Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 6

Review
Albums says articles should now have a section dedicated to critical comments, and use Album ratings to give scores. The documentation for this template says that "professional reviews should no longer be included in the infobox". Can we, therefore, phase out the use of this parameter, so that all album articles use the proper style?


 * 1) Add a warning to all articles that still use the  parameter, and create a hidden category for them.
 * 2) Once the number of articles in the category is down, disable the  parameter.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What kind of warning? Like a template warning, or just a hidden cat? Otherwise I completely support. BOVINEBOY 2008 05:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I support this too. We decided to phase out the reviews field 9 months ago...time to cut it. The bot we were using to migrate the reviews stopped working; if a talk page notice & a hidden category can create a worklist for us, we can get a few dedicated editors together to clean up the rest manually. Then we can chop the field. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I am entirely in favor of a hidden category and have suggested as much myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. It has been a really long time since the bot was active. I envision a warning in small print inside the infobox linking to album ratings and/or WP:ALBUMS. The count of articles that still use the "Reviews" field is well within the tens of thousands. Linking to documentation on what to do, how to do it and why would ease up on the workload from Wikiproject Albums. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So what's the next step in getting this action in motion? Fezmar9 (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To get an admin to add a hidden category to the template if the Review parameter is used. I don't know what sort of code is needed to do this, though... Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a category put in for this; see Category:Infobox album with reviews. PC78 (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold on and keep it. Regardless of what was decided at WP:Albums I would like to raise an objection to removing this parameter. As with anything mentioned in an infobox, the reviews parameter does not and was never meant to replace anything written in full text but any infobox rather sums up the article text with key figures and statistics. Having multiple reviews in an article in prose text makes it mandatory in my opinion to reflect them in the infobox. And that works well as it used to be. I for one see absolutely no need to remove this parameter from the infobox point of view and I am strictly against deleting it. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus was rather strongly in support of moving ratings out of the infobox and into Album ratings. It's unlikely that we'll be backpedalling on this. It was a sound proposal with a lot of strong reasoning and a solid consensus. Summing up critical reception with figures & statistics is not what an infobox is supposed to do (see WP:IBX). This is nuanced information that belongs in the article body. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What the box does sum up is the rating like five stars or 4/10 which is a statistical and informative part of the review. So I say we should at least rename the parameter to "rating" and the section heading in the infobox to "Professional ratings" and keep the concept. It is beneficial after all and Album ratings opens up a seperate box which only clutters the article. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Templates Album Infobox is normative and Album ratings isn't. If an article is cluttered by having the two, then you can simply remove Album ratings and use prose. I didn't weigh in on the discussion about removing  and I lean toward keeping it, but as IllaZilla pointed out above, there was a broad and thorough consensus on this matter. That decision could be reversed, but it's not likely. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is the point: by removing Album ratings from a "double-box" article you would loose a quick-look presentation of key facts (i.e. ratings) the infobox is supposed to provide. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ratings are not "key facts" about an album, they are opinions of reviewers who have weighed in on the album. The "key facts" are things like length, record label, recording date/location, etc. Facts about the album itself, not the opinions of reviewers. There is no other infobox on a creative work (films, books, works of art, video games, etc.) that includes ratings. The infobox is supposed to provide at-a-glance facts that tell the reader "what is this thing?", not "what was its impact?" or "how was it critically received?". You would not lose this information by removing the ratings template from an article, because of course nothing stops you from mentioning it in prose. I have worked on many articles where I only had access to 1 or 2 reviews, so instead of using the ratings template I simply state the ratings in the prose: "so-and-so of Allmusic gave the album 3 out of 5 stars, remarking that it 'blah blah blah...', while so-and-so of Rolling Stone rated it seven points out of ten and commented 'blah blah... Use of the ratings template is only really necessary when there are more than a few ratings to display. If you've got an article so short that the ratings template clashes with the infobox, well then that article needs some serious expansion. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Italic titles?
Did something happen to the italic titles of album articles, as recently implemented by the Infobox Album template? The article titles seem not to be italicized now. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was disabled, see above. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A working example?
It would be very useful if a working example was put in place (as seen on Template:Infobox_film) instead of a generic image, and dummy data. What do you think? - Niri.M 05:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niri.M (talk • contribs)
 * I don't really see the point. Anyway, you would need to find an album cover that is free (ie not copyrighted). Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Cover art
I'm surprised you don't have a space for listing the cover artist, ie the person or agency responsible for the album cover art. while most are not notable, some are, such as michael jacksons forthcoming Michael (album), which is by notable artist Kadir Nelson.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the archives you will find this discussion from May 2009 with an overwhelming consensus not to add the cover artwork artist to the infobox. The outcome was that it should be covered in the article body, and potentially a category like Albums with cover art by Hipgnosis. – Ib Leo (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Italic title -- Edit request to protected template
Per discussion at WikiProject Albums.

Please replace template contents with contents of [|the sandbox version prepared]. PL290 (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've simplified the code a little, but the effect should be the same; code is in the current sandbox. Though I'm not entirely sure why the feature needs to be disabled outside articlespace. PC78 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disabled the edit request for now. With respect to the recent change in policy, there are some technical considerations with regard to italic title. Titles of more than 50 characters will not be italicized (e.g. How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today) and any instances where part of the album name is in parenthesis (e.g. Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)) will give undesirable results. This will require some more thought befor implementation. PC78 (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those very few exceptions can be fixed manually, can't they? It will work seamlessly for 99.9% of titles, which is good enough to implement. —Gendralman (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite More than 0.1% of album articles have a parenthetical disambiguator. I'm sure this can be easily fixed, but it should be though out thoroughly first. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Italic title, titles with brackets are italicised, but the brackets are not. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The italictitle template has a  parameter which overrides the brackets and 50-character limit, so include an optional hook in this template for that same parameter (but call it   or something). —Gendralman (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've recoded this in the sandbox. no will disable italics, force will force full italics for the whole title (this would take care of the two examples I posted above). For anything more complex, the simplest answer may be to use no and use the DISPLAYTITLE magic word instead. PC78 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, looks good. I've reactivated the edit request. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I understand how no and force would be used as parameters for the enhanced Infobox album, but could someone give an example of how to use DISPLAYTITLE to set the italics in a more complicated situation? "P.S." I'm changing the title of this talk page section to be more descriptive. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:DISPLAYTITLE. I've also experimented at User:Adabow/Sandbox (2). Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only applicable example I can think of is Back It Up!! (Live) (album) (and even that's not ideal because it's probably going to get moved to something more suitable, but still...), where you want "(Live)" to be italicised (because it's part of the title) but not "(album)". In that case you would need to put  at the top of the article. PC78 (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've used the proposed code to create italic title infobox, so using should have the same effect. Hopefully this will facilitate the modification of other infoboxes to do what we're doing here. PC78 (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment at Template talk:Italic title infobox. I'm not sure we need another template, but I might be missing something. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin, looks good. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: if  is set to   then the title of the infobox should probably also be unitalicized:

should be

unless people have a different idea. —Gendralman (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that will necessarily be the case. If italics are undesirable within the infobox for whatever reason you can always just use noitalic. PC78 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Undesirable outcome See Love Will Tear Us Apart; this article is about the song/single by Joy Division, but it was also released as an EP by Swans, so the article uses this template and it makes the title italicized. There will be occasional instances like this; how should they be handled? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Set no, since the article is primarily about the song. I've had to do this in a few cases where the infobox was being used in a band article. PC78 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please have a look at H2O (Hall & Oates album) and figure out why the title is not in italic, and especially how to fix it. My guess is that it is related to the use of DISPLAYTITLE to subscript the "2" in the title. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done I simply amended the DISPLAYTITLE. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but this workaround I could easily have done myself. I reported it here in case someone wanted to look deeper into the root cause to figure out if there is a way to get it done automatically by the infobox. – Ib Leo (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Magic words According to Help:Magic words, DISPLAYTITLEs cascade, so that the last one is the one that displays. This is odd, since DISPLAYTITLE with the subscript came first and then the infobox, which would imply that the title would render "H20 (Hall & Oates album)", but it clearly didn't. Hardly an answer, but something worth knowing, I guess. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, this conflicts with lowercase, particularly when it comes to iTunes Live exclusives. And if it just so happens the title is longer than 50 characters, it cancels out lowercase completely and the page title isn't italicized.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also as a shout out, if you have an article that contains multiple instances of this template, the "| Italic title= no" must be added to all of them. I assume it's because later boxes know nothing about prior ones that skipped the italicizing.

