Template talk:Infobox Single/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Reviews

what is the point in the "Professional Reviews" section for a single infobox. 99% of singles on Wiki do not have any - it just looks stupid! Deano 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Not 99%... Most singles do, in fact, have reviews. It's just that people do not expect so, and never bother to go to AMG to find one. Look at "Karma Police", or any other Radiohead singles I worked on. -- WB 06:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

What about standalone singles?

How do I remove the "From Album" line? I want to add the infobox to Rock Around the Clock and other singles from the 1950s that were originally issued as standalones. 23skidoo 04:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you either need a separate template, or make a table out of this then remove the "from album" line. (you can do this by putting subst: in front of "Template:<something>"." -- WB 05:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Both Recorded and From Album are now optional parameters. So just leave it empty. KittenKlub 15:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Reviews are optional as well. The argument above is not correct. I've tried looking for reviews and there are none in many cases. And AllMusic is oriented to the US. In general old singles and non-US singles do not have an online review anymore. KittenKlub 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't figure a nice way to hide the extra column without going into extremely difficult coding, a parameter NoReviews has been added to hide the "Professional Review" column. KittenKlub 16:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed that "NoReviews" requirement, while retaining Reviews as optional. If "Reviews" is blank or not defined, the header and the cell won't appear. -- Netoholic @ 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
But you can never put Reviews in the hiddenstructure. That is the issue. I saw the bug myself and if it is in there and there are reviews, they'll show three times two of which in the main document, because excess HTML is generated. So Reviews can never be used as a parameter, because it simply breaks pages with its HTML content. So if you don't want to use boolnot, I'll put in the code from boolnot. Nevertheless the only alternative is the #if define, but that's very complex and I don't like to experiment with that given the fact that there are 100s of pages using this template. KittenKlub 00:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Revised usage instructions

I have revised the usage instructions, but the change is very subtle: if you put in too many pipe "|" symbols, thus creating an empty parameter, you get an unsightly pair of quotes ("") appearing in the article, usually right at the top just above the introductory paragraph. I am busy trying to get to all the client articles to fix them, but if you have a copy of the blank template stashed away for quick cut/pasting, fix it now. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Noinclude in the template??

Was attempted to transclude the doc on this template like I did on Template:Infobox musical artist and it doesn't work quite right as the <noinclude> tags in the template itself mess up the formatting. It looks like an attempt to make the template generate an example when the page is viewed, which seems wasteful in a template that's transcluded in so many places. Is there another purpose? If there's no objections I'm going to removing those tags within the template. *Spark* 13:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes around name

Is there any reason a single's name is put in quotes as opposed to the Template:Infobox Album where it is not? And if this detail is up for discussion, I'd suggest to drop the quotes for the singles template. - Cyrus XIII 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

According to this, album titles are to be italiced, while single and song titles should be quoted. Both WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Songs "inherit" these recommendations. -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the heads-up. - Cyrus XIII 08:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cover display problem

Could somebody take a look at Don't Give Up (Chicane song) and see why the filename I provided as the infobox's "Cover" argument doesn't display, but works when used in {{Extra album cover 2}}? This is entirely beyond me, I'm afraid. –Unint 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now. It appears that (at least for that infobox section) you have to use the code for apostrophe, %27, for it to read correctly. Thus, "Chicane featuring Bryan Adams Don%27t Give Up single cover.jpg" works, where as "Chicane featuring Bryan Adams Don't Give Up single cover.jpg" doesn't. Not sure why. I've removed the second album cover from the bottom. -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

colour

can the background color be changed?? that yellow is really horrible Armando (talk|contribs) 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What would you suggest changing it to? Bearing in mind it cannot clash with any of the colours used by {{Infobox Album}}. DJR (T) 18:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have changed it to "khaki", remember that the colors of {{Infobox Album}} is about to change, so we might have to change it to something else later. →AzaToth 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Khaki looks much better than the previous bright yellow. The JPStalk to me 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I agree - much better. DJR (T) 17:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken template

So, which was the last version before the template broke? -- ReyBrujo 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, was trying to figure that out myself. Tons of articles screwed up now. -- eo 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried every revision back to may 21, and nothing worked... there must be an adational problem elsewhere--T-rex 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
appears to have now been fixed --T-rex 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There should be a purge link in the article, and probably an inlined example so that modifications to the template can be checked immediately for backwards compatibility. -- ReyBrujo 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Smaller prev and next singles

I propose that the next and previous singles on the bottom of the template be reduced in size using the method in the Album template. I believe it looks a little more elegant. Tertiary7 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on that one... Cheers, Ian Rose 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I just doesn't look good the way it is. --Kristbg 04:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --Mal 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This single

The "this single" field has vanished and been replaced by arrows (unconditionally). Not sure I approve of this style – it looks very odd having the current one missing in the sequence. It seems to be a commonly accepted convention in many parts of Wikipedia to show a sequence with the current item named in the middle. Anyway, regardless of the style argument, the display doesn't currently match the instructions. I'd put the field back in to match the instructions, but I'm not confident enough to implement the conditionality. --KJBracey 20:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put it back to the version before the arrow change and added the arrows and 3 changes since then by hand. There is so chance that a slight change has been reverted as well in the process, but you can easily put it back. KittenKlub 20:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Am I missing something... doesn't the entire infobox feature "this single". The redundancy of having "this single" in the chronology section is escaping me. I think it actually detracts, because with it in there, the entire infobox needs to be wider to accommodate it, which encroaches on the article space. -- Netoholic @ 23:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it just serves as a cue as to what the bottom of the info box represents. If you have a table showing "Last", "This", "Next", then it looks like a small window onto a full chronology list (and that's what the section title implies). But if "This" is missing, it just doesn't look right. I think "This" needs to be represented in a more concrete way between "Last" and "Next" than just a couple of arrows. Maybe if it could be combined in some way with the cover as the "This" representation?
I agree it can be a layout problem for an infobox. I've seen the "Last", "This", "Next" convention used in quite a lot of standard article footers and headers (for things like the previous/next holders of a political office). But there you've got more space to do it, as they can be full-width. --KJBracey 16:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I've only ever seen the "This" item on the Single and Album infoboxs. It's not "standard" any more than not having it is "standard". What is important to figure is whether it is desirable on this infobox. I think it is not desirable , and the small arrows fulfill the purpose just fine without the ugly redundancy of re-stating the title, release year, and cover image of the current Single. If readers need a visual clue as to the purpose of the Chronology (they dont, since you include the release year), then add headings which state "came before/came after" or similar. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
...so, what if you have a single/album that's released at the same time as another single/album by the same artist? --FuriousFreddy 14:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of having the "this single" field is to make it look like {{Album infobox}}. Besides, as a quick chronology, it's nice to have it all right there. —Locke Cole 14:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Then let's change the Album box as well. My above comments apply equally. -- Netoholic @ 17:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)