Template talk:Infobox song/Archive 7

… and a bugbear: partial track listing
I've long thought we need to revisit the instructions we give regarding partial track listing (particularly) and full track listing in the infobox. And seeing the above thread has spurred me into raising it at last. Full disclosure: personally, I loathe the partial version; it's the height of triviality to give just the tracks before and after, whereas a full list at least has some encyclopaedic value. In Beatles song articles, a few of us have removed the partials. Last year, a couple of editors tried to reinstate them, and one received a block for their trouble – a bit harsh, I thought, since the documentation does support the use of either a partial or a full track list. Separately from those episodes, editors were (and could still be) successfully nominating full track lists for deletion at TfD, for a range of artists, with the rationale that they provide unnecessary details that are already given in either album navboxes or an artist's song navbox at the foot of the article. Aside from how I feel about the partial versions, this rationale obviously holds true for the before-and-after track lists also. So it seems we need to reword instructions here, to mention a third track list option (the album navbox) and how that renders a full or partial list unnecessary.

During the course of the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, someone pointed out the ridiculous level of chronologies appearing at Welcome to My Hood. And we've been working on removing unnecessary infobox fields, of course – with the result that "certification", "covers" and "form" have all been removed. So in light of this more-discerning approach – i.e., aside from whether a song article carries an album navbox or not – can we really say that partial track lists are necessary? JG66 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The partial track listing may be an attempt to establish a chain of links, similar to previous and next for singles and albums. While the latter also have use as chronologies, the before-and-after tracks seem to be strictly for navigation and have very little information value.  This is much better handled by a full track list – it's easier to skip unlinked tracks or to focus on particular songs – plus it puts the track into the context of the whole album.  The "Track listing examples" section in the infobox song guidelines should include the use of album navboxes at the bottom of a page. What about the collapsible full album track lists sometimes used in infoboxes? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "the collapsible full album track lists sometimes used in infoboxes" – yes, those are the ones I'm referring to that have been getting picked off, individually or in groups (by artist), at TfD since about 2013. The first I knew about it was in August 2015, when a song article I'd just nominated for GA suddenly carried notification that the track list template in the infobox had been proposed for deletion. Here's that particular discussion, which includes a link to the 2013 examples. While the decision in August 2015 was not to delete the Dark Horse track list (because the info was not repeated in an album navbox or George Harrison songs 'box – neither feature exists for that particular album/artist), a while later all the full track lists for albums by the Beatles, i.e. the band not individual members, were deleted. JG66 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So, there are four current options: album navbox at the bottom of the page; and, within the infobox, partial track listing, displayed full track listing, and collapsible full track listing. (I'm not sure a fifth, the artist's song navbox, should be included here – they only includes songs with links and aren't necessarily an album sequential track listing.) The partial listing is the least useful and, with much better available options, it's hard to see that their use can be justified.  I prefer the album navbox – the displayed track list is usually too long and hidden content shouldn't be in infoboxes – but I don't know if you want to tackle that issue.  Depending on responses, I'd say open an RfC to remove at least the partial track listings. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought all the full track listings in infoboxes were hidden/collapsible – no? You could be right about dealing solely with the partial versions as the best forward. I guess what I was hoping to achieve here was to catch up with what seems to have become the favoured approach, namely that album track lists in infoboxes are redundant if the same information appears in a navbox. Which is just one reason why I think it would've made sense for those nominating the "tracks" templates at TfD to instead raise the whole issue for discussion, because we've got so many different versions of how to approach this, and heck, a user got blocked for, essentially, following the guidelines. FTR, here's the TfD that resulted in the deletion of all the Beatles track listings in lieu of their respective album navboxes. (I get a bit grumpy there, as in the August discussion, for reasons explained.) I'll post notification now at Songs and other projects. JG66 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Apparently, some album navboxes have been deleted because all of the songs were not linked and/or already linked in the artist's Navbox musical artist. Template:Electric Ladyland was deleted because it had links to 9 out of 16 songs, which were linked in Jimi Hendrix.  This works to a better percentage than several existing album navboxes (see Category:Album navigational boxes), although the respective artist navboxes don't include songs.  Has the same rationale been applied to track listings (partial, displayed, hidden) within the song infobox?  Something to consider when developing a guideline. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about the rationale. I can't remember ever seeing an example of the displayed listing (which is why I took it that all full infobox track listings were hidden), but it seems to me that most hidden examples carry a majority of blue-linked song titles. Yet that needn't be the case with a partial, just as it's not in an infobox's singles or albums chronology. Put it this way, with the very few hidden track listings templates I've created (probably four or five maximum), it's because over half of the album's songs have a dedicated article or merit one, which I plan to write. I can't really see the point in going to the effort of creating a full list if it's not going to have some additional, navigational value. So I assume other editors have felt the same way. JG66 (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I assumed (but not necessarily agree) that the full listing (navbox or within the infobox) is also desired because it places the track within the context or sequencing of the album, regardless of links (sort of like looking at an album cover). Several Who album navboxes (and probably others) contain many unlinked songs.  If navigational value is paramount, an artist navbox or separate song navbox may be better.  