Template talk:Extra chronology

message: When this template is used in an album infobox, the album names in the extra chronology are displayed smaller than the album names from the regular chronology.  See Out Louder for an example.  --taestell 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consolidated, sorry. The font at the regular template was increased to 0.8em as it may have been too small for some people. Thanks for the report. -- ReyBrujo 05:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text size

message: Obviously by now it's a moot point, but why was this forked from  when it seems the additions could have simply been made to the old template and a bot ran to convert existing uses to the new use? A consistent edit history is good for people looking at how a template was developed, not to mention GFDL compliance. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Curious

message: Hey folks,
:This template does not work on the sandbox version of the Infobox Single Template. -- Phillip Kragulj (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me show you an example:
I suggest you bring this up over at Template_talk:Infobox_single#Based_in_infobox so the people working on the new version will see it. They probably won't find it here. – IbLejavascript:insertTags('%E2%80%93',,)o (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox edits 

message: Please fix Similar to Template_talk:Infobox_song#Suggested_change, the font on this is unnecessarily small. Why are the title to the second chronology smaller than the main one (see the above transclusion)? Please standardize the size of these fonts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted this change. Please see the discussion at WT:ALBUM#Misc/additional chronology. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As this template is used in as an "appendix" to both  and , with the main chronology in each of those templates, please have coherence between the three templates in mind before asking for changes. – IbLeo(talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: The font size of this and Template:Infobox are mismatched again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did that fix it?  I am assuming it was a problem with the font-size being set by the infobox class in MediaWiki:Common.css, the second definition of "88%" was making it "0.88*0.88".  Let me know if more is needed.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not appear to be fixed, currently (maybe it was, then got broken again). --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please sync it with the current sandbox, which should fix it. --Muhandes (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm relatively new to editing templates, so I want someone to tell me if I did this right. In particular, the sandbox didn't have a second close table, not did it have the documentation, so I didn't literally replace the template with the sandbox version. I checked one page, and it looks OK, but to be honest, I didn't observe an obvious change, so I don't know if it worked.--SPhilbrickT 15:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It fixed the font size, but as noted in the next talk section, it broke the noinclude tags. Should be a simple fix. (pretty obvious from ) --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec)My edit was incorrect, so I undid it, I'll let someone with more expertise do it, although I'd like to learn what I did wrong.--SPhilbrickT 17:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the diff I linked to above. The top part is the correct part. The bottom part indicates that your copy/paste included the part of the sandbox that marks it as a sandbox, and it included an extra noinclude tag. If you overwrite only that line that changes the font, you should be fine. You can also compare the sandbox version to the main version (the bottom part, again, is code that should be left in the sandbox version only). --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ucucha 21:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font size 

message: Where is the opening <noinclude> for the Documentation? There are two opening tags but three closing ones. This affected my draft I was working on? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ]  15:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See section above, you probably refer to the interim version. --Muhandes (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: The chronology set for the main artist is about one pixel larger than this one, and it's really ugly and annoying to look at it. Can't we fix this already? — Status (talk) (contribs) 10:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I came to complain about this... and I see I already did... a year ago.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't we fix the font size issue? 

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

message: Should A-sides and B-sides be handled (e.g. Penny Lane), or should the old parameters be kept for those? Jc86035 (talk) Use to reply to me 16:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some anomalies.  Technically, a double A-side doesn't have a B-side, so both names are used.  I've also seen a split in the chronology, when a different next single was released in another country (although I can't find an example right now).  If possible, these should be allowed for.  Can the new automatic prev_title, etc. run parallel to the old way? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Maybe ,  and  instead of retaining the old parameters? (I think for different countries two separate chronology templates are used, but there's one that has multiple line breaks and a dash between the UK/US singles; I've forgotten which it was.) Jc86035 (talk) Use to reply to me 16:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The prev_title2 may be the solution. I'm trying to think how it would look – similar to the dash example? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe slashes, like at WT:SONGS#Example templates? Jc86035 (talk) Use to reply to me 17:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That works for the double A-sides and might be useful for editors who want to treat singles as two-song collections. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-sides 