As a side note, this change mucks up a whole lot of discography articles. Thanks guys! -- Pres N  23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Should this infobox be used in discography articles? PC78 (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure This isn't the infobox for the discography itself; e.g. Discography of the Resident Evil film series, One Tree Hill discography, Cirque du Soleil discography, Rozen Maiden discography. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Urgh, I dislike the use of multiple infoboxes in this manner. But just use no. PC78 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if there were consensus for this use (which is clearly disputed), it's not yet implemented correctly.  Commented out.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The minimum change in the template that would prevent side-effects, as noted above, would be for two infoboxes to set a red flag for the article unless they all have the same, explicit, "Italic title = force/yes" or "Italic title = no". Better would be for it not to activate unless they all have "Italic title = force/yes" explicitly, but that may be impossible.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can an infobox detect the presence of another in the manner you suggest? PC78 (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. However, it should be possible for a cleanup template at the bottom of an article to detect whether two infoboxes are inconsistent, with proper tagging, and for a bot to attach the cleanup template to all articles with Infobox album present.  If not, then we would need a bot to flag these, and it would need to run more often than I would like, to be useful.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand how this cleanup template would be implemented; in any case, it all sounds rather convoluted. The alternative to doing this via the infobox is to manually add italic title or DISPLAYTITLE to tens of thousands of articles, which is no small task. Hooking it onto the infobox may be imperfect and not without it's own share of cleanup, but my understanding from what's been said above is that this is perceived as the lesser of two evils. It will work for the vast majority of articles using the infobox. PC78 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It will work for the majority (I wouldn't say vast majority &mdash; how many albums have improper characterization or special characters?) of articles, but it's difficult to track down the failure mode when it does fail. I think I would accept the change if Infobox album were only used explicitly once per article, and a bot were written to rename Infobox album to Infobox album multiple where there is more than one; Infobox album multiple calling Infobox album, but explictly disabling any MAGICWORDS affecting the display of the entire article.
 * There's still not a consensus it should be done, but that change would clearly be appropriate to discuss and implement here, rather than requiring more discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article name. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Reimplement?
Wish the article titles weren't italicized in the first place. So unnecessary. Is it consensus to have them or not? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a big fan of this change either, as I don't think it adds any value whatsoever. However it seems that it is here to stay, WP:ITALICTITLE (which is a policy) is pretty clear about it. I also note that the change italic titles have been successfully implemented in both Infobox film (this template edit) and Infobox book (this template edit) while we still have achieved nothing. Furthermore, I have noticed that one editor has recently started adding Italic title to articles on my watch list, one by one. This is hardly the best way of implementing a change to 120.000+ articles. In other words, we are probably in a situation today where 1% of our articles comply to the policy while the remaining 99% don't. I would propose to reinstate the implementation that was already attempted as it seems to work fine for other projects and would achieve a 99% compliance, if not more. Regarding the articles mentioned above (Discography of the Resident Evil film series, One Tree Hill discography, Cirque du Soleil discography, Rozen Maiden discography), one can note that they do not comply with the style layout for discographies recommended by WP:DISCOGS. Actually, in my eyes they are nothing more than a concatenation of album articles that are not notably enough to qualify for an article of their own; in consequence, using the album infobox in such articles is a misuse and I don't think it should not hold us back from implementing this change. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I will reactivate the edit request. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also support reinstating italic titles to this infobox. The dispute (such as it was) over the change in policy never amounted to anything, and while it may not be perfect, this is still the best way to implement it. PC78 (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the discussion of WP:ITALICTITLE, which terminated in September, did not indicate a consensus for the change to indicate that article titles should be italicized if the words would be italicized in running text. There hasn't been any further discussion there, so WP:ITALICTITLE should be reverted to the status quo ante.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, fact is that the policy was updated and the related discussion has not moved since 28 October, so two weeks ago. This is the reality we as a project has to deal with right now and I don't see how we can react differently. – Ib Leo (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reimplemented. Mr Rubin, you are going to have to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Article titles if you want to try to change the policy. Reverting here in the face of consensus otherwise is not very helpful. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin. – Ib Leo (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(Over)Linking to languages
Todays edit of the template documentation quotes WP:OVERLINKING. It brings us to a situation where the example is inconsistent with the documentation of the language parameter. Is it clear to anyone what languages should be linked? English obviously shouldn't, but should French? And what about Danish, Lithuanian, Mandarin or Swahili? Sorry, but it's not clear to me. – Ib Leo (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Chronology
I have a problem with the instructions for the Chronology fields. Why are we encouraging the creation of multiple chains (studio/live/compilation/etc.)? IMO the idea of a chronology is to present a chronological order of an artist's releases; creating multiple chains fractures this chronology and presents a distorted view of history for, as far as I can see, no particular reason other than a general attitude that studio albums are the most important. Thus there are well-meaning but misguided editors going across families of articles using the "chronology" parameter to create " studio albums" and " non-studio albums" banners and splitting off multiple chronology chains for artists that have only 1 or 2 non-studio releases. A chronology that incorporates only 1 particular type of release (studio albums) is not truly a chronology IMO. I also don't think it's particularly necessary, since we already have type-separated lists in the form of navboxes and discographies. Cannot the chronology simply be 1 uninterrupted chain? I think that would be the best service to readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The chronology field should be for all album releases. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think EPs should be included too, since this infobox covers those as well. Singles have a separate infobox and thus a separate chain makes sense. In practice I've always done it this way (and almost always seen it done this way). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. There is no logical reason why there should be various chronologies for different types of releases. I was going to argue that bands with large discographies should perhaps have separate chronologies, but now I think it's even more important that they have a single, linear chronology to simplify their release history. As IllaZilla says, the chronology is simply intended to ease navigation. It doesn't exactly help if the actual previous or last release isn't linked on a particular chronology, because it is a different type of release. My only thoughts would be to perhaps limit the chronology to include only physical mainstream releases - no demos, no digital exclusives (without good reason), no bootlegs (there shouldn't be articles on these anyway) but EPs, live albums, studio albums, official compilations etc should all go together. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I did some digging to investigate where the current instruction originated & what the thinking was behind it. As far as I can tell the "studio albums as their own chain" instruction has been in place since the documentation subpage was created in 2006. The wording has been tweaked over the years, of course, but the basic instruction's always been there. I found some previous discussions at these links:      . These seem to have resulted in some compromises, but I don't actually see much in the way of consensus on the wording of the documentation. One subject I haven't seen addressed, and which I think really is the heart of the matter, is that a chronology is different from a discography. Discographies can be organized in a variety of ways, and the standard here has been to separate different types of releases (studio albums, live albums, comp albums, EPs, etc.), but a chronology is a timeline, and (to me, at least) implies a single chain of chronological events. If you were writing an artist's history (in prose), you'd mention each release in the order that they happened, regardless of type...you wouldn't write separate histories for each type of release. To me it's a weird, fractured way of (mis)representing history. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with what everyone else here has said, and for the stated reasons. There should be a single chronology chain for each artist, incorporating all of their albums. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Me as well This creates a bigger headache than a help, so integrating all albums and EPs into one chronology is helpful. We can still maintain a second chronology for (e.g.) video albums below the main chronology using the  field. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to add my voice to the chorus, I've always been in favour of a single album chonology for artists, encompassing all their live, studio, and compilation albums. I can sort of see the rational behind spliting the chronology up if an artist or band has a career spanning decades and has enough of each type of album to warrant seperate chronologies. But by and large, I think that most acts would benefit from a single album chronology. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of good debate, I feel that someone here should represent the opposing point of view. I think that in all forms of media, an underlaying canon is recognized within a grouping of media that selects the "more important releases." All groupings of media have "other releases" that don't have any bearing on the "main releases." In the Star Wars franchise, the main canon would be the six feature films. Where does Revenge of the Sith fit into the Star Wars chronology? It's pretty much universally accepted that it fits between Attack of the Clones and A New Hope. However, this completely ignores the Clone Wars spin-off that fits both into the fictional and release chronology. Another example would be in the James Bond franchise. It is widely accepted that there are 22 Bond films, however this figure does not include the 1983 Sean Connery Bond film Never Say Never Again. The chronology for James Bond films today is recognized as Octopussy → A View to a Kill, and not Octopussy → Never Say Never Again → A View to a Kill.

In the music realm, artists too will release media that has little to no bearing on the band's overarching history. For example, the widely accepted chronology for Disturbed goes Indestructible → Asylum, which ignores the Live & Indestructible EP and Indestructible in Germany DVD that were released between the two aforementioned studio albums. While no one is disagreeing that these other releases exist, especially on the artist's article, the navbox and discography, they are really too minor to be considered part Disturbed's chronology. The Slayer cannon of releases is considered to be God Hates Us All → Christ Illusion, and this ignores the Eternal Pyre EP. In the music realm, the main canon is generally considered to be the artist's releases of newly recorded material that saw a wide release; whether that's a studio album, an EP, a stand-alone single, a greatest hits with new tracks on it, etc.. It really depends on the artist in question. I believe this feeling of selecting the "important" releases is where the idea of only displaying the studio albums originates from, as these albums are generally where newly recorded material can be found.

To sum up my thoughts here: I agree that there should not be multiple chains (does an EP chronology really mean anything?), I agree that the chain should include more than studio albums, but I disagree that all releases should be lumped into a continuous chain for the reasons I have provided. There are some releases that may meet the GNG, but they really don't have much of an impact on the artist's history. IMO these types of releases should just not have the chronology field period in their infobox, and they should also be left out of the chain. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that a chronology is a timeline, and therefore "notability" or "what is most important" or "what has more primacy in the canon" has no relevance. A chronolgy is a timeline of events, or in this case a timeline of releases, and all releases, regardless of what is most significant to the artist's overarching history, are part of that timeline. History should be dispassionate. If a release is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, I see no reason to leave it out of the chronology chain, and believe that doing so is a disservice to our readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So far there seems to be a lot of agreement that a single chronology chain is best. But, I suppose it's possible that there could be some musical artists who are better served by having more than one chronology.  Perhaps any new guideline should mention that exceptions to the rule are allowed, if that somehow makes more sense for a particular discography. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Mudwater on this; there may be instances when a particularly long-lived band with a large number of each type of album would benefit from having separate chronologies—although I really can't think of one off of the top of my head. Even acts with a large number of studio and live albums (see the Grateful Dead discography) would benefit from having a single chronology chain, I believe. As such, I agree with IllaZilla's comments about a chronology being a timeline of events and therefore all album releases should be included, irrespective of type. If we have a consensus here, then the current guidelines at Template:Infobox album definitely need changing. Currently, it states that the chronology chain for "most artists" should be split up into studio, live and compilation albums, whereas I think the opposite makes more sense: most artists should have only one chronology chain.