An album navbox might have limited navigational value (Tommy has links to 8 out of 25 songs, The Who by Numbers 4 out of 10), etc. Maybe all album track listings should be limited to those with links to most of the songs (the Electric Ladyland example). Or just click on the album! —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do think navboxes, album or otherwise, should have all their components linked. Those Who album examples look wrong, imo – should be a sea of blue. For a full track listing in an infobox, though, one would only expect to see a decent portion of the content linked perhaps, at least half. After all, not every writer, producer or studio has their/its own article; nor, as mentioned, does every entry in the single or album chronology. I keep going back to the hidden full listings – I think they're great. And I was only vaguely aware of album navboxes (even in song and album articles that I was quite familiar with, because the 'boxes appear way down in an area that I wouldn't usually look at) before the feature was cited as a preferred option over hidden track listings, at one of the TfDs. Like everything, I appreciate it's down to what we've each come to expect from Wikipedia articles, based on what we've seen. Alternatively: yes, "just click on the album" could be the answer! JG66 (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, only linked songs in a navbox (that's why it's called a navbox), but there probably shouldn't be an album navbox for only 3 or 4 songs with links (the Who examples). Relocating the tracks to the infobox may overwhelm it. Hidden/collapsible material seems to be discouraged: MOS:COLLAPSE includes "A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed (usually navigational) details. If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it [consider] whether it should be included at all".  But I think it's preferable to the displayed full or partial track listing.  Maybe the documentation should include something to the effect: "a track listing in an infobox should not be used if the article has an album navbox, artist song navbox, or artist navbox that includes songs". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree on all the above. (And boy, that Voodoo Chile example looks frightening – just imagine how the White Album's 30 tracks would look in that format …) JG66 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This hasn't received any interest yet (infobox discussion fatigue?). However, as you note, a better description  of track listing options should added to the "Track listing examples" in the documentation.  These include the Template:Album navbox (not actually for the infobox, but an alternative) and the collapsible Template:Album in addition to the existing Partial track listing and Full album track listing options.  Additionally, it needs to be clarified that only one of these four options should be used.  How should the use of Template:Navbox musical artist or Template:Artist song box (and potential problems) be mentioned (again, not for the infobox, but alternatives)?  I don't know that these are discussed anywhere, but are seen by some as removing the need for album track listings. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry – went to sleep on this one myself. You're right that there doesn't seem to have been a general discussion about the last two templates, so it's a case of trying to ensure that the documentation reflects what appears to be the popular approach, judging by those and other TfDs. (Playing catch-up, in other words.) I'll have a think about the proposed wording. May well ping the editors who offered the redundancy-based rationale, also. JG66 (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's some proposed wording for the documentation to place the existing section. There may be better existing template examples. Suggestions/fixes? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * a) thanks for being so proactive and coming up with the examples (good job); b) feel free to move this message if you think discussion belongs above or in a new section.
 * The first thing that springs to mind is it might be worth adding bold and rewording the opening sentence of the second paragraph, for clarity. Reason being that this whole issue has come about through editors at those TfDs citing "redundancy"/repetition of information as the reason for removing track listings from infobox song. Perhaps: An album track listing may be added to infobox song if the article does not have a navbox at the bottom of the page, and as long as a majority of the album's songs are linked to WP articles.
 * The statements regarding the degree to which an option is "preferred" or "recommended" are the potential stumbling block(s), of course. The overall message certainly satisfies my tastes, but as you've noted, others might point to the advice given at MOS:COLLAPSE. So, although further, minor tweaks to the wording might be in order, I think that's all secondary to the overall message. Is there anything further we should do as far as getting word out and ensuring we've got consensus for the statements? JG66 (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * (Moved) I thought your recommendations were important to add before a possible broader review. Now that it's neutral – nothing new is being put forth and it merely clarifies current practice – a RfC isn't warranted. The partial track listing question hasn't received any interest (again, infobox discussion fatigue?) and I'm wondering if additional general notice would produce anything.  Perhaps ping those who have commented on TfDs, etc., and then add it to the existing section if there are no objections. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing.    would any of you like to weigh in here? In short, we're attempting to update the guidelines to reflect the relevance of artist songs navboxes and album navboxes on the inclusion of an album track listing in Infobox song. Each of you offered an opinion on the issue at two TfD threads in 2015 (links to those discussions appear above). Back then, further to examples from 2013, closing decisions about whether to keep or delete an album track listing template hinged on whether the same information could be found in a navbox, thereby rendering the track listing redundant – so I'm hoping this is a case of the guidelines simply catching up with what seems to have become the preferred method. JG66 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer "Partial track listing" as shown here below warpozio (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't include tracklists in infoboxes; it needlessly overfills them and would likely detract focus from the song the article is about. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But the guidelines do allow for this feature and always have done. So the issue now (and long overdue, given how navboxes appear to have entered the picture) is to marry up the wording with what appears to be common practice. With the suggested changes below, it will ensure that there is no track listing of any sort if the song appears in a navbox – which is surely getting things halfway to what you'd like to see anyway. Alternatively, we don't change the wording and infoboxes can continue to carry the information, whether a full or partial listing, that's then repeated in the album or artist's songs navbox. JG66 (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * JG66 my thoughts on this are still the same, track lists in infobox clutters them unnecessarily when they are also present in the navbox down below the article. In this particular example above for WTMH, I would even say that the chronology feature could be selectively be made collapsible for cases like this, when "n" number of artists feature on a song and the chronology elongates the infobox. — I B  [ Poke  ] 05:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks IB, I appreciate you want to see a whole lot more happen, so do I. At the risk of sounding like a scratched old record (with a hidden full track-list feature), it's just a case now of formalising what seems to have become common practice. I totally agree about the various chronologies at Welcome to My Hood – hide them please … JG66 (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

