Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 1

message: Please see Template:Albumbox, Template talk:Albumbox, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Template test and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/archive 3#Albumbox template before going too far with this. Thanks. - 23:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: Guero has a rating from rateyourmusic.com in the Reviews section of the infobox.  That's not really a professional review, is it?  It's no more a professional review than what it might get on Amazon or any other site where the public is allowed to post reviews.  Either the infobox should be changed, or amateur reviews should not be considered (especially as they can change over time).
:I think the idea of an RYM rating under "reviews" seems more palatable because it's an aggregate of several (or, in the case of popular albums, hundreds) of individual ratings. As such, you get a more balanced approach than from a single review, professional or amateur. --Jacj 01:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think non-professional reviews should be categorically ineligible for inclusion here – partly because, as stated above, the rating is liable to fluctuate over time leaving the infobox perpetually out of date – but mostly because they are almost entirely useless. The people who frequent rateyourmusic (and amazon and all the others) are looking up albums they own and presumably that they enjoy; rarely are you going to get a disconnected view of the album. In my experience, people who give less than three stars on those sites are considered to be committing an act of high taboo. And a simple rating doesn't really tell you anything much anyway, given the arbitrary nature of the system, so all you're left with is a link to a page for fawning and generally uninteresting fan-speak. Admittedly, there are occasional submissions from fans that cover a topic better than the professionals, I've even referenced one on John Lennon's Jukebox, but those are exceptions; in general fan reviews are not encyclopedic or noteworthy and should not be linked to from the article. Flowerparty talk 17:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rateyourmusic.com?

message: Judging from how fast my template edit happened I have to infer that nobody is going to get any credit for Album Artwork, Photography or Design here on Wikipedia.  Whatever.
:It's not relevancy that's the issue here, I think. It's more that there was no discussion (that I saw) and so no consensus before you added your (doubtlessly well-intentioned) section to the template — which instantly outdated hundreds of albums entries. Curt Woyte 07:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
::So where is the fellow who created the template?  Is he not watching it?  He felt confident enough in building it that he knew what he was doing, along with everyone else who's edited it since.  This confidence should have forseen this, or at least not censored the extension to the template.  And whoever felt comfortable enough to censor it almost instantly ought to come up with a way to correct the original shortcoming, and get involved in a discussion here.  This is the place for it, but where's the entry from the person who decided that the template should not have a design, photography or artwork credit?  Is it the case that it never struck anyone that giving credit for album design, photography and/or artwork was relevant?  Honestly, what's to discuss.  Let us all know what your objection, if any, is to this information being included in the template.  Let's not have a triumph of form over substance here.  I didn't break the template - I extended it to accomodate a design shortcoming that should have been fixed long ago.
:::That information would be better suited on the image description page of the album cover or the personnel section of the article.—jiy (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Album Artwork, Photography, Design credits?

message: Is it possible to add a lyrics tab at the infobox? That way the reader can easily jump to an external link to a lyrics page the editor needs not add an external link section. --DB0 22:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Record companies have been know to take action against people publishing lyrics to their songs. ed g2s • talk 18:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics 