message: Is this chronology appropriate or necessary? Unfortunately the substitution causes the titles to be italicized. Jc86035 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a new one. I've always seen singles chronologies used for releases by an artist and the guidance for both Infobox songs#chronology and extra chronology make reference to "artist".  I don't see any justification for changing this approach or what benefit it may have.  The FSOG soundtrack albums are linked in the song infoboxes and those album infoboxes include ; the album navboxes also include the singles (which are also included in most of the song articles).  What more do you want? Looks like another case of ugly navigation overkill! —Ojorojo (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'm removing them (as well as similar chronologies for songs used in the Hunger Games series). Are the album chronologies like the one on this page appropriate? Jc86035 (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Applying the same standard, Infobox album#Chronology notes "This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases... Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies" (my emphasis).  The triology navbox at the bottom includes both albums, which should be sufficient. (FWIW,  and  don't include  chronology fields, but  and  (for "series") do)  —Ojorojo (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   There are about 300 of these. I'm a little hesitant to summarily remove all of them but it does make sense to sort them by composer rather than by franchise/company (similarly, we wouldn't have an "Atlantic Records chronology"). Jc86035 (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Surprising, but I rarely deal with soundtracks.  In this case, the issue should probably be taken up at WT:ALBUMS, with a note at WT:FILMS.  —Ojorojo (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collections of film franchise soundtracks 

message: is now empty so it would be great to remove support for the deprecated parameters. This template has so much substitution logic that I'm having a really hard time following it. Since you wrote it and are good with this stuff, could you clean it up? You and I have debated the merits of supporting substitution at all. I don't really want to rehash that debate. What I would suggest is lets simplify it as much as possible. If you want to maintain the ability to stubst the template to get it properly formatted and remove unsupported parameters, I don't see a problem with that. What I do think we should remove is all of the complex regular expressions. Users need to know to enter the right values, it isn't the responsibility of the template to parse and convert those values with regular expressions. While the parameters were being deprecated, that logic was phenomenally helpful and I commend you for writing it out!! But I think we can now remove most of that logic. Let me know your thoughts and don't hesitate to ping me if I can be helpful. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the parameter replacement code; is there anything else that's no longer useful in any way? Jc86035 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  well there is still a bunch of code that is using the deprecated parameters. Anywhere that is dealing with  can be removed. Those parameters are no longer supported. So the majority of the places that the template is invokeing string match can be removed... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   I've removed the code for displaying the deprecated parameters (if it were possible to collapse #if: statements it would look much simpler). I've left all of the tracking in place. Jc86035 (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  bravo! thanks much!!! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Putting in "type=song" over at "Old Town Road" doesn't fix the fact that Mason Ramsey's chronology has the songs italicized as if they were albums. Having "type=single" is no better since that makes the background yellow instead of blue, and "type=remix single" doesn't exist. Any way around this? Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remix single 

message: This template italicizes the prev_title, title and next_title in the case of "type = remix". Remixes are tracks, not albums. They should be plain text with quotation marks and not italicized. Preferably as well, the green used to show a remix chronology should be changed to match the color used for "type = remix" on Template:Infobox song, the light blue grey.
Thank you. Calhounmuse (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the usage of remix in this context refers to remix album rather than remix. See, for example, J to tha L–O! The Remixes, which is a remix album. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and/or use the template's sandbox to demonstrate the change. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 12 June 2020 

message: @Jc86035 I propose adding a new parameter "chronology", or as an alias to the current "artist". Then editors can have more freedom specifying this parameter's value for example:
| chronology = Celine Dion singles | type = single → Celine Dion singles chronology
or 
| chronology = Celine Dion studio albums | type = studio → Celine Dion studio albums chronology
instead of all the complexities of "if |type = single then the word singles is added after artist automatically....". We can also make it so that if  is specified then  is bypassed. The type parameter still remains for the purpose of coloring. This structure would be more logical and WYSIWYG for most editors as well. Tran Xuan Hoa (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose adding parameter "chronology" 

message: Add "versions" parameter for previous, current, or next tracks. There was recently a discussion in Template talk:Infobox song to implement the same change, and it would be appropriate to apply the same here to fix the current song infoboxes. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍  ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 22:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Elli (talk | contribs) 01:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request 12 September 2023