to reply to me 16:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * my suggestion is that the track listing should not be hiddenGonejackal (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * upon further reading, WP:TG also says "They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader.". So besides navigational footers, which can get very large and potentially infinitely long (i.e.: Template:Academy Awards since each new ceremony might be added), why are these track templates still in existence and fields-not-added to replace and accommodate them if you know what i mean?Gonejackal (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * According to MOS:COLLAPSE, there are exceptions: "the collapsed, mw-collapsed, and autocollapse states should not be used in articles to pre-emptively force the closure of these elements, except as noted below... Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats). Auto-collapsing is often a feature of navboxes. A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed (usually navigational) details." (emphasis added) Collapsed album track listing templates seem to meet this exception. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * that seems counterintuitive. im wondering what are all your thoughts on Ojorojo's emphasis part; a discussion on the guideline's talk page could start later.Gonejackal (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , from the discussion at TfD Dark Horse tracks suggesting an RfC, Village Pump, etc., it doesn't look like the hidden track list issue is going to be resolved anytime soon. However, I think the proposed "Track listing examples" should move forward, since it provides important clarification about the use of navboxes.  As a possible compromise, add it without the "Collapsible full-album track listing" example.  Other ideas? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree, there's no point in holding things up here. I was waiting for SMcClandish's reply at the TfD before adding more there – I still think the hidden track list is by far the most preferable option of the three, but if the decision is to lose the feature altogether (regardless of the presence of a navbox) I'd favour binning the partial and full displayed versions too. But again, that could all be way down the road and needn't affect what we're trying to clarify here. JG66 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Added, w/o the collapsed option. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting on the TfD result too. I am not versed or an expert on the partial and full displayed versions but I've seen templates like Template:Dark Horse tracks used in both the infobox and on the article-prose.  The big issue is the creation and using templates for this purpose which is isn't what templatespace is for.  So User:JG66, if you are in favour of either keeping all three options or none at all, what policy or guideline are you following?Gonejackal (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , Since the Dark Horse TfD was closed as no consensus, the collapsed option is again viable.  There are a couple of ways to add a collapsed track listing and I'm trying to figure if there is a preference for one or the other.  Recently I tried replacing the fully displayed track listing on song infoboxes from Astral Weeks, with Extra collapsed text with the songs listed (I did not create a separate "Astral Weeks tracks" template).  This was soon replaced by a newly created Astral Weeks track listing.  I attempted to get some clarification regarding using the template (now replaced by Hidden) at Template talk:Hidden, but my question was misunderstood and not answered.  So, if the collapsed option is added to the Track listing examples section, should the example/explanation below be used or include the other  possible way to add a collapsed track listing without a separate "Album X tracks" template? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Replying to your comment on the other discussion, even if a replacement navbox doesn't have all the tracks listed, shouldn't the track listing be on the album article anyway? Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 *  I appreciate you persevering. Definite communication breakdown there at Template talk:Hidden. (Back at the TfD, you were most definitely summing up what others had said, and no more – that was obvious. Strange.) I see what you did for the Astral Weeks songs before the tracks template was created – collapsing/hiding the full listing that was already there (e.g. . That's the way I was thinking of going with this issue, to avoid another boring TfD session/indoctrination if nothing else(!).
 * To answer your question, maybe we should go with the hidden (no template) option – as long as we can get it to look good, e.g. avoiding the "" that appeared at AT's title track. (Perhaps that's what you were investigating at Template talk:Hidden.) My thinking is that if we can't hide the full list, then we just shouldn't bother with album tracks info at all in Infobox song. But then I may have mentioned one or twice how awful I think those partial track listings are … JG66 (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't remember the  – maybe it was caused by the change from Extra collapsed text (here's another example where it works fine). I'd like to hear more on the pro and cons of template vs no template collapsed options.   Anyway, I completely agree that if some form of track listing remains in the infobox, it should be the collapsed option.  But I don't see a consensus for this (warpozio preferred the partial listing, Snuggums wanted none, etc.). Of course, as we noted above (and Jc86035 might agree), "just click on the album"! Part of the problem is when people get used to seeing something, it becomes "standard" and even expected.  To change/remove it later, this inertia has to be overcome. I think for now, we're stuck with the existing uses, unless someone has a better idea.—Ojorojo (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Below is a revised collapsed example for the documentation, which incorporates both options. Of course, it can be scaled back to one or the other, to reflect a preferred option. (The already implemented "Track listing examples" was moved to the archive so as not to confuse the issue.) —Ojorojo (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does the closure of the Dark Horse TfD make hiding hidden track templates viable? I didn't see that in the closing comment.  I've been asking why parameters are inferior to the track templates.  Why isn't it possible to make parameters like
 * | track 1        = "Snow"
 * | track 2        = "Ice"
 * | track 3        = "Fire"
 * ?Gonejackal (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Failure come to a decision about whether to delete some template doesn't magically make MOS:DONTHIDE go away.  For Infobox album, the album's track listing is not "infrequently accessed (usually navigational) details." It's key information.  But why are we talking about that template at great length on the talk page of Infobox song?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here, I learned that pre-collapsed sections in infoboxes are frequently used for species articles but they have no bluelinks so no navigation purpose. What needs to be reinforced is that track list templates should not be created when navigational boxes serve the purpose and that parameters should be used for tracks and "side a, side b".Gonejackal (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed full-album track listing
There are two options for adding a collapsed full-album track listing. Both use Hidden and the listing remains collapsed until "show" is clicked.