 * Just one point against having a single chronology chain that is niggling at the back of my mind is that ultimately, the chronology field is there to help navigation to other articles. If a band has had a lot of posthumous live or compilation releases, you often find that these releases are non-notable and therefore, they don't have Wikipedia articles. So what you might get more of with a single chronology chain, are album articles where the preceding and following releases don't lead to a Wiki article. Again, I don't really see this as a reason not to have a single chronology chain but I thought I should mention it anyway. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't always going to make sense including live albums and compilations in an album chronology. Bands may have cheap compilations and live albums released by previous labels between their studio albums, and including these would not really be helpful. For example, in addition to The Fall's studio albums there have been numerous compilations of older material released - these don't represent the chronology of the band's output, but rather the dates when record labels decided to put them out. EPs are also problematic as they vary from slightly-longer-than-a-single releases, which would be more appropriately included in a singles chronology to album-length releases that are simply marketed as EPs, which would be appropriately included in an album chronology. The chronology in album articles helps the reader to navigate through an artist's albums, and this should be borne in mind when deciding what to include.--Michig (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your concerns about budget compilations is kind of what I was referring to in my above post. However, I don't really think that this is a problem. I would also dispute your assertion that including these type of releases wouldn't be helpful; these releases are still a part of the band's discography, whether sanctioned by the artist or not. Contrary to your claim that these releases "don't represent the chronology of the band's output", I would counter that nowhere in the chronology guidelines does it state that the field should be used to represent an artist's creative output. The field is there to show a artist's album release chronology: a subtle but important difference. As IllaZilla mentioned above, a chronology is a timeline of events (or releases in this case)...the type of release is irrelevant, as long as it's not an out and out bootleg, of course.


 * To my mind, an infobox chronology like the one used in the The Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl is absolutely the correct way to do things. The preceding album is a posthumous Parlophone compilation album, with the article itself being an archival live release, and the subsequent album being a budget release of pre-fame material that wasn't sanctioned by the band. This serves to give an accurate historical summary of The Beatles' releases during 1976 and 1977, whilst facilitating easy navigation to chronologically adjacent albums. Unfortunately, not all of the Beatles' album articles seem to conform to this "one chronology" system—there's even a separate "The Beatles featuring Tony Sheridan" chronology chain, which seems like utter madness as far as I'm concerned. This is precisely why I believe that we need one album chronology 99% of the time.


 * I do agree with you that EPs are a totally separate entity though and as such, have no place in an album chronology. I also don't think that EPs should be shoehorned into a singles chronology either. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm laregely in agreement with Kohoutek1138, except for the point about EPs. Yes, EPs will always be a bit of an odd duck, but leaving them out doesn't seem to make sense. They are utlized by this infobox, and they are part of an artist's release history, so I believe they should be included. In some genres, like the ones I mainly work in (punk rock, alternative rock, emo, etc.), EPs are often of the same historical importance to an artist's catalog as their albums. Many punk rock bands, for example, will release EPs for years befoer ever putting out a full-length album, and will continue to release EPs of new studio material in between full-lengths (NOFX, Alkaline Trio, and Rocket from the Crypt are three examples that spring to mind), so excluding them from the release chronology doesn't make much sense to me. For more mainstream artists, EPs are less common and they don't typically have many of them (Britney Spears, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, and Jay-Z, for example, have none, while Nirvana only had 2), so I don't see the rationale for excluding them since they don't clutter or confuse anything. Then there are examples like Lady Gaga, a relatively recent artist who has only 1 studio album but also has 3 EPs and 2 compilation albums. Makes sense to put them all in 1 chain. Basically, Kohoutek1138, I don't agree with your statement that "EPs are a totally separate entity though and as such, have no place in an album chronology", because we include EPs in the album infobox and the chronology doesn't read " album chronology", it just readsa " chronology". EPs should be part of that chronology. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you make some good points there and in particular, I agree with your statement about many punk, alternative or indie bands releasing EPs before they record a full-length album. Three of my all-time favourite bands, Ride, Chapterhouse, and R.E.M., all released EPs before their debut albums. I must confess, this is something that I hadn't considered and on reflection, I think you're right that EPs should stay in the album chronology. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So if this documentation were to be changed from only studio albums to a single chain (which seems like what will be the outcome), which takes precedent: navigation or information? Should the chronology field be used more in terms of linking articles or to inform the reader what releases precede/follow the subject? So let's say Band X releases Studio Album A in 2001, Live Album A in 2002 followed by Studio Album B in 2003. And let's say both of Band X's studio albums are notable enough for an article, but their live album is not. Should this specific chain include Live Album A as a nonlinked entry to the chronology field in both of the studio album articles for the sake of informing the reader of Band X's history? Or should Live Album A be excluded for the sake providing a flowing chain of articles for the reader to navigate to? Here would be an example using the existing band, T.S.O.L. Under this new change to the guideline, what should go in the "previous album" field for Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Free Downloads? Would it be Weathered Statues because it's the first preceding album with an article, or would it be F#*k You Tough Guy: The Collection because it was chronologically released just before Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Free Downloads? Fezmar9 (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion on this is that chronological information takes precedent, as it does already. No way should albums be excluded from the chronology just because they don't have a wiki article. To my mind, this is a bit of a non-issue because this problem can still arise when the studio, live and compilation chronologies are kept separate. Take your example of Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Free Downloads for example, under the new guidelines F#*k You Tough Guy: The Collection would be the preceding album but under the old guidelines it would be the studio album Divided We Stand - yet both of those albums are currently without a Wiki article, so there's really no change in this case as far as wikilinking goes. Certainly, the chronology chain is a navigational aid to other Wiki articles, but that shouldn't be a reason to present inaccurate or misleading information, which is what would happen if albums were omitted from the chain on grounds of non-notability or due to a lack of a Wiki article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The template documentation for chronology currently reads "This group of fields establishes a chain connecting articles about an artist's albums." So I think navigation is currently the main focus. Because studio albums almost always meet notability guidelines, this was never really an issue before. But if the chain is to include all release types, it will introduce more instances of broken chains due to releases without articles. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not 100% sure if navigation is the main focus - sure, it can be read that way but it's not explicitly stated as such. However, I do take your point about a potential increase in broken chains and, in fact, I had already raised this potential problem in one of my earlier posts (see above). But I still think it's a bit of a non-issue. Not every studio album is notable enough for its own article anyway, and even those that are sometimes don't have a Wiki article created for them yet. So, broken chains already exist...it's not a new thing.


 * Leaving albums out is definitely not an option, in my opinion. This is a chronology field and chronology = timeline of events. Omitting albums to preserve the wikilinking functionality of the chain would serve to present factually inaccurate and misleading information - especially when the field is labeled "chronology". It has never been policy to leave non-wikilinked albums out of the chain under the existing guidelines and I don't believe we should start doing it now. I don't really have too much more to add on this point. Perhaps some other editors would like to give their opinions. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kohoutek1138, information takes precedence over navigation. We have so many ways of providing navigation already (discography sections in articles, separate discog articles, navboxes, categories) that unlinked chronology entries seem almost a non-issue. It's another one of those things I've always seen done in practice: in my experience editors (including myself) don't like leaving releases out of the chain, even if they don't have articles. Infobox film has similar "preceded by" and "followed by" fields, and I've always seen those used whether the preceding/following films have articles or not. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just my $0.02 that, at least where jazz articles are concerned, live albums are very much part of the "main" chronology. One-third (maybe more) of Cannonball Adderley's albums, for example, are live albums. I, for one, have been including live albums in jazz chronologies, although it contradicts what WP:ALBUM specifies (but I've also brought this up in an older discussion, somwewhere). Also, just a note (I didn't see it mentioned here) that WP:ALBUM specifies that chronology is according to year of release, not year of recording (based on my observations, a lot of chronologies - again, within jazz- are based on the latter). Not sure this has any bearing on the discussion, but it may be that a lot of the "clutter" (such as greatest hits) would thus fall toward the end of a given discography, and not throughout. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new wording
There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that all types of releases covered by this infobox should go in a single chronological chain. Therefore I propose changing the current wording of the "Chronology" section of the documentation, which currently reads as follows:

"This group of fields establishes a chain connecting articles about an artist's albums. In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains. For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain, but care must be taken to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when album 'A' points to 'B' as the next album, 'B' points back to 'A' as the last (previous) album."

My proposed new wording would be:

"This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases. In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain (singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain). Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies. If the previous or next release has a Wikipedia article, link the title to the corresponding article. Take care to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when release 'A' points to 'B' as the next release, 'B' points back to 'A' as the last (previous) release."