message: I've just left the following message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):
A problem has cropped up regarding how timings (for albums, tracks, and singles) should be expressed.  At the moment there are various styles, the main three being:
*45 min 34 sec
*45:34
*45' 34"
The first is used in the Template:Album infobox; all three are used by various editors in various articles.
The first seems to be to be odd: the Wikilinking is surely unnecessary, the abbreviations (lacking either plural or fullstops) are incorrect, and I've rarely if ever seen it used elsewhere.
The second is often used on album covers, etc., but it's the same form as used in Wikipedia for times of day, and thus could conceivably cause confusion.
The last is pretty standard, being used not only on many album covers, etc., but in other contexts too.
OK, my preference is pretty clear — but I'd rather that one of them were chosen as the recommended style even if it weren't my preference than that we continue with the free-for-all we have now.  I was certain that I'd seen something on this in the MoS, but I can't find it; is there anything?  If there isn't, shouldn't there be?
:Mel Etitis and I just had a brief discussion about this on our talk pages.  It is Mel's understanding that the middle option (xx:yy) is the one demanded by WP's Manual of Style, and that the template should be altered accordingly (and that there is no objection to this).  It's my impression that nothing about the album length happens on the back-end of the template, and so changing it shouldn't break anything.  Is there anything we're missing here?  Jkelly 18:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, where in the MoS does it say this? Nevermind, found it.  Yeah, a standard would be preferable.  I'd like to chime in that the second one is also used for song times, so that could cause some confusion with itself and the first format (I suspect that is the reason the first format was brought about in the first place).--Weebot 19:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Table you will see that the table style given to us by album project includes the first style and I believe it looks the nicest.  Surely unnecessary linking but it gives the template more balance.  You might want to discusswhatever changes you're planning on at albumproject too since they style suggests option one. gren グレン 21:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried, but got no response (besides, they have it because it's here — or vice versa; I don't want to get into chickens and eggs...).  I must admit that I don't see the balance thing, but in any case we shouldn't go against the MoS (and internal consistency) for the sake of a minor aesthetic point, I think. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that nothing is going on at the back-end as far as template variables are concerned, so there's probably nothing to change on this template page.  Instead, the change would be to the instructions at WP:ALBUM.  I just dropped a note at User:TUF-KAT's talk page, as he seems to be the most active editor for the project page.  Jkelly 00:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Mel, I think the balance comes in when everything has a longer line and is wikified and then you have time with 42:34 and it's short.  Honestly the majority of boxes I've seen use 42 min 34 sec and I don't see where in the manual of style contradicts that usage so I surely wasn't trying to go against it.  I also don't know why they've been saying 42:34 is the majority use since it doesn't seem to be so.  I do agree on consistency's importance though. gren グレン 00:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the link to the relevant MoS section.  Jkelly 01:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I like #3 the best.  Like everyone else apparently, I don't really care so much as think it looks nice -- the important thing is that they should all be consistent. Tuf-Kat 01:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks like we've had as much discussion as we're going to.  My impression is that there is no objection to changing the infobox instructions at WP:ALBUM to reflect the MoS. Those articles that use the wikilink standard (option 1) which is currently being promoted on that page will have to be changed by hand, unfortunately, but we'll eventually become consistant with track timings and WikiProject:Songs.  I'm going to make the change.  Jkelly 02:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I fail to understand is the assertion that ?? min ?? s isn't the majority... becuase... it seems to be.  I haven't really seen mm:ss anywhere.  In any case I don't suppose it matters. gren グレン 03:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought that was clear.  The reason that the xx min yy sec is prevalent in articles is because the WP:ALBUM page has that format as part of its instructions.  That's precisely what we're changing.  The conversation here wasn't about what is most common in WP articles, it was about whether there was enough of a reason for those instructions to be given, and what consensus about consistency and following the MoS was.  You'll see mm:ss on track listings in the album articles and on the singles articles that follow WP:MUSIC.  Jkelly 03:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been wondering the same because I've started to change the date format to mm:ss on all articles using the album infobox...--Fritz S. (Talk) 08:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to keep anything below ~80:00 (which is approx. what fits on a regular CD) in mm:ss, and write everything above that as h:mm:ss. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timings 

message: What about adding style="border:1px solid black;" or something to the image section of the album infobox template in order to eliminate the need of adding the border into the image directly? It seems than most of cover images in wikipedia are borderless. Mykhal 15:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album artwork image border 

message: Can anyone point me to a discussion which said it was OK to change Genre to Genre(s). It looks messy and it's inconsistent with "Label" and "Producer" (see wb's comment above). Flowerparty talk 20:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of such a discussion. I would like to see this reverted again. Teklund 07:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre (s) 

message: Right now the link for Album in the infobox is directed to the Album disambiguation page.  It should be linked to Album (music)... Cheers. --Madchester 04:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:This will need to be changed on each page that uses the template. ed g2s • talk 13:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Album---> Album (music)=

