Template talk:Infobox Album

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Infobox Album is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.
For usage instructions, see Template:Infobox Album/doc.
Archive
Archives
  1. November 2004 – May 2006
  2. May 2006 – February 2007
  3. March 2007 – August 2007
  4. August 2007 – April 2008


Contents

[edit] Hiding the reviews

Could we maybe add a show/hide button to the reviews section, like with the "influences" section in Template:Infobox Writer. What do we think? Flowerparty☀ 00:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That could be nice. I hate when the infoboxes are longer than the actual articles, so it would work great in that situation, and also help make the infobox look neater. Grk1011 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be all for it. I never liked reviews in the infobox. -Freekee (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Me neither. They look sloppy and its not really encyclopedic since it depends on what type of music you like. Grk1011 (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Reviews are encyclopedic enough to be included in articles - critical reception is an important part of an album's history. I just don't think they qualify as the basic enough information, to be included up top. Also, I prefer having a little context with reviews. They're too abbreviated in the box. -Freekee (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, maybe its just that im jealous that I can't find reviews for the album pages I maintain, lol. Grk1011 (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like an excellent idea. Hidden by default, preferably. Perhaps set up similar to how {{Infobox Dotcom company}} does their screenshot (see YouTube). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as long at it is formatted correctly and looks like it fits. But, is it really needed at all in the infobox? Grk1011 (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think its fine for the infobox, since it fulfills the box's purpose of providing an overview of information...in this case, what established systems rate the album. No, it isn't really necessary, but then again, quite a bit of anything you find in infoboxes isn't really necessary. It is, however, occasionally convenient to the reader. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've been fiddling with this here. I'm trying to use Template:Collapsible list, but this makes the coloured bit around "Professional reviews" look too narrow. Anyone got any bright ideas? Flowerparty☀ 12:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried myself, and the best I can come up with is this. While the problem is partially solved by not setting "border" to 0 (rather, setting it to the same variable as "background"), this causes additional display problems, and I daresay yours looks better. I'm fairly convinced the problem actually lies either in the {{Collapsible list}} use of <div> tags, or deeper, in the class="NavFrame" set itself. I've tested enough to be reasonably sure that the problem is not on our side of the code (when using just the style tags and without <div> or class tags, it displays exactly as it should). It may be a problem that cannot be overcome by conventional means. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah. Good try. It looks like the problem is in having a table within a table. Apparently the borders of the inside table aren't the same as the borders of the outside table. I don't know if there's a way round this. Can we do it without using an internal table? Template:Infobox Actor has the same issues, but it's less noticeable since the coloured bits are further apart. Flowerparty☀ 20:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried not using the Collapsible list template, and coded the classes directly into the table, which did not work. It appears classes are reliant on using the div tag, and I don't know any other way to replicate the collapsible format. The only other way I can think of would be to not use coloured bits at all, but to simply have a transparent left-aligned "Professional reviews" header. It wouldn't look quite right, but any spacing issues would not be apparent due to no colour being used. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've put a word in at WP:VPT. Flowerparty☀ 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We're live! Looks good to me. I should credit CharlotteWebb for fixing the code. Let us know if there's any problems. Flowerparty☀ 23:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I find this "click to show" feature highly annoying and unnecessary. Why do reviews need to be hidden? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well i think seeing them is annoying. I'll be the judge of if i like an album or not, lol. Grk1011 (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering where all the reviews went--it took me a day to realise there was a '[show]' link. I came here to ask what was going on, because I don't see the point of it. It's just an obstacle between the reader and the information. 'I can't see this helping situations where the infobox is longer than the article--well-known albums with many reviews will (or should) always have articles longer than the infobox. I'd at least like to see them shown by default. — maestrosync talk — 06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This is really annoying, I gotta say. Since there's a 10 review limit, I don't really think this is necessary.–FunkyVoltron talk 10:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased with the [show] button; it's a good addition. Thom (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. I don't see a good reason for this barrier. —Zeagler (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please change it back; without the show/hide button. Such a decision affects thousands of articles across many Wikiprojects and cannot be made by consensus among a couple of editors. Besides, the change is rather contrary to the purpose of having an infobox; the whole point of including reviews--anything for that matter--in the infobox is that a reader can quickly gain important, objective (dates, ratings, names) information at a glance. Now how does hiding information make sense in any way?? Thank you indopug (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I liked having that sort of information easily visible. = ∫tc 5th Eye 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I third the sentiment. I'm not a regular contributor but I am a regular reviewer. There doesn't seem a good reason to hide this info. If anything, when people get worked up about infoboxes being bigger than articles, it should encourage them to expand the articles... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Often the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it," Mark Twain said. The thing is, these reviews really have no business being in the infobox in the first place. If they weren't included already, there's no way we'd agree to put them in. Try suggesting that film reviews should be listed in the film box, or book reviews in the novel infobox - it won't happen. (I've seen people arguing that film reviews are fundamentally different, but they're not.) Having the section there really just encourages a lot of links to allmusic and a few other sites without adding any meaningful information - "someone you've never heard of thinks this record is worth 3 stars out of five".. so? Anyway, we're not losing any information, this 'show' button is just a compromise to make things a little tidier, and to make the more relevant information easier to see. Of course we can revert if there's really a feeling that this is a bad change, but are the people complaining just against change all together? Flowerparty☀ 18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying has a lot of validity (and heck, i might even agree), but the fact is Template talk:Infobox Album is hardly a hot-spot for consensus-building and discussion. This is a major change and requires discussion first before implementation; so revert it asap, then inform as many music-related Wikiprojects etc of this proposal you have. Then we'll have formal discussion, and then implement the changes (if any) to the infobox. For now though, revert the nearly unilateral edit that has been made. indopug (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, at the time it was implemented, there were four people supporting it (including nom) and none opposing, so calling it unilateral is misleading. I do think its implementation was rushed, and perhaps should be reviewed, but I still don't think its a bad idea. I also don't think the information is technically being hidden...remember, everything in the infobox should, theoretically, be discussed elsewhere in the article. Doesn't always happen, especially for mundane things like running time, but still.... — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm not arguing whether or not its a good idea or not, what I'm saying is the proposal took place in an obscure corner of the Wiki-universe and hasn't been advertised AT ALL. So change it for now, initiate a discussion, and then, we'll see. indopug (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the show/hide default for reviews?