Thoughts/suggestions? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, but maybe "all albums and EPs" to "all albums (including EPs, live, remix)"? Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I support both IllaZilla's rewrite and Adabow's suggestion! I also like the new wording of linking to other album articles. Surely I couldn't have been the only one confused the way it was previously worded... Fezmar9 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The single chain is awful. Most live/EP articles are just a tracklist. No one wants to read those articles, and no one wants to write them. —Gendralman (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, cheery outlook. I for one have written a number of well-fleshed-out articles on EPs and live albums (the Fat EP and Live Plus One spring to mind). Isn't that kind of why we have an Albums Wikiproject? To works towards improving album articles? --IllaZilla (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Goodness If an article isn't good or you don't want to read it, just click on the next article. Simple. Chronologies don't link articles by quality, but releases by time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Adabow's suggestion, I thought that simply saying "all albums and EPs" was simpler than using another parenthetical, since EPs aren't really albums per se and "all albums" by definition encompasses all types (since this infobox covers about a dozen different types of releases, I wanted to avoid having to list them all). --IllaZilla (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, your original wording was fine, I just didn't want people to create a new problem of saying 'EPs are not albums, look here'. But I'm happy with any way this is worded. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the new wording is absolutely fine. However, even though I strongly support having one chronology chain, I'm gonna be a party pooper here and say that I don't believe that it's right for the dozen or so editors who have been involved in this discussion to implement a change that will impact on every album article on Wikipedia. There are, I'm sure, thousands of regular contributors to Wikipedia's album articles that should be given the chance to have their say on this matter. I'm no expert on the process but I think there should be a proper vote, like there was for the "removing professional reviews from the infobox" issue or the Infobox song/single merger...I'm talking about when editors have to leave an Agree or Disagree statement. Sorry for being so vague about this process, but hopefully you all know what I mean. It just doesn't seem right for us handful of supporters to change these guidelines without at least trying to canvass opinions from a lot more editors. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have left a note at WikiProject Albums. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump so late into this discussion. I just wonder about the consequences of this change to e.g. The Beatles. Their album articles have separate chronologies for the US and the UK as, in those times it was common to have different albums issued in different parts of the world. See e.g. Rubber Soul and Revolver (album). The same applies to The Rolling Stones (e.g. Aftermath (The Rolling Stones album), Between the Buttons) and probably a lot of other artists from the 1960s and 1970s. Reading the proposed text, I conclude that the intent is to merge them together into a single chronology. Correct? – Ib Leo (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favour of including EPs in an album chronology. For those with longer memories, EPs going back a few years tended to be 3 or 4 tracks on a 7-inch or 12-inch record, and these don't belong in an album chronology. We have to leave editors some leeway in making common-sense decisions on what to include. Many cheapo releases of rehashed old material by artists with long careers would just clutter these things up and be of no use to anyone, even in the unlikely event that we could determine the order in which they were released.--Michig (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A few replies to the above comments:
 * Kohoutek1138, I left a notice at the Albums project page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums on the 19th. I would hope that any regular contributors with a keen interest in album articles, or certainly a keen interest in the workings of the infobox, would be members of the Albums project & thus watching that page. That's really the best (& only) way to inform people of the discussion without canvassing thousands of talk pages with bot notices. If experience is any indicator, we'll change the wording & those who read it, or are involved in this discussion, will start to implement its recommendations. At that point we may attract some late-in-the-game interest to this discussion, and that's not really a problem. If there's some huge backlash, or someone comes up with a strong argument that turns consensus around the other direction, we can always go back. Changing the wording isn't going to result in an immediate effect on the infoboxes; it's only going to happen as editors start to apply the new instructions. It's certainly not as big of a change as removing the reviews. I personally don't predict much of a backlash, given the wave of support the original proposal's generated. In any case we don't have to rush, we can wait a few more days & see if more opinions come in before we implement anything.
 * IbLeo, the proposed new wording says "Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies", and I think that pretty easily applies to The Beatles due to their completely different release chronologies in the UK vs. the States. It wouldn't mean combining the US & UK chronologies (I actually quite like how those are used in Beatles articles), it would just mean incorporating any applicable live/compilation/EP/etc. albums into those 2 chains, wherever they belong in them.
 * Michig, I think the arguments for including EPs outweigh the arguments against. They're legitimate releases, just like albums or singles. They may not be as high-profile as albums in most of the mainstream genres, but they're no less a part of an artist's discography. Since this infobox includes EPs in its scope, it makes sense to include them in the infobox's chronology. As I previously noted, the banner doesn't read " album chronology", just " chronology". EPs are part of an artist's catalog, and thus they belong in a complete chronology of releases. What would we do if they were left out? Put them in a separate chain? That just leaves us with the same problem that led to this discussion. Whether it's "clutter" or "of no use to anyone" isn't really our place to decide; the usefulness of information is dependent entirely on the reader. I for one, am a music geek, and I definitely look for EPs when browsing articles about artists' releases. I certainly don't view them as useless clutter, and I doubt that most readers interested in reading the history of a particular artist's catalog would appreciate them being left out of that history. I'm not sure what to make of your comment "even in the unlikely event that we could determine the order in which they were released"...I've never had a problem with this. It should, in fact, be incredibly simple: just look at the release dates. The only problem I can forsee is if a particular EP's release date isn't verifiable, but that's potentially a problem for any album article, it's not particular to EPs in any way.
 * --IllaZilla (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I raised two issues - firstly that many EPs are nothing like albums and therefore don't fit into a chronology containing albums, and secondly that some artists have a proliferation of compilations that would clutter up a chronology. You appear to have confused the two. I see no logic in including a 3-track EP in the chronology while at the same time excluding a 3-track single, and if we include all releases, a simple 'previous and next' chronology isn't going to be very useful. I didn't say that EPs were useless clutter. Including dozens of compilations of old material designed as cheapo releases, often without the consent of the artist, however, would be. In my view the usefulness of the information to the reader is certainly something we should consider. --Michig (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * EPs being "nothing like albums" isn't relevant; they're still releases, and thus part of an artist's release history. As I said, when you look at how the infobox displays, the "Chronology" banner does not say "album chronology", it just says "chronology". The Albums project includes EPs in its scope, and this infobox is designed to include EPs, therefore the chronology should include EPs. The only thing it wouldn't include is singles, which makes sense as (A) singles are covered by a separate Wikiproject, (B) they have a completely separate infobox, (C) they have a chain that reads "singles chronology", and (D) a majority of singles are released in support of albums and thus do not quite stand alone. I disagree that a 'previous and next' chronology becomes less useful if all releases are included. In fact I think it becomes more useful. A timeline of releases that excludes some releases on the basis of their being "cheapo" is not truly a timeline, it's selective history. It's us saying "this is what we think is most important/interesting to readers", when we should just be presenting facts and letting readers make up their own minds about what's important or interestingto them. That Release B follows Release A chronogically in an artist's history is a simple matter of fact. It shouldn't be "Release A, followed by Release C (btw there was a Release B but we don't think you need to know about it cuz it's not important)". As a historian, music fan, and record collector I find this type of "selective history" disagreeable.


 * As for the "cheapo releases", I think Kohoutek1138 put it quite well above : these are still part of an artist's discography, whether they are compiled from old material, sanctioned by the artist, or budget-priced is irrelevant to that fact. The purpose of the field is to show a timeline of an artist's releases, the type of release is irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK IllaZilla, I hadn't seen or noticed your earlier post over at Wikiproject Albums but I see that Adabow has today added another "heads up" notification. I think you're right that this is the best we can do to publicise the proposed changes. As far as IbLeo's concern over differing U.S. and UK releases for The Beatles, The Stones et al, I don't think anyone would seriously propose that the UK and U.S. releases of these bands should be merged together. I think this would be a clear case where the "Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies" portion of the proposed guidelines would come into effect. The purpose of changing these guidelines is just to make having one chronology chain the norm on Wikipedia’s album articles, rather than the exception (as it is currently).


 * As far as Michig's concern about including EPs, I too had some reservations about this but ultimately, I wasn't really thinking it through. As IllaZilla pointed out earlier, an awful lot of indie, punk and alternative bands release multiple EPs ahead off, and often in lieu of, a full-length album release. EPs use the same infobox as albums and therefore should be included in the chronology chain. Yes, they will always be a bit of a bad fit to some extent but excluding them would serve to give an incomplete picture of many artist’s discographies and release chronology. With artists that release multiple EPs, they are of the same historical importance, discographically speaking, as their albums are. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I just point out that whether or not EPs and albums use the same infobox is utterly irrelevant to the reader. I also find it mystifying that we should include all releases by an artist, except singles. Singles are often only distinguishable from EPs by how they're marketed. If you want people to have to skip through a dozen compilations aimed at petrol station shops and supermarkets to get to the next album the band actually made, then fine, but while you may find this of interest, the average reader may differ.--Michig (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just an example of where this would lead - Currently Please Please Me starts the Beatles album chronology, currently pointing to With the Beatles as their next album. If we implemented the proposal, the next album would be either the US release Introducing...The Beatles or the Twist and Shout EP. After these you would get The Beatles Hits EP, and possibly also The Beatles EP before hitting their next album With the Beatles. To get from The Kinks 1989 album UK Jive to the next album they made, Phobia (1993), you would have to navigate through at least 7 compilations of old material. If I wanted that much detail then I'd look at the band's discography. Personally I would want the chronology to go straight to the next album they made.--Michig (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the new wording, I feel that since we are making the change from only listing studio albums to incorporating all release types, that this should probably be included in the wording. The current suggestion is worded as "all albums and EPs," but just generally stating 'albums' could just be confused for studio albums. I feel that little progression is made with that wording. I liked Adabow's suggestion of possibly explicitly stating live albums and compilations, but that was rejected to "avoid having to list them all." Perhaps "all releases" or "all release types" would be a better way of wording it to encompass the wide variety while not being too wordy and giving examples? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Michig, I think you're exaggerating a perceived problem way more than it actually exists. Offhand I can't think of a single artist I know of or listen to who has "a dozen compilations aimed at petrol station shops and supermarkets". In fact there's only 1 artist in my collection of ~3,000 CDs that has a store-specific compilation (Weezer's Six Songs, which is exclusive to Best Buy). As for the Beatles example, I would argue that the chronology should go to the compilations after Please Please Me, because those were the next Beatles releases after Please Please Me. All of those things are official Beatles releases that came out between Please Please Me and With The Beatles, so a chronology of Beatles releases should include them. It seems only logical to do so, and somewhat nonsensical not to. You mention discographies, and I think that's a perfect example of the distinction between a discography and a chronology: Discographies are lists, and can be organized in different fashions (we typically present studio albums first in a discography, which agrees with your view that these are of primary interest to most readers). Chronologies, however, are timelines, and there's only one logical way to organize a timeline...chronologically. You can't make an accurate timeline of Kinks releases and simply skip from UK Jive to Phobia, ignoring the fact that 7 official Kinks compilation albums came in the time between. If you're doing that, you're not making a chronology, you're making a discography. We already have discographies and navboxes to show readers the order of different types of releases; a chronology does not serve the same purpose.