message: I had briefly discussed this and and made Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox conversion and also added a section for it to Template:Album.  As I said I don't know if it's bold or stupid but I think it's a good idea.  Uniform style is important... and, it doesn't matter if it uses the template or raw code... it should have the same style.  Thoughts? Want to add to the list?  Want to VfD the list? who knows... gren グレン 15:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion 

message: i used this template for Hidden Vagenda by Kimya Dawson, but the producer field and the previous album in the chronology are both not showing up. can someone fix this for me or tell me how to fix this? -Nathew 23:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the right variable names, and separate them with pipes. ed g2s • talk 23:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Certain parts not showing up

message: Could the template be modified so that it would automatically add the article to the appropriate category for artist, record label, etc? This ought to make discographies quicker to produce. I'm interested in working on the Frank Sinatra discography. Could a field be added to specify the principle arranger for that album, as that's one of the major proporties of albums of this type. Cheers Cdyson37 | (Talk) 11:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This could easily be done by adding Category: albums, and any other category you'd wish. I can't see how this would be any problematic at all. --Tokle 14:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm highly against this idea.  I don't think it's good or flexible enough especially when things start to change.  Adding normal category syntax isn't hard and should just be done I believe. gren グレン 16:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, Category: albums would give you all kinds of crazy results. On Disraeli Gears, for instance, you'd get [[Category:Cream albums]]. :S Flowerparty■ 20:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché! --Tokle 22:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that, it seems, is that. Thanks for the quick replies people. Cdyson37 | (Talk) 23:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatically add to artist/label category 

message: I've been putting the catalog number of the album in my album articles in the body of the article. I find knowing the catalog number very helpful since it is generally the simplest and surest way to find out about an album whose name is not natively Roman script when searching the internet. Many music store sites use the catalog number as a search key, as well, so it's a good piece of information to have, especially for people who have interest in purchasing the album
However, it seems out of place and not particularly encyclopaedic in the body of the article. I think a better place would be in the albumbox itself, just below the Producer field. Every album has one, and the only problem I see is that the number will change for (for example) preorder versus standard runs of the album.
Any thoughts? Coach Z Ale 07:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had some discussion about this with Cbing01... We agreed that catalog numbers would crowd up the infobox and came up with a table to go at the bottom of the article in a section called Release details. It's used on Let It Be... Naked and Demon Days for example.--Fritz S. 09:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalog Numbers 

message: The "this_album" parameter is redundant, we already have the name and release date parameters. I propose that we just use those 2 and drop the usage of the this album. The parameter would not have to be removed from existing entries, it simply wouldn't be used. In stead we can just put  and  in the space there. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this is that the Release field has all sorts of variations on the date, and we just want the year in that spot. Slicing 05:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant parameter 

message: I would like to propose a new section be added to the album and single infoboxes for links to open music databases, such as MusicBrainz. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Is there something encyclopedic at those sites that we cannot incorporate into our articles?  Jkelly 01:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On a technical level, yes. MusicBrainz has a large amount of metadata about any given album (based on use contribution of course), that for practical reasons wikipedia cannot use. In addition, musicbrainz lists ALL artists, no matter how small their body of works (even the guys with one song). That's my mini-rant-reply to that question. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Databases 

message: I think it might be a good idea to include a place to put a list of singles from that album. Anyone else think so? - TALK ®€Ð¦-¦0† TALK 18:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the infobox?  That could add a twelve-item list to some infoboxes.  Jkelly 18:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's enough to mention them in the lead. --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Singles

message: As mentione above about the album part of this template the chronology section also automaticlly generates links that should be going to the bands page but is (probbly a majority of cases) going to disambiguation pages.  I am all for automatically filling in data so that it need not be entered mroe than once.  But in this case the only solution is to put the artest and album into the template as wikified links which then propagate and light up the info box with every instance of them being wikified.  See Prism (album) for an example. Dalf | Talk 10:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to disambiguation pages 

