solidest (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2022