 * Fezmar9, how about "albums and EPs of all types"? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly there are at least two logical ways of organizing a timeline - by date of release or by date of recording. The latter is far more logical in my view, but either would be potentially worthwhile as a separate article. The infobox has limited scope for linking and should be geared to what the reader will find most useful. Bear in mind that some readers will be interested in the music and not just the trainspotting aspect, so will be more interested in what the band did than the dates that Pickwick or K-Tel licenced some old material. Including EPs is going to be problematic given the tendency of several editors to impose their own classification of 'EP' on any single with more than 2 tracks on it.--Michig (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose that would be an acceptable wording. Albums and EPs can both be released as other formats (studio albums and studio EPs, compilation albums and compilation EPs) and this wording does seem to encompass all types. Also, I do hear what Michig is saying, and I have to agree that I like knowing where a studio release is placed among other studio releases within the same article. I like knowing that it has been X amount of years since an artist's previous release of new material, and it would be Y amount of years before the following release of new material. Perhaps as a compromise, it should be permissible to add release years in artist navboxes next to their respective albums. This way each album article will acknowledge both the artist's overarching timeline of all formats, and still inform the reader of the studio release chronology including release years without having to navigate to a separate discography article to find that out. Everybody wins, no? Fezmar9 (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Most artists don't have navboxes so this wouldn't solve the problem. I'm still a bit mystified why people think a 3-track EP should be linked to as the 'next release' after an album but not a 3-track single. Either we're showing all releases or we're not. And yes, I know singles have their own infobox, but again, this is irrelevent to people reading these articles. The idea that we would miss out a 3-track 12-inch record from a singles chronology simply because it was given a title and marketed as an EP also seems rather bizarre.--Michig (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fezmar9, whether or not an artist has a navbox, they should have a discography section in their article, which should at the very least list the studio albums with their years of release. If they have a separate discography article, that will most certainly list the studio album with release dates, along with all other types of releases in other sections with release dates. So we are, in fact, providing that information (the length of time between studio releases) to readers. The question is whether that's the purpose of the chronology area of the infobox, and I don't think it is. If the length of time between studio releases is particularly noteworthy—like, say, for Guns N' Roses' long-delayed Chinese Democracy—I would expect that timespan to me mentioned somewhere in the article, if not right there in the lead.


 * Michig, I get the impression that you have one or more specific examples in mind, since you keep metioning a debate between a 3-track EP and a 3-track single. singles and EPs are 2 different things, though editors sometimes confuse them, and we have articles to explain what they are and what the distinction is. If there's debate on whether a specific release is an EP or a single, then that's something that needs to be hashed out on that article's talk page IMO. As I mentioned above, in the areas that I tend to edit (punk rock, alternative, etc.), whether something's a single or an EP is usually pretty easy to distinguish, and EPs are pretty significant to artists' catalogues. Could you maybe give an example of where the single/EP conflict would pose an unsolveable problem to the chronology? --IllaZilla (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Virtually any band from the 1990s that had singles released in both 7-inch and CD formats - the CD format generally included one or more extra tracks and despite the fact that these were CD singles, a lot of editors insist on classifying these as EPs. Obviously the vinyl format is a single, and we wouldn't want one format listed in a singles chronology while other formats would be listed in the non-singles chronology purely due to the way editors here decide to define them. For a vinyl example, take Inspiral Carpets - this is a 12-inch single, while this is an EP, both four-track 12-inch records, the only difference being how they were marketed - it would make no sense to have one in a singles chronology and the other in an albums chronology. Another example is My Bloody Valentine's "Feed Me with Your Kiss" - released as a 2-track 7-inch single and a 4-track 12-inch single, which some people insist on labelling an EP, which would have different formats of the same single listed in different chronologies.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * See, those seem like editor disagreements and thus solveable hiccups. The 12-inch single has been a format since at least the '80s, and still used today (see Don't Lose Touch and From Her Lips to God's Ears (The Energizer) as recent examples). "Feed Me with Your Kiss" look pretty clearly like a single from Isn't Anything, since it's the lead track on the album and was released the same month as the album. Yeah it has some extra tracks, but it still looks for all the world like an album single because it's an album track released separately, meant to support the album. "Alligator" is a single from Sainthood despite the fact that it contains a dozen remixes of the track. Anyway, I think we're digressing...these represent a small number of problematic articles in the overall scheme of things. For most artists, EPs are easily identifiable as EPs, and I can't think of a reason why something that's verifiably an EP should be excluded from a release chronology. We shouldn't let a handful of tricky examples get in the way of the rather straightforward general goal of presenting a fluid, unbroken chain of an artist's catalogue. I think your perceived problems represent a small percetage of musical artists overall, and shouldn't impede our overall goal of consistency and chronological order. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely support the move to have a single chronology for an artist. It is the most useful thing, and as someone pointed out, there can be a secondary chronology for the respective type of album. Even that also feels redundant, as we will have a navbox template at the bottom. Michig, I seriously don't understand your concerns, you are continuously asking why we should include a three-track EP. I'm asking you, whyshouldn't we? Aren't they releases by the artist? And don't bring up the example of the Beatles. This single chronology move is more needed IMO in the Beatles' articles, with their different releases in different countries. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Legolas and Adabow. I never understood or supported separate chronologies. In fact, compilation albums happen to sell better than studio efforts (before the album sales decline). So I think its best to have a single chronology.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The question is why a 3-track EP should be included in an album chronology but not in a singles chronology - I'm not suggesting that these are "not releases". These were generally classed as singles (e.g. they appeared on singles charts) when released. These are not a small percentage by any means, and we have consistency and logical order by following the current guidance. The bottom line is that many editors here are incapable of correctly classifying releases and we are likely to get into a mess akin to genre-warring that we wouldn't have with the guidance that we currently have. I find the statement "And don't bring up the example of the Beatles" a rather strange one, though it reinforces the impression that some here don't want to take other views on board. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose making the chronologies based on format, ie. single, EP, LP/album, video release. We kind of do that anyway (the main division between albums and singles). So that way a studio album would go to a live album to a best-of collection, but you wouldn't have a DVD collection of music videos or a single in the midst of all that. That also solves the EP issue. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it would solve the EP issue other than the problem of so many singles and albums being misclassified as EPs here.--Michig (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal We get rid of the chronology field completely. It has little directly to do with the subject of an article really, and doesn't impair understanding of that subject if it's gone (since release context should be covered in the prose anyway). You can chalk it up to something that can't be easily summarized if you want to argue that. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Preferable in my view to trying to put all releases (except singles - still don't understand that one) into an infobox chronology that can only be navigated one release at a time. The place for detailed all-release chronologies is in separate articles IMHO.--Michig (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have to go with option number one, making chronologies based on format. It's useful to navigate from one type of album to another of the same type through to the infobox, in my opinion. I never liked that cram-all-types-of-releases-in-chronology-field. Navbox musical artist does just that very well, I don't see why the infobox needs to get complicated as this thread original proposed. — ξ xplicit  09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just the current status quo, and it makes no logical sense. You're mistaking a chronology for a navigation aid. It's not. A chronology is a visual display of data. There are several places where we conveniently group releases by type, to help readers navigate through articles by that criteria: Navboxes, discography sections, and discography articles. There is no place where we display all releases in a single chronological chain. The Chronology field purports itself to do that, by declaring itself the " chronology", but under the current practice that's not actually what it is...it's the " (studio album) chronology" or " (EP) chronology" or whatever other chains people have decided to create under the current instructions. Therefore we have a half dozen or more different release chronology chains for a single artist, depending on what article you're looking at. This is needlessly confusing, and completely misrepresents the chronological order of releases. If an EP was released between 2 studio albums, the chronology ought to show that. If a studio album was followed by a live album, the chronology ought to show that. Otherwise I'm not sure why we're bothering to show chronologies in the first place, if we're just going to completely confuse and misapply them. Currently, if a reader wanted to know how all of an artist's releases related to one another chronologically, they'd have to go to a discography article, write down all the release dates, then piece it together themselves. I'm simply suggesting that we use the chronology field to actually display what it declares itself to display. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "That's just the current status quo, and it makes no logical sense. You're mistaking a chronology for a navigation aid." Er, in the infobox that's how it's supposed to function. That's the whole point of linking related articles there. The distinctions I proposed are worth thinking about because otherwise singles should be included. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

First let me excuse my quite sporadic contributions to this discussions, but I am terribly busy in real life at the moment. IllaZilla, I accept your explanation (a few hundred lines further up) that the statement "Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies" keeps the door open for the dual UK/US chronologies that we have for Beatles and Stones etc. However, there's another issue that I want to point out regarding an artist dear to my heart: Sweet, one of the biggest albums sellers of the 1970s. I have spend quite some time building the Sweet discography. In their 10 year career they released only 9 studio albums, no EPs, and a few live albums are available as well. However, I have long ago given up keeping track of all their compilation albums; there are literally hundreds of them, released during their career and afterward on various more or less obscure labels. Most of them were released in certain countries only, many of them have almost similar titles and all of them pick from the same 25-30 tracks! I know that even the most die-hard Sweet fans have given up on possessing them all. To give you an idea about what I am talking about, have a look at the discography section over at http://thesweet.sweetworld.de/ - and it's far from complete. So for the discography article I made the choice to only include the compilations that I have been able to prove charted in at least one country, and of course those who have their own article. In other words, I am completely unable to build the chronology for Sweet albums if it would have to include their compilations albums. I also believe that it would be a quite uninteresting thing so not of much value in the infobox. I also believe that Sweet is not an isolated case (although it is likely to be one of the worst). and this is another reason that we really need to be able to do exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Besides this, I support your suggestion to simplify the general guideline, including the inclusion of EPs in the chronology. And, by the way, let's keep the chronology! – Ib Leo (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the proposed changes of having all albums/releases in a single chronology would increase conflict. I foresee edit-warring on any number of album pages over whether release X or release Y should be listed next ("X is their next major release, Y doesn't count, it is not canonical! It was just a live album distributed as a free CD at their concerts in Japan! The band themselves have disowned Y!"). Plus, for obscure live albums/EPs etc, accurate original release dates are often impossible to determine, so the chronology could get even more screwed up. With this new rule, it is gonna be a lot harder to maintain accuracy in the article.