message: I have been working with the infobox and the "Recorded" parameter is a confusing parameter. As far as I can tell it is meant to list the studios where an album is recorded. On many pages it is a question mark. On the albums I tried to enter it was listed in the booklets but often in a very small font (one time white foreground on yellow background which means that the label wasn't that concerned whether it could be read or not) and often containing many different entries. Yesterday I've created Try Again and there is no mentioning whatsoever on the CD itself. I think it's a parameter which may be nice in some cases, but in most cases it's irrelevant. I think it would be better to leave the parameter optional. KittenKlub 14:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike this remark. It is optional in album box, but it wasn't optional in single box. I've added it as an optional parameter to single box. KittenKlub 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optional Recorded parameter 

message: Template:Stars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Stars. Thank you. —Cryptic (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Stars 

message: Why does this appear on the top left of the article, and not the right?  Because the infobox is there, the actual words of the article are pushed down below the infobox.  Please fix this, if possible.  --G VOLTT 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On top-left of page?!? 

message: Since Template:Stars was TfD'd, I have been working on a new star template.  It is now ready for use as Template:Starsx.  Usage instructions here.  The reason for the "x" in the name is that Template:Stars, in its current degenerate form, is still used in a number of articles.  Once these have been converted to use the new syntax, the old template could be deleted and the new one moved over it.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the new template to the name Template:Stars.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stars template 

message: I think that Genre and Label should appear as Genre(s) and Label(s), since albums often fall under more than one genre, and many are released on more than one label.—thegreentrilby 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm indifferent about Genre, but Label should stay singular as the infobox should refer only to the first edition of an album (see Wikiproject Albums) and that usually has just one label.--Fritz S. (Talk) 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural(s)

message: Maybe this NL interwiki link can be added ? nl:Sjabloon:Muziekalbumtabel --LimoWreck 18:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Template:Editprotected to request the addition of this interwiki link -- 213.84.36.227 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. howcheng  {chat} 00:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki 

message: Why are they all alingned to the left, instead of the center, like it use to be? Roda 13:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, why are the chronology titles now aligned to the left? It looks really bad. Chairman S. Talk 22:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titles alignment 

message: Is it possible not to include these sections in the infobox? Chronology isn't especially useful if certain artist released only one album and is not likely that they release another one. Proffesional reviews section doesn't look very nice when there are none of them and some albums are not likely to receive any so-called "proffesional" reviews at all. It holds especially true for old, non-english language albums. Jogers 10:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Some albums, particularly those that were not released (widely or at all) in the English-speaking world, have no useful reviews to link to. ProhibitOnions 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disabling ''professional reviews'' and ''chronology'' fields for certain albums 

message: can someone please alter the source for the chronology - the font size needs to be "small", not "smaller"; otherwise the page becomes very messy when viewing on a high-resolution screen.  Cheers,  Deano (Talk) 16:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chronology 

message: Is it possible to make the Profesional Reviews section hidable using class="hiddenStructure"? --Salix alba (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that. I'm almost positive it was untill recently, not sure when or why it got moved, but the same with . bmearns, KSC(talk) 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews 

message: Can we fix it so it's unneccessary to enter the name of the album twice? Currently, you enter it once in the beginning of the tempate for use as the title of the info box, and then you enter it again at the bottom for the "This Album" field. Further, would it be possible to make the italicts and bold-italicts around the album names in this bottom "nav" section automatic? This might require making their years seperate fields, which I wouldn't object to either, so we don't have to enter the  ourselves either. Am I incredibly lazy or what? bmearns.....(talk) 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeating the name 

message: It seems that as of October of last year, "album" is no longer a disambiguation page but an article on the musical kind of album (which is probably what "album (music)" used to be, but which now redirects to "album"), and the disambiguation page has been relocated to "album (disambiguation)". The template should be updated to reflect this (i.e., the syntax on the top of this page). JJBunks 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus on the page move was reached   here. I've updated the syntax on the top of this page and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums page as well. However it shouldn't be changed on every of several thousands articles that use the template (see Help:Redirect). Jogers (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Album" vs. "Album (music)" 