One uses the template to create a separate "Album track listing" template, which is then added to the infobox in the tracks field (Rumours tracks is used as an example). This may be more convenient for multi-disc albums or those with many tracks.

The second places the Hidden template directly into the infobox in the tracks field, then the tracks are listed. This may be copied and added to other songs infoboxes from the same album.

Code {{Infobox album ... | expanded   = | title      = | text       = }}
 * tracks      = {{hidden|
 * 1) etc.
 * 1) etc.
 * 1) etc.

Expanded
Leave blank for the listing to be initially collapsed. By adding "yes" (or anything), the listing will be initially displayed.

Title
Enter the number of tracks, such as "10 tracks". A header will be generated automatically, for example "That Album track listing" (there is no type function to set the color to the type of album; the header will use the same color as the infobox top header).

Text
In this field, add the album tracks, using  to generate a sequential numbering. The tracks should be in "quotes", with the article track also in bold. Link if the tracks have WP articles, except for the article title track.

For multi-disc CDs, subheadings for "Disc one", "Disc two", etc. may be included. Similarly, "Side one", "Side A", etc., may be added for LP records and EPs. For the "Disc two", "Side two", etc., track numbers to continue sequentially (so it doesn't start again at "1"), use  where "x"=the next track number. {{Infobox song ... | expanded   = | title      = | text       = }}
 * tracks      = {{hidden|
 * Disc one
 * 1) etc.
 * Disc two
 * 1) etc.
 * Disc two
 * 1) etc.
 * 1) etc.
 * 1) etc.
 * 1) etc.

{{Clear}}