Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:00, 21 January 2015

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.

Albums Template‑class

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 Template This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Example image

Instead of Nevermind as an example image, wouldn't a light coloured album help indicate the fact the the image will automatically have a border added to it? - X201 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Album licensing

It'd be great if we could list the licensing for albums. e.g. Public domain, Creative commons, artistic work, etc. Any thoughts? Corevette (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like something that might only appeal to a niche audience, similar to listing pressing details of every single album's release (like this, for example). I'm not sure it has much wide-spread appeal, unless it's a notable example that could be elaborated on like Nine Inch Nails' The Slip. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Fezmar9. I have more than 5000 albums in my collection and not one is anything other than a full copyright. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-release singles

I'm just wondering why in the Template:Singles section it says "Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album." I've seen a few articles where this is the case, and I'm not sure what the issue with doing so is. I find the infobox becomes quite lacking of information if the re-release singles are not included. Usfun8991 06:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Studio/venue parameter link

Shouldn't it be linked to recording studio and music venue same as "Genre", "Label", "Producer", etc.? Also "Producer" to "Producer(s)" as was deemed suitable for the single infobox?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, quite often, an album will be recorded at multiple studios, so maybe that ought to be pluralized as well...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Executive producers" parameter re-proposal

There has been plenty of discussion in the past regarding how to treat the existing "Producers" parameter in situations where there are several (10+) producers credited on a given record. There has been talk of perhaps just listing executive producers in the template for these instances, although some editors expressed concern with issues with older albums where no executive producers were assigned, and instead just featured many general producers. I've been doing some work on The Pinkprint recently, and like I Am Not a Human Being II (which prompted the original discussion if I remember correctly?), there are so many producers listed it makes the infobox almost too large for comfortable navigation. If it is overwhelming on my large laptop screen, imagine how busy this would look on a mobile device. My suggestion is that an "Executive producers" parameter is introduced to substitute the existing "Producers" field when applicable. If there are executive producers specifically listed on any given album, these individuals would be recognized with the new field, and if not, then all of the general producers would be listed in the original parameter. Neither of these templates would be used alongside each other, and would instead be used one over the other. I would find this particularly helpful with present-day pop and hip hop music; artists usually collaborate with multiple unique producers on each song and when this number is multiplied by at least ten songs per record, it would be much more concise to just list the few executive producers that are usually recognized as the most important, or so the back sleeve of a physical album would suggest. Any thoughts? WikiRedactor (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Executive producers are not the same as producers. We should have a separate parameter for them. If there that many producers, they are likely producers of the songs rather than of the album. Since this is the album's infobox, we shouldn't list any of them in the infobox and only list them next to the songs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Idea: If there are more than <some_small_number> producers listed, maybe have the producer section collapsed, with a click-to-view? Alsee (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't hide content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think adding another parameter for the executive producer(s) of an album, while would be resourceful, may cause unrequited fancruft editing. Also, the way they are listed on I Am Not a Human Being II should not be used. It clutters the infobox, which are meant to provide an over-view of material. If people want specific information, they should look within the article and see that the information is outlined (hopefully). I do, however, agree with Walter Görlitz that only an album's producers should be included, not specific producers for each and every single song produced for an album (if that is what they meant in their statement). Most albums have a surplus of producers and can cause an over-fill of information within an infobox; maybe executive producers are the only ones who should be listed, period? livelikemusic 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: I would support replacing producers with executive producers in the infobox. By the general nature of the position, executive producers pertain more to the record as an entire unit; it would seem as though producers has just become a field in the infobox to list every producer that has dipped their toes in the project. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You have confused modern pop production with album production. Most albums are still produced by only a few people. Modern pop albums have production on a song-by-song basis and are an anomaly. I will never agree to removing producers for executive producers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

All the more reason to add an executive producers field for situations where this would be most useful, and leaving the producers parameter for circumstances where it is applicable. They would both have their own unique purposes that would be useful in different scenarios. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• If the number of producers is too large to comfortably list, why not leave a note to see the appropriate section in the article's body? This is sometimes done in film articles. You don't have to compulsively list every last bit of information in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would support this. Many modern albums, particularly in the pop and hip hop genres, have become a game of "let's fit as many hitmakers on one record as possible". Often times, this results in an excessive laundry list of anyone who had any involvement on any song (see Britney Jean), rather than who has primary oversight over the overall sound of the album. Sometimes, executive producers are even credited as "album producers" where the individual songs saw many different producers (I want to say I've seen this crediting on the back cover of My Love Is Your Love).
  
  I would suggest, however, only doing this on a case-by-case basis unique to each album. On albums with one producer, or a reasonably small list of individual song producers, go ahead and list everyone out. In instances such as The Pinkprint or Britney Jean, it may be more helpful to just list executive producers, or omit the field entirely. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly. As the sentiment made by Chase, a lot of times, artists gather "hitmakers" for their album, which can cause clutter in an infobox, which is meant to house and over-all review of information. I would say either list the executors of the album, or whatever the album sleeve, and / or metadata lists as the album's producers. As in the case of The Pinkprint, there is much an overload of information. Or simply omit the entry. livelikemusic 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Take a look at Britney Jean and I Am Not a Human Being II; I've set it up so that just the executive producers have been listed in the infobox, while including an italicized link to "Credits and personnel" to direct readers to the longer list. How does this format look to you all? WikiRedactor (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I would italicize it. It could work, but something about it does seem off, and I can't put my finger on what it is. livelikemusic 01:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I do see what you're saying; part of me is wondering if it seems off just because it's different from what we've done for so long? I'm not quite sure though. I've rolled it out Bangerz and Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded – The Re-Up just so we can see how it looks on a couple other articles for a sample. WikiRedactor (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Template-Class Album pages
• WikiProject Albums articles