message: I've updated the code in this template to use #if (see m:ParserFunctions for details of the new syntax). My code is available at User:Locke Cole/Template:Album infobox (and the request is that the code there be copied into this template; no visual changes were made, only the methods used were modified). Samples are on the talk page there. If there's any problems, please note the articles affected and report them here. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Seems to be working correctly, but is it just me or has it made the gaps bigger around the image? Not that it matters a great deal. Flowerparty? 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird, I didn't think that would affect the appearance. I've fixed it at User:Locke Cole/Template:Album infobox. Sorry about that. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, was that all. Done. I've obviously been looking at too many of these things to even notice. Thanks for that, then :) Flowerparty? 04:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to use #if 

message: Can someone add  inside a NOINCLUDE please? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Flowerparty☀ 00:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Something odd is happening with this template on The Song Is You. A line of code is apparent at the top of the page, and I haven't been able to find anything odd in the markup to warrant it. Thoughts? --Yossarian 30px| 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No background variable.  I fixed it.  Jkelly 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was confusing. There was a minor bug in the code which I've now fixed, I think. It looked like something had gone wrong with the infobox, but it was just a missing pipe in the article Thanks for pointing it out. Flowerparty☀ 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Confused! :S See above. Flowerparty☀ 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weirdness... 

message: Is it proper to use this template for an album which is not out yet, but information is known about? Joltman 15:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as the information is WP:V and all other conventions are followed there should be no problem. Dan, the CowMan 18:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You also might want to add  at the top of the article. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the main thing that was holding me back was the release date on the template says 'Released' so even if there is a release date set for an album, wouldn't it be kind of wrong to put it under 'Released'? Joltman 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you add the future album template (which clearly states that the article contains information of a speculative nature) and make it clear in the article's lead that the album hasn't been released, I think there shouldn't be a problem. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future albums? 

message: What about not using the Template:Extra chronology to handle the standard chronology? What I mean is to change:

back to:
{{#if:
  
  |

 chronology












This way no functionality is lost but the Template:Extra chronology could be unprotected (as it would no longer be a high use template) and finding out which articles use additional chronologies would be easier (what might be useful if we decide to make significant changes to Template:Extra chronology) Jogers (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer keeping the appearance stuff centralized. Otherwise if we want to make a change, we have to change two places or else have out of sync styles. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I see the point but the appearance of the chronology section hasn't changed much since it was adopted, I guess. Anyway, I trust your judgement and I don't mind keeping it this way. Jogers (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra chronology template use 

message: Can anybody add a non-breaking space to Compiled by field like this? Jogers (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Flowerparty☀ 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-breaking space in Compiled by field 

message: Something User:Ed g2s did has broken part of the infobox. The artist name now appears outside the box. Demo:
BigBlueFish 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. ed g2s • talk 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken 

message: Seems like the edits by User:Ed g2s also changed the template so that the reviews section requires 
 up front again, as the list is now broken in articles that don't have it. The Grey Album for example. Maybe somebody could fix this. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thanks. Jogers (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed g2s edits: Reviews

message: I guess it's high time to archive this page. I'm not sure what to do with the "proposed alternative syntax" stuff, though. Should it be archived or left with the "normal syntax" as usage instructions? Jogers (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving this talk page

message: Does anybody else think that a cover caption parameter may be useful in some situations? I mean something like this. Jogers (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We didn't do that yet? In the intervening time, the more I've thought about it, the more I think it's useful. In fact, I'm going to test it out with , where I think it can potentially be even more useful. –Unint 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the two templates have fallen out of sync again. I'm wondering what else needs to be carried over. –Unint 22:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well spotted. It doesn't happen with the User:Jogers/Template:Album infobox. The only difference is that the template in my userspace doesn't use the  (what I think is better). Jogers (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly. Thanks. Jogers (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover caption parameter