Template talk:Infobox album

Singles from deluxe issues not being counted as singles from the album is cherry picking.

If singles from deluxe edition re-issues should not be included as a single from their respective album then no bonus tracks should, like “Ours” by Taylor Swift, it is a bonus track on the deluxe edition of Speak Now and yet is included in the single section of the infobox. You cannot just cherry pick and pick and chose like that so that rule needs to be removed from the WP:Infobox album#Single section as it needs to apply to all deluxe edition bonus tracks or none at all. No picking and choosing. 2600:1015:B127:726B:C8A1:8DE1:197C:DBD0 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Would also like to add how WP:BIASED is a joke as the fact that a song cannot be considered a single from an album just because it is a reissue is biased editing in and of itself, especially if the artists’ are considering the song a single from the album and most people with logical and common sense thinking would also think the same thing that if the song is released and appears on the album, reissue or not, then it is a single from said album.

“Ours” was not released from a reissue. Simply from a deluxe that was released the same day as the standard version of the album. A reissue is when the artist releases a new version of the album at some point in the future from when the first version was released. That’s the difference. 2601:48:8100:5A60:70BB:A90B:21CA:84B9 (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Extra Chronology

It is now recommended that additional chronologies be used "for split albums, collaborative albums, and series of albums". However, for many artists such as Taylor Swift and Garth Brooks, releases like live albums or box sets are so common that it is hard to jump from the page of one studio album to the page of another. In fact, "studio album chronology" edits are quite not uncommon (e.g. see pages of Sonic Youth's studio albums). Moreover, it seems that additional chronologies are especially fit for many rappers' mixtape series (e.g. Young Thug and Lil Wayne), while in practice such practices are rarely seen. Maybe we can offer a better guidance on this issue here. Jason211pacem (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus during an RfC is "to use a single chronology encompassing all album types. In case of collaborative album, a single chronology is applied for each artists involved." So, separate chronos for studio, live, compilations, box sets, etc., should not be used, with an exception for collaborations. A navbox at the bottom of the article would be a better solution if an artist's album history is particularly complicated. Loading up infoboxes with a lot of details unrelated to the actual album article content is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Is that what's going on with edits like this? Not a fan of that. Either have the chronology strictly for studio albums (like it was around a decade ago) or every album type. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for detailed info. Put the "studio album chronology" issue aside, I'm still a little confused about what constitutes "series of albums". Personally I find it a bit redundant to make a separate chrono for, say, Sonic Youth's SYR series or Lil Wayne's tha Carter series. But I guess such a practice would be appropriate for the following examples (if they're made into separate articles): B.o.B.'s Elements (as a compilation of four mixtapes), Jessie J's R.O.S.E. (constituted of four separate parts) and Denzel Curry's Ta13oo (constituted of three sections). Jason211pacem (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The wording "series of albums" appears in the first template guidance that was added in 2007[1] and there doesn't seem to be any further explanation or discussion. If identifying the series is really needed, a navbox is the better solution IMO, as was also done for the "SYR series" in Template:Sonic Youth. Otherwise, it might need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, i.e., something for discussion on the article or artist talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think an all encomppassing chronology makes sense when so many artists have a lot of non-notable compilation, live, etc. albums that don't have articles and so break the chronology chain. At least, the requirement should be that an article exists for the album. --Mika1h (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not but it was a comprehensive discussion that ended with "one single chronology". The chronology is about information not navigation. Having a link/page has never been a requirement. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting tweak that will affect what ends up in Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover

Greetings, see this edit made to the infobox album sandbox. Would like to make this change to this infox. Currently, any usage of the infox without an entry in the "cover" field places the page in Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover, which currently contains over 12,000 pages. Many of these pages are for movies, video games, or TV shows with a subsection for their soundtrack album. Adding a cover image into these secondary infoboxes does not meet the fair use policy. So what we currently have is a category cluttered up with thousands of pages that appropriately do not have a cover image. This requested edit would only include pages with infobox album in the lead section, making the category much easier to maintain. J04n(talk page) 23:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I believe that this change does not work with redirects, such as {{Album infobox}} or {{Infobox EP}}, but if you replace the redirect with the canonical template, the categorization should work properly. It may take a day or more for the category population to adjust. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Spectacular! I am so appreciative, thank you. J04n(talk page) 23:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the category has cleared out all but 1,560 legitimate entries. I checked about 20 of the remaining articles and they all appear to be actual album articles that are missing cover art. Let me know if you see any false positives. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Labels from countries

@Zmbro, can you explain for these?([2][3]) Also there's another discussions at Talk:The_Storm_Before_the_Calm#Euro_label, you can make any comment below. ​​​​ 2402:1980:82B1:74F9:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As QuietHere said over there, per Template:Infobox_album#label "it says "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified." "Originally" in this case is referring to release date, not nationality, and from everything I've seen the release was day-and-date simultaneous in all territories." There were more than four labels in the linked cases, and they were all released simultaneously, therefore they all belong there. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

But also says "record label should be mentioned in the article, for example in a Release history section (in different countries in this case)." For example: Ellie Goulding albums were released by Polydor in the UK and Interscope in the U.S., then @SnapSnap prefers Polydor as the main label. ([4][5][6]) 2001:D08:2950:669B:17B0:DC3A:526A:7BAF (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing links

I noticed that this album infobox seems to be the only one to have some parameters be linked, compared to the person infobox, film infobox, TV infobox, or even something like ship career infobox. The links are:

• "Genre" linking to music genre
• "Label" linking to record label
• "Producer" linking to record producer

Looking at the article Nirvana (band), the above links never appear in the article body, so I wonder if the linked parameters are vestigial and a little unnecessary if they aren't used in articles. I would like to suggest that we do not need to have these links for the parameters since they are instances of too much generalistic linking. The other infoboxes do not have such links for their parameters. Any objection to removal? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep I think they're all valid and could be informative to readers. If the text is going to appear anyway, why not give a link to what exactly a record producer is? I think a lot of us don't have very good personal definitions of a term like that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I also think that the links are useful, since the terms are specific to the business. I see them as similar to the area-specific links in {{Infobox train}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

television season articles and this template, a new error

Since television season articles have now been moved and they've lost their disambiguation, there are now possible display title clashes between {{Infobox television season}} and this template. To fix this, editors should use |italic_title=no on this template. Another possible more general fix is to place the italic code inside Module:Is infobox in lead so only when this template is the lead template it should handle italicization of the article title. Gonnym (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)