I suppose I can understand that some folks don't like to look at the review listings, or possibly other parts of articles that they read. Would it be a reasonable compromise to make the default to "show" the reviews and to then allow the end user to "hide" them? I would suppport this for a couple of reasons. First, many readers might not realize that the reviews are present. It seems to me that the show/hide feature is typically used in footers to hide the entire content of templates. It is not typically used to hide parts of an infobox. As another has noted above, it adds a barrier between the reader and information that others have taken care to add to the article. Second, the reviews section is not solely for external links. I often reference reviews with citations to footnotes in the article's "References" section (in fact this is the only good way to do it if the review appeared in print media). Now that the content is hidden it is not possible to backtrack from the reference to the citation hidden in the infobox. Thus we are losing one of the features that allow readers to navigate the article. -MrFizyx (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the infobox is a brief overview of the album. It lists important facts such as release dates, the cover, the artist's chronology, etc. The reviews are basically someones point of view which is not really a fact. How does it help to know that some random person liked or disliked the album? I don't understand how it even got into the infobox in the first place considering that certifications are not there which actually show if people liked and bought the album. I say keep it hidden. Grk1011 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I get that you don't like having the information there. The information is there. It probably will remain there. Hiding it creates problems. -MrFizyx (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you make a good point about the backlinks. Alright, I've reverted for now. I don't see the point in having it default to 'show' - might as well just not have it in that case. Flowerparty☀ 08:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. That said, I have no (personal) issue with the change (I was alerted to this discussion by indopug, who is against it), but I don't think that going flat out against the wishes of some highly constructive editors is a good idea. So yes, support this. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though I had something to do with creating the new template code I'm not sure this change is necessary (except maybe as an option when there are a dozen-odd reviews), but I could really care less either way. Still an appropriate application of bold editing in any case, hardly worth panicking about. — CharlotteWebb 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mix

Might I suggest two additional fields? Specifically for where an album was mixed and by whom, as there are already fields dealing with noting the recording studio ("Recorded") and the producer ("Producer"). Why not have a field below "Recorded" called "Mixed" and a field below "Producer" called "Mixer"? Thom (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these really necessary for an infobox? I think this would be more appropriately handled in prose. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If necessity is the issue, then perhaps all recording information (Recorded, Producer, Mixed, Mixer) could be documented within the article? Thom (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think covering all these things in the article or listing them in the "credits" section of the article is a good idea. The infobox should summarize the most important points. The producer of an album is a much higher profile person than whoever, engineered, mixed, or mastered the album and is thus more worthy of inclusion in the summary. -MrFizyx (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Release Format: shouldn't this be in the infobox?

How come that one very basic information, the media format of the album (CD, LP, shellac, CD-R, Cassette...) isn't appearing in the infobox template? Irina666 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)