 * On the other hand, if we do maintain the status quo, we definitely cut down on the controversies and possible inaccuracies. Especially for studio albums (which in an NPOV perspective, are our most important album articles—they are the most-read and most-edited, and most documented in independent reliable sources, in addition to being to most vital with respect to the artist's musical evolution and career), your chance of controversy comes down to nearly zero. I think this is the main reason we maintain separate tables for different types for releases in our discography articles and band navigation templates. If your concern is that the album infobox says just "chronology" and not "studio album chronology", we can always change that.—indopug (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Indopug, I don't think fear of edit-warring should impede us from the simple goal of being chronologically accurate. It was an edit-war and a very near-blocking experience over the current status quo that lead me here in the first place (a well-intentioned, but IMO misguided editor was going around creating 2 separate chronological chains for all Blink-182-related releases: "studio" and "non-studio"...with studio EPs and compilation albums going under "non-studio" for some unfathomable reason, not to mention the absurdity of the whole idea since the band has only a single live album & a single compilation album anyway, but I digress). Whether something is "canonical" or not (what does that even mean? unless it's an out-and-out bootleg, isn't it part of their discography regardless?) has zilch to do with whether it was released before or after something else. Also, if such issues are a problem now, I don't see how streamlining the chronology makes it any more or less of a problem. If editors are arguing over whether something is "major" or "canonical" and should/shouldn't be included, they're going to continue do so whether it's a single chronological chain or 6 separate ones.


 * There are 2 problems with the current system IMO: By putting each type of release in a separate chronological chain, we are creating a false and unnecessarily divided view of history. Take a look at Love Gun: by glancing at the chronology one is led to believe that the order of Kiss' releases was Rock and Roll Over (1976) → Love Gun (1977) → Dynasty (1979), whereas in fact Kiss had 2 platinum albums that came between Love Gun and Dynasty, Alive II (1977) and Double Platinum (1978). If you look at the articles for Alive II and Double Platinum, you'll see that there is a separate chronology chain used there that for some reason also includes the studio albums. This is a more accurate chronological representation, but leads to the second problem: the integrity of the chains is totally screwed. Alive II links to Love Gun as the previous album, but Love Gun links to Dynasty as the next album. To be accurate, and to avoid unnecessary reader confusion, the chronology should simply go Rock and Roll Over (1976) → Love Gun (1977) → Alive II (1977) → Double Platinum (1978) → Dynasty (1979). I don't see how putting everything in one chronological chain could make it "a lot harder to maintain accuracy in the article". If anything, it can only make it easier to maintain accuracy. A chronology is a timeline; making it accurate is a simple matter of arranging things in the order that they were released. Which articles are the most heavily edited, or which albums are the most vital to the artist's career, is totally irrelevant to this. Notability has nothing to do with chronological order. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I strongly believe that some albums (more often than not, studio albums) are more important than other albums. Though not in the case of Kiss, this is definitely so for The Beatles, Pink Floyd and Blur (and others, of course). While it may not strictly be "chronological", I think it is better, and more useful, if the Parklife infobox lists the next album as The Great Escape rather than The Special Collectors Edition. Again, if the status quo abuses the words "Blur chronology" in the infobox by doing this, let's just change that to "Blur studio album chronology" (or whatever).
 * Another example: imagine a reader does use the chronology as a navigational aid too. Do you really think he should sift through seven US/Canada-only bastard albums to go from With The Beatles to A Hard Day's Night? Sure, the old way creates a "divided view of history" (I obviously disagree to it being either false or unnecessary), but on the other hand, a link to Beatlemania! With The Beatles as the album after With The Beatles is just...blasphemy. I don't see any plus point to that.—indopug (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Upon re-reading the thread, I see that Michig's already raised the same Beatles example.—indopug (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC))


 * I think that, generally, each type of album (studio, EP, live, etc.) should have its own chain. Including all causes a lot of confusion, especially since a good chunk of non-studio efforts are obscure and there could be accuracy problems with getting the release info correct, as noted above. And non-studio efforts generally aren't part of an artist or band's primary body of work. Is it really necessary to make our readers sift through a bunch of minor (and sometimes obscure) releases in the chrono, when most are just trying to browse through an artist or band's core work. If they're really interested in seeing a full overview of the discography, we have navboxes and artist discography pages for that.


 * That being said, I do think there should be some exceptions. For example, Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster is an EP, but she considers it to be her sophomore release and has at times referred to her second full-length studio album as her third album. For cases such as these, some non-studio efforts should be permitted. Should be determined on a case-by-case basis as to what most accurately and easily provides an overview of an artist's primary work. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * But there is nowhere that there is a chronological order of releases on WP. See IllaZilla's comment on 25 November 2010. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What's stopping you from creating Lady Gaga chronology, for example, as a separate article? --Michig (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, it'd be great if we could get our discographies to be re-sorted in a completely chronological way.—indopug (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Madonna has one of the largest and complex catalogues. Even she has a single chronology. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Activity seems to be slowing down. The majority seems to be leaning towards implementing a single chronology, but I'll wait a few more days before I adjust the documentation. Any more comments? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there's a lot of support for a single chronology chain, but there's also been some strong opposition. Given how long the discussion became (not something I'd anticipated) & how much back-&-forth of opinion resulted, perhaps we should hold a poll on 2 or 3 options (no change / change to single chronology / single chronology with some exceptions) to see which has the most support? --IllaZilla (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinion seems to be fairly split at present regarding a single chronology. I think a poll would be a good idea but only if we can successfully engage more of the Wikipedia community in it. A poll with only the dozen or so editors who've already contributed to this discussion so far seems fairly pointless. Perhaps some sort of hatnote or tag could be placed on the infobox template itself alerting folks to the fact that there's a vote taking place, much like when it was proposed that the Song infobox should be merged with the Single infobox. I know that you've left messages at various music related WikiProjects regarding this debate IllaZilla, but the response to those seems to have been somewhat apathetic unfortunately. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think hatnoting the template is quite necessary. That'd be visible in article space, which is disrupting to readers. If past experience is any indicator, there's a relatively small group of editors (in proportion to the whole editing pool of WP) that actually care about the workings of this infobox and want to discuss it. Plus we're not talking about a broad policy change here; merely a change in the explanation and usage of a single field. I'd be happy to drop notes at the talk pages of Wikiproject Albums and Wikiproject Music...I'd hope that anyone interested in the workings of this infobox would be a member of at least one of those projects, and watching one of those spaces. The memberships of those 2 projects represent some 640 editors (not accounting for overlap), so I think that'd be the best way to alert potentially interested contributors. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm just looking at ways in which to actively involve as many editors as possible. Not least because if the guidelines do change, it'd be great if regular editors started implementing the change across the board, rather than 99% of Wikipedians being unaware of any change. Dropping notes at the talk pages of various music related Wikiprojects is a must I would say, so if you're happy to do that, more power to your elbow. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Add Mini Album
should we add mini album in? they're practically the same as EP, so i was owndering if we added in with the same color scheme as EP. any thoughts?Bread Ninja (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been brought up a few times before (do a search of the archives for previous discussions), and as I recall consensus was that "mini-album" is a term only used in certain countries (Greece maybe? I don't remember), and that in most countries these would be considered EPs. Anyway, the result of the discussions as I remember them was not to add this type, but to label these releases as either albums or EPs depending on their length. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * well i dont know where you could verify that, but there have been quite a number, such as europe, north amercia, and japan have had certain ammounts of albums labeled with it.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in the States, and I'm an album-collecting nerd (~2,000 CDs), and I've never seen the term "mini-album" used here, just "album" or EP. The previous discussion is here. The gist that I get out of it is that "mini album" is a marketing term, not a format. There was another past conversation where it was pointed out that the organization responsible for the music charts in the UK has specific cutoffs between single, EP, and album, based on playing length. As far as I know they don't recognize "mini album" as a format either. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe if you were buying vinyl in the 80s things would be different. The charts company in the UK doesn't recognize anything other than singles and albums, with a defined cut-off between the two. It's not really relevant - they just have a rule to allow them to compile charts, it doesn't mean we should only label releases as albums or singles. There are lots of mini-album releases, and at the time when most of them were released, they were nothing like EPs of that era. Been discussed before, though, and doesn't seem worth going through again.--Michig (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * you're not convincing me. you're using UK uses single and album only as a reason to go against it, but then state it doesn't work that way. I think its such a problem, i don't see why we shouldn't add it in, it's more of a "we've discussed it before, and that's that" but you forget consensus can change through time. Also, there have been many other mini albums released in present times, for example anime and video games that have been given large amount of praise.
 * I think, if it's not worth getting into, not worth going against it, then i say "why not"?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't get what anime or video games have to do with this, so I'm not sure why you bring them up. My primary objection is that adding more type options simply makes the infobox more confusing and of less and less utility. Currently there are 11 acceptable parameters for the type field (I'm ignoring single & song, since those have separate infoboxes...why are they still in here?). 2 of these types distinguish a release by its physical format (EP and box set), while the other 9 distinguish it by the content of the release (studio recordings / live recordings / compiled from various sources / etc.). "Mini-album" is neither a distinct format nor a distinct type of content; it's merely an album with a number of tracks slightly less than a standard full-length but slighly more than a standard EP. As Michig points out, the definitions of EP and album have shifted over time...in the '60s, '70s, and even early '80s it was not uncommon to have full-length albums that consisted of only 7–10 tracks (for example Highway 61 Revisited, Black Sabbath, and Pornography). Moving through the CD era and now into the digital age, I'd say the standard full-length album now averages ~12-14 tracks. Nevertheless, a "mini album" is still an album, it's just kinda short, so one of the current types (studio/live/compilation/etc) should apply. I don't think that "if it's not worth getting into, and not worth going against it, then why not?" is a valid argument: that there's no really strong argument against it isn't enough; there's no equally strong argument against adding, for example, "double album", "triple album", "instrumental album", "picture disc", etc. There needs to be a compelling argument for adding it, and I haven't seen one thus far. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * it's pretty hard, to distinguish it alone, if their is no reliable source stating it's something else either and i brought up anime and video games, because they tend to have many OST, Drama CD's and yes, Mini-albums. If possible, i suppose we could allow double, triple, and picture disc but not instrumental considering there's not much sourcing on it and it would depend on much they are distinguished. But it seems, like those 3 can falling the same color scheme and type. what makes a type a type? The type is mainly focused on what the disc or number of discs are, rather that the type of album it has been released as. so finding references for the given infobox is more limiting now. For example, we're not allowed to input a new type that falls under the "other" type or else the clean up will automatically fix it somehow without proper referencesBread Ninja (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "it's pretty hard, to distinguish it alone, if their is no reliable source stating it's something else" — Exactly my point. There is no authoritative source that distinguishes a "mini album" from a regular album, just the occasional Wikipedia editor popping up here saying "mini albums should have their own infobox type...cuz they're shorter." That's not a reason. I was not suggesting that we add double album/triple album, etc...I was suggesting that there is no strong argument for adding types like this, because they are already covered by studio/live/etc. The length of the album, or number of discs, makes little difference and is not as important as distinguishing the release as studio/live/etc. That is why I oppose adding a type for "mini album".


