Template talk:Infobox album

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox album template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 30 days

Template:Infobox album is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Infoboxes

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes

Albums

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Artwork parameter

The cover artist would be appreciated Lettres (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky thing about infoboxes: they can really spiral out of control quickly (e.g. look at most cricket players that have wildly detailed statistics). If we include the cover artist, what about conductors, arrangers, engineers, mixers, masterers? Slippery slope arguments are generally weak, so I won't rely just on that, but rest assured that lots of pretty tertiary parameters would be added. Ultimately, I think that if you're looking for an overview of the most basic facts about an album, the cover artist is rarely one of them and is something that would be covered in the text of the article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cover artist is probably the most missed parameter, see "search archive" on top. It is equal to that of the director and also groundbreaking for an era. Lettres (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caption field seems to handle this fine. See Atomic Playboys. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Lettres (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the chronology header parameter, header13, please replace {{#invoke:String2 | ucfirst |{{{artist|}}}}} with {{{artist|}}} as none of the other instances of the artist name being displayed force an uppercase letter, causing artists with lower-case initial letters such as t.A.T.u. to be rendered correctly in all of the template except in the chronology header. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed – see an example at Dangerous and Moving. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology parameter not properly capitalizing first letter of artist name

The documentation states that when the |chronology= parameter is left blank, the first letter of the artist name is automatically capitalized in the chronology header, so that artists whose names start with the word "the" have proper capitalization throughout the infobox. However, this does not appear to be working properly. I've added the parameter with no value, and in my edit preview, I still see the chronology header using the exact same value as the |artist= parameter, without the first letter being capitalized. Does anyone know why this is occurring? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to report the same problem. Popcornfud (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem at Cutouts (an album) but not Bitter Sweet Symphony (a single). I guess it doesn't appear to be affecting the song infobox? Popcornfud (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is due to the above good-faith edit by Paine Ellsworth. It appears that UltrasonicMadness may have missed the bit in the documentation about using the |chronology= parameter for unusual artist names. I think that the above edit should be reverted; I could be wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Jonesey, so I've self-reverted. To editor UltrasonicMadness: to lc the first letter of an artist's or group's name, see the "chronology" subsection in the Advanced usage section of the documentation. Also, you can see the difference in the infobox at Dangerous and Moving, which now uses that |chronology= parameter. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that - I was sure I had a good look through the documentation and the source code before requesting that edit. I will be more thorough about this in the future. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple chronology usage

A long time ago I remember the guideline being that only studio albums should be included in the default chronology field. Should that, then, give rise to a separate chronology for all albums? It looks a bit crowded to me. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2020 discussion yielded a consensus to "use a single chronology encompassing all album types" (my emphasis). It allowed for an exception in the case of collaborative albums, where "a single chronology is applied for each [of the] artists involved".

Separate chronologies are also sometime used for releases from decades ago, when they were different across markets (see Sgt. Pepper). I do not see any reason to change from that way of doing it. Tkbrett (✉) 19:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we make promotional singles section?

Not only singles from the album, but also promotional singles too! for example, "Promotional singles from (album name)" and 1. 2. 3. •• etc. How's y'all think?

Promotional singles are different from original tracks, even though it would be treated less important than regular singles. Camilasdandelions (talk me) 04:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

160

A modification was done somewhere and now all the "this_year" say 160. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have fixed this problem. Affected pages may need a null edit. If a page is still having problems, please link to it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Healed. I started a discussion at VPT but if you think you have it sorted I'll revert for now. Primefac (talk)

Ping to Gonnym who seems to have caused this to happen. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the problem is indeed caused by Gonnym. For example, June 4, 2010 is now displayed as June 04, 2010 (based on Bionic (Christina Aguilera album)). Regards, Nature Moon (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]