 * "what makes a type a type? The type is mainly focused on what the disc or number of discs are, rather that the type of album it has been released as" — From this I have to assume that you completely misread my previous post. The "type" field is not focused on the number of discs, it is focused on the nature of the material on the disc: whether it was recorded in a studio, recorded live, etc. This is of far greater import as far as the intrinsic features of the recording are concerned, and what information we are hoping to impart to readers via the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot would be debatable, I'm sure, but actually we do have sources that distinguish mini-albums from albums. Martin C. Strong's series of discography books distinguish between the two very accurately in the release listings, and in some cases the record companies concerned distinguish between the two by different catalogue number coding (e.g. 4AD), and there are in some cases other reliable sources (including the artists themselves) discussing reelases as mini-albums/mini-LPs. As I have stated in the past, the current type codes in the infobox should really be split into two lists - one for the format and one for the nature of the recording. It's a bit muddled at present, e.g. a live EP can either be listed as 'Live' or 'EP' but not both, same for live box-sets, remix EPs, etc.. We end up with more codes by combining the two together, or codes that don't include enough options. By splitting into separate codes, we would only need 6 format codes (7 if we add mini-album) and 8 content codes to cover all the existing classifications and also allow the examples above.--Michig (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I gotta say that I agree with IllaZilla here. I have heard the term "mini-album" used on occasion here in the UK but it's not a distinct format, it's just a reference to a given album's length...the same as a double or triple album denotes an extra long album. Both are still albums though and as such, we don't need a separate "mini-album" type any more than we need a double album type. A release is either a studio album, live album, compilation album etc...its length is irrelevant. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @IllaZilla, you misread a quote of mine. i said if there is no source calling it something else, then there shouldn't be a problem. Mini-albums aren't called mini albums because their shorter than others. I also like Michig's Idea. I think that would work.


 * @kohoutek, that's not the reason why i want to add it in as a type, i want to add it in because it's been distinguished differently throughout occasions, and have been officially released as such or reliable sources state them as such. Plus, wikipedia isn't all about UK. UK doesn't equal the entire english speaking sources, and even then we dont focus completely on how the english release certain media.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're quite right about Wikipedia not being all about the UK, but I think you've misconstrued what I was saying...I merely sought to illustrate that the term is used here from time to time, that's all. You’re also right that the term "mini-album" is used on occasion, but not often. It's not used with anything like as much regularity as the term "double album" and we don't have a separate type for that.


 * Regardless, the fact still remains that a mini-album is essentially still an album - studio, live or whatever. The term is quite specific in meaning an album with a shorter or smaller running time than most albums: mini = something that is distinctively smaller than other members of its type or class (from Chamber's English dictionary). So your comment to IllaZilla that "Mini-albums aren't called mini albums because their shorter than others" is nonsense. That's exactly why they're called mini-albums.


 * The "type" field is there to illustrate the nature of the recordings on a given album, not to state its running time. I don't really have too much more to say on the subject but suffice it to say I don't believe we need a mini-album type any more than we need a double or triple album type. It’s totally surplus to requirements in my view. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not what I'm trying to say. For one, on occasion seems to be more common than you think it does. And double or triple albums, i admit haven't been heard of often lately, but it wouldn't hurt to look to see how well-known the term is. And what i meant to say "editors don't put mini-albums because they're shorter than others". I'm trying to say, we don't put it in because we do original research, it's because they are specifically released as mini-album. So if an album is released as a mini-album and we don't have any reference calling it something else, what do we do? And no, you're missing the point. i don't want mini-album in there because i want it to distinguish the size it has in it. I'm trying to put it in because I'm trying to distinguish it a type of album the creators have named it as such. If mini-album can't make it in, i really don't understand why we have EP are in there. reading the EP article, it doesn't sound that far away from what a mini-album is.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as I say I don't have much more to add to this discussion but personally, I find your argument inconvincing and actually quite confused. I'm not sure what you point is and I don't think you're expressing yourself that well. However, to answer this point "so if an album is released as a mini-album and we don't have any reference calling it something else, what do we do?" - you list it as an album. because that's what it is. The word "mini" only means that it's shorter than usual - it's still an album. The clue's in the name really! ;-). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * technically, all of them are albums. I'm trying to say that, i don't want mini-albums as a type, to distinguish the size of the album. I want is as a type because there are works out there that are released as a mini album. Like I've said before, if mini albums/mini-LP can't be added it in, why are EP in there? I don't see what nature EP has that much difference from Mini-albums/Mini-LPs The clue is also in the name "extended play".


 * But i think there's an alternative out there too. Like Michig's idea.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * EPs are a distinctly different format from albums...for a start they're singles, not albums. Originally they were known as "extended play singles" because they played at 45rpm like singles, not 33rpm like albums, and they typically had twice the number of tracks of a regular single. Over the years, with the demise of vinyl as a mainstream format, the nature of EPs has changed somewhat but today they are still perceived and considered as a distinctly different format to albums. For example, here in the UK the Official Chart Company clearly defines an EP as a separate format to an album, whereas mini-albums are counted as albums. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * i dont see the difference, EP is mainly distinct due to them, being in-between. mini-albums are nearly the same and have been the same size as EP's before, the only difference has been the labeling.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Mini-album are labeled as such, for their size, the same way Ep are. the only difference is, one's closer to one type while the other seems to be indistinguishable. Still, that doesn't excuse why Mini-album shouldn't be in there. just because the name has "album" in it. they're also called mini-LP but we all know why we don't refer it to that anymore. Also, lets stop making references to UK. it's not a good basis.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't we make references to the UK? This is the English Wikipedia, therefore the UK is just as relevant as any other English speaking country as far as this discussion is concerned. This seems like a strange comment.


 * I really don't have anything more to add to this discussion. To me your argument isn't convincing at all I'm afraid, and it seems to be based on a lot of original research. I've yet to see you offer up any reliable sources to back up your claims that mini-albums aren't simply a record company marketing term but actually a distinct format in their own right. We'll have to see what other editors have to say regarding the matter but for me, I'm done. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The same applies to you. original research? is that your best excuse? so you're saying you brought enough reliable sources too to back up your claims? Do you have proof that EP uses a format that's different from single and album? you never even defended your point. So obviously, i can't agree with you.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you're the one who wants to add mini-album as a format so the onus is really on you to provide a convincing reason why it should included. As for proof that an EP is a seperate format to a single or album, that's kind of why I mentioned the UK Official Chart Company. They are an example of a chart compiling company that recognises the three formats as distinctly different. Now, I really am done with this. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, Kohoutek1138 is absolutely right in his statement that EPs are (or were, originally) a physically distinct format from albums. Read the extended play article for yourself: "Extended play" 45 rpm records were introduced in the 1950s as a competing format to the 45 rpm single and the 33⅓ rpm LP. EPs had the same diameter as singles (7 inches) and were played at the same speed (45 rpm), but had narrower grooves that allowed them to have about twice as much playing length per side. Thus, EPs were a physically distinct format of record, and remained so for many years. With the transition from vinyl to cassette, CD, and now digital, usage of the term "EP" shifted: It obviously no longer refers only to "extended play" format vinyl records, but it is a commonly-used industry term to refer to a release that has more music than a single but is not long enough to qualify as a full album. The Official Charts Company (the UK body responsible for sales and chart tracking) still recognizes a distinction between EP and album, with the dividing line set at 25 minutes' playing time or 4 tracks. As far as I know Billboard doesn't draw such a distinction, but I can assure you that here in the US (I don't know where you're editing from) "EP" is definitely a common term within the music industry and has pretty much the same definition as it does in the UK. By contrast, "Mini album" doesn't (and as far as I know, never did) refer to a distinct format: it's merely a "short album". You keep repeating "they are referred to as such" but that doesn't magically make it a distinct format. The only difference between a "mini album" and a regular album is playing time, whereas the term "EP" descends from a physically distinct recording format. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record: I am not in favor of adding "mini album" as type, for all the good reasons put forward by IllaZilla and Kohoutek1138. Here is another discussion, only four months old, where the same proposal was defeated. – Ib Leo (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Whats the difference between 45rpm and 45 rpm single? I'm not talking about EP, in the US or UK, but everywhere else. And "i can assure you" is practically doing the same thing i did. And i'm saying more than just referred to as such, they are released as such.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What does that mean, "released as such"? Is there a special sticker or something on the front advertising these things as "mini albums"? I've never seen such a thing, and I've been buying CDs and vinyl records avidly for ~15 years.


 * I apologize if this is an incorrect assumption, but I have to infer from your question about 45 rpm singles that you're not very familiar with the terminology relating to gramophone records: Records are played at specific rotational speeds (measured in rotations per minute) based on how the spiral groove in the record is cut. Most records are played at either 33⅓ rpm or 45 rpm; many early records played at 78 rpm. This is why you often hear old vinyl singles referred to as "45s" or "78s". Records also come in different sizes (diameters), of course, with the most common being 7 inches for singles and EPs and 12 inches for LPs. Most 12-inch LPs play at 33⅓ rpm, while most 7-inch singles and EPs play at 45 rpm. EPs, in their original form, were 7-inch 45 rpm records (the same diameter and playing speed as singles), but since their spiral groove was more compact they could hold about twice as much music per side. Hence the term "extended play". --IllaZilla (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But you only explained the difference between a ssingle and EP from album, not from EP and single. EP and singles are practically the same if they have the same format. what makes them different?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did: EPs, in their original form, were 7-inch 45 rpm records (the same diameter and playing speed as singles), but since their spiral groove was more compact they could hold about twice as much music per side. Hence the term "extended play".
 * That is what makes them different: Their spiral groove is much more compact than that of a standard single, resulting in doubling the playing time of each side. This is a technological and physical distinction between EPs and singles. Other than the number of tracks, what makes a "mini album" different from a regular album? They are both on CDs, I assume, so there is no difference in the technology or physical format. The only difference is the number of tracks. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They use the same as single and EP, 45rpm. But theres hardly any mention of it anywhere else.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's somewhat recentist to assume that we are only considering CDs. Many mini-albums were released on vinyl, and some were distinguished from full-length LPs by either playing at 45rpm or being on 10-inch discs (e.g. quite a few on Sarah Records). Many EPs from the 1970s and 1980s were 7-inch or 12-inch records, usually playing at 45 rpm, only distinguishable from 7-inch and 12-inch singles by how they were marketed, not by a distinct physical format. If we're not going to include mini-albums because 'album' will suffice, fair enough if that's the consensus, but a lot of the rest of the arguments here seem somewhat flawed.--Michig (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont think that should be a problem. If the word "album" will be a problem, then we have alot of other "albums" on here that will cause problems.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been going on for a week, and it seems the only editor who supports adding "mini-album" to the currentl list of supported "type" values is Bread Ninja. Michig has some ideas for more fundamental changes to how we consider "types", but IMO that would be a separate proposal & discussion. As far as Bread Ninja's suggestion to "add mini-album" as a supported type, I see no support for it, just opposition, and no new arguments compared to what we've discussed in the past regarding this topic. I suggest that the proposal has failed, at least for now. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I supported mIchig's idea, but i thnk you're all just as hung up as i am. Either, way i think michig's idea in the beginning was good, and can be talked in here as a compromise.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Cover size parameter – redundant by now?
Quoting 's initial statement in Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 5: "This would also eliminate the need for a Cover size parameter, as any small images would automatically display at full size." The proposed change was implemented but the Cover size parameter is still in the Infobox documentation, and probably also in the code. Shouldn't it be removed? – Ib Leo (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure the milk's already spilled, but I'm not sure this was a good idea. There are more than a few album cover images where the size was substantially less than 200px. (I can't point to a specific example without combing through my old edits).  In those cases, many of those images were unclear (to the point of uselessness) at the default 200px resolution.  When I have come across these I have always set the size parameter to the size of the image, as anything larger is pointless. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about the spilled milk. Take a look at The Highland Connection; it's cover image's size is less than 200px and it displays perfectly well at it's own size (148x148) without the Cover size parameter being set. My understanding is that with the recent changes to the infobox (quoted above) the cover image displays as it's own size, capped by the users thumbnail size in his preferences. Thus rendering the Cover size parameter superfluous. – Ib Leo (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the explanation. I read it the wrong way and thought that now all the infobox album covers defaulted to 200px. My apologies for any confusion. -- Gyrofrog (talk)
 * Don't worry about it, no harm done. Then, do you agree that the Cover size parameter could be removed? – Ib Leo (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it could be removed. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Should be removed Mhiji (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, this sounds reasonable. I can't think of a case that wouldn't be handled correctly by "frameless". The only possible problem would be a strange aspect ratio (e.g., a tall image), but that doesn't appear to be a case here. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  07:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The nice thing about album covers is that because the medium itself is typically round the artwork is usually square. But yeah, if it's not being used in a useful manner then feel free to remove the attribute entirely. If we later decide to cater for upright images we can use a more elegant solution (passing ). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris, it's not completely clear to me what you mean by "not being used in a useful manner". Do you mind explaining the consequences of removing it (if any)? Did I miss something in my assumption that if the parameter is not set, then the cover image currently displays as it's own size, capped by the users thumbnail size in his preferences? – Ib Leo (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's exactly correct. It's previously been intimated that the parameter is not currently employed in a useful manner: all existing uses are to force a smaller size, which is no longer necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so at this point it looks like the Cover size parameter is redundant and could be deleted. Nevertheless, I propose that we leave the discussion open until middle of next week to allow other editors to comment. Furthermore, for consistency this change would also have to be applied to Infobox single and Extra album cover. I have left a message on the talk page of those templates to alert other editors. – Ib Leo (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As no editors have objected during the last week, I think we have reached consensus to remove the Cover size parameter from this template, as well as from Infobox single and Extra album cover. I hereby request an admin to go ahead and implement it. – Ib Leo (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All done, I think. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin. I have just updated the documentation for the three templates accordingly. – Ib Leo (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, the next logical thing to do is to finish the implementation by a cleanup action to remove all occurrences of the parameter in all articles using the 3 templates. Does anyone know how I can find out how many there are and where, to estimate whether it is something that I can do manually in a reasonable time, or whether a bot would be more appropriate? Could AWB help me with this? – Ib Leo (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago I manually removed all occurrences from Extra album cover using AWB. This meant going through 600+ articles. This approach is not usable for the two other templates due to the volume of articles using them; bot assistance is probaby required. – Ib Leo (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, remove. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  17:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox song list
Template:Infobox song list has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox artist discography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new infobox: POSTHUMOUS ALBUM
There has been some talk that this project should clearly see and be involved in - it has led to a proposal of sorts for a new category called "POSTHUMOUS" for the Template:Infobox album ... Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music.Moxy (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Italic title parameter not functioning properly?
Is the Italic title parameter not being processed correctly? As an example, J. Cole debut album has Italic title=no in the infobox, yet the title is still displayed in italics in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I recall, the "italic title" parameter is for the page title, not for the title in the box. I added a hack to the page in question to fix the presentation in the box itself.  This should, of course, be changed one the album has a title. I think we still want the title bar to be italics in most cases.  The reason for having this option would be when there is a section about an album on a non-album page, or when the automatic italic algorithm fails to correctly italicize the title. So, in other words, what you have presented is a very special case, as far as I can tell. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  19:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Does there need to be a second option, then—either a separate parameter or a second value for this one—that not only suppresses italicization of the page title but also suppresses it where the title appears in the infobox? I see a fair number of articles of the format "Untitled (artist) album" or "(Artist's) (ordinal) studio album", so this case doesn't seem that special. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought in these cases, one would just remove the parenthetical argument from the Name? I would certainly support adding this feature if there is something that I am missing, and there are no major objections. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  20:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Greatest hits" → "Greatest hits album"
Currently, when one uses the value "greatest" in the Type parameter, it displays as "Greatest hits by ". I propose a minor change in the display text, so that it instead reads "Greatest hits album by " (the change is the addition of the word "album" to the display). The logic seems obvious: It's an album infobox, intended for album articles, so it should indicate that the item being discussed is an album. It would also align with the other major types (studio, live, demo, etc.) which all display as "studio album, live album, demo album", etc. I also think this should be done for "soundtrack" and "video". In summary, change the display text thusly: Note that there is no article about video albums. I think it's incorrect that "Video" links to music video, as the first thing that article says is that "A music video or song video is a short video or film that accompanies a piece of music or song." That's not what we're using this infobox for; we're using it for full-length video and concert albums such as The Videos 1989–2004, Vieuphoria, and Live at the Palladium, not for short-form, single-song music videos for songs or singles (those articles use the song or single infobox). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Greatest hits by → Greatest hits album by
 * Soundtrack by → Soundtrack album by
 * Video by → Video album by
 * Very strongly support the rewording of video albums, I have never understood this. 'Greatest hits album' also makes sense. I'm not too sure about 'soundtrack album', soundtrack seems to imply that it is an album already. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. A soundtrack is the entire audio sound track to a film, though in common usage the word is generally used to distinguish the popular music "songs" in a film from the score. Soundtrack albums are generally specific collections of popular songs from a film. For example, the soundtrack of the film Empire Records includes almost 50 songs, but there are only 16 songs on the soundtrack album. Also note that we have 3 different articles for soundtrack, soundtrack album, and film score. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I have seen that there is a difference between a soundtrack and a soundtrack album, so I'll support that too. I would like greatest hits to be moved to greatest hits album, already the article starts with "A greatest hits album...". Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Makes perfect sense. – Ib Leo (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Sounds wonderful IllaZilla. And Adabow's suggestion should really be taken into consideration. Come to thinbk of it, people can actually release a greatest hits EP nowadays, eh? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 08:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – Very good. It should be "Greatest hits album" or "soundtrack album" or "Video album". Novice7  |  Talk  09:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Just "Greatest Hits" has always sounded kind of weird to me. "Greatest hits album" makes more sense. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment A related discussion can be found at Talk:Greatest hits. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin please execute these two changes:
 * Greatest hits by → Greatest hits album by
 * Soundtrack by → Soundtrack album by

The video album can wait until an article is created, so if this is blue, would said admin please also change: Video by → Video album by Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Plastikspork ―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 06:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Would concert film be a better replacement for video albums? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be suitable for collections of promo videos, etc., but may be useful as a separate type.--Michig (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, live albums cover concert recordings. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)