Template talk:Track listing/Archive 11

Adding a "Producers" parameter
Since producers are quite common on most records, I suggest adding a parameter designated for producers, rather than using the extra parameter as currently done. It should function the way that "writing_credits" does, where a yes/no answer to a "production_credits" would enable this field. Thoughts? WikiRedactor (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its been discussed multiple times before and the conclusion was null/void because the extra parameter allows for things to be more customised. Would you propose that the producer column replaces the extra column? &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  18:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because that column can still be used for less common fields. I just thought that perhaps adding a production parameter may be useful in the way that writers are. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * but then that's what wikitables are for. no one says you have to use the track listing template. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the addition. The "extra" field is most commonly used for producers anyway. Plus, say, for example on a soundtrack, the "extra" field could be used for the performer and the producer field can also be included. As WikiRedactor, "extra" can be used for less common fields. "Producers" is probably the most common field. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 19:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I also support the proposal and agree with both WikiRedactor and Status. — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support this but I fear that there will be opposition around "screen size" or "column size" when using both the producer and extra fields &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See No_Line_on_the_Horizon for an example. It works fine. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 22:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That example only shows the current 6 column layout. The concern is how it may come out if a 7th column is introduced. – Mizery Made  ( talk ·  contribs ) 23:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think as a part of this, there should be a usage clarification. I tried getting clarification, but it seemed to be lost on non-Hip Hop/R&B/Pop listeners. The "Producer" can serve a different function depending on the genre of music. When it comes to more traditionally created music (Rock and Country, where bands actually play the music), they serve more of a "director" role while in the studio. However when it comes to a genre like R&B and Hip-Hop, they're more of a "composer," as they're they ones digitally "composing" the music, over which the artist then records their vocals. In this instance, they're not always even present during the recording process. So the proposed "Producer" column, which would it apply to or would it be mixed usage? Prior, I questioned whether the "Hip hop producers" belonged in a "Producer(s)" extra column, or whether it was more appropriate to credit them in the "Music" column. Never really got a consensus on that clarification. Anyway... I wouldn't be against this. However, it could further clutter the table, like on a compilation where writing credits are listed, the producers are in the new column and the old "extra" column is re-purposed to an Artist column. There's only so much room on the screen (especially since there are those that may still be running smaller desktop resolutions or... *gasp* mobile devices. – Mizery Made  ( talk ·  contribs ) 22:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just added an RFC tag to this discussion, hopefully we can get this going again. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think in the case where producers are composers (such as in the rap/pop examples given above by Mizery Made), using the Music column makes sense. However, I understand that people would say "no, he's a 'Producer', it should say 'Producer'". So is it technically possible to make a setting that changes the heading "Music" to say "Producer"? "| music_producer = yes" or something like that? Would this solve both issues (not adding a 7th column, but having a Producer column)? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My only concern with that is that the credits of some records (ie. Fijación Oral, Vol. 1) separate "music" and "production" personnel. Since the "extra" field seems like is almost always used as a "producers" heading, maybe it is the best option to replace the existing parameter with the new one. In the case of soundtracks, which use the "extra" field for the included artists, maybe they could be included as a note instead, like Hannah Montana: The Movie. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood your suggestion at first. I'm not sure if that's technically possible, but if it is, it sounds like a good idea to make the most use of the columns we have. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Formatting
This table looks visually inconsistent with quite a lot of the other tables on the Wikipedia these days, given the prevalence of the wikitable "pseudo-standard". Ignoring that, though, the 100% width is quite awkward. Is there a particular reason that the table needs to be wider than the browser calculates by default? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To fit in as much columns as it possibly can if theres additional information. I suppose there should be at least a simplified version if the names are clear-cut, no notes and the only thing the track list has to offer is title, name, and length.Lucia Black (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for it to be 100% width either, however, if two are stacked, as is often done for bonus editions, additional tracks or A & B sides of LPs, one could be narrower than the other and then the times would not line-up. However, in some articles where the first table is trapped by a right-hand element such as the album's infobox or a ratings infobox, the two don't line-up anyhow. If you could solve both of those problems, I'd be all ears. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well here's an idea, the 100% width is meant to take track#, title, and length (the basics) and additional 3 columns such music/lyrics and extra. If we add a parameter with "basic" it would take away the ammount of space that 2 columns would. What do you think?Lucia Black (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

AnyoneLucia Black (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you mock up a test of what it looks like? its very hard to visual otherwise.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  16:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically if it only had title, note, and length parameters, the tracklist would be shorten in width. I don't know how to make a template.Lucia Black (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what numbered lists are for? In fact it even says that at WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide. In fact based on that I oppose the suggested changes in that they are completely redundant.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Tracklist template is becoming more universal. It's not "redundant" as the article will have one or the other. It would be an effort to standardizing the track list template.Lucia Black (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the purpose of the template is to neatly organise track listings where there is additional information (e.g. writers, lyricists, musicians etc.) where such information is not present such as a track listing of an album by a particular band where the band have produced and written all of the compositions the template is redundent. The template doesn't exist to universally standardise articles. Rather than modify the template (adding an unnecessary additional function) it would be better served to just use a numerical list. After all in this situation all the template does is highlight alternative tracks in a slightly different background shade. I think there's legitimately cases where a simple numbered list is more than sufficient where the track listing is uncomplicated.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you'll have to contest to the hundreds of albums such as singles and other works that use track listing template that has none of the extra and the examples shown on the front page. You make it sound all absolute.

Also it's "not" redundant unless the article offers both tracklist template and numerical list.Lucia Black (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst Yes I prefer the appearance of the track listing template to standard tables etc, I follow the guide at the album style page and if I am editing a song/album where there there is just titles and lengths to songs then I don't bother with the track listing template. I am saying it is redundant and illogical to modify the appearance of the template for those cases where the track listing is uncomplicated. It makes more sense to just use a numerical list where the situation is uncomplicated. Just because the masses have adopted the track list template, doesn't mean its use in every case is correct.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  19:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You keep using "redundant" but do you know what it means? I can understand that it can be "tedious" at times. But adding a wikitable is no different than a tracklist. It makes sense to use a numerical list from an editors perspective, but readers will question it. And I don't think adding tracklist is wrong even if its just list/title. I don't think its wrong in general, even if its just a single track one one list.Lucia Black (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It'd be interesting to see what others think - personally I would NOT support any such change to the template because I just don't see a need for it.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  23:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you see how I feel? But not as much, because I don't dodge consensus defining questions, I address them.(or is this an attempt to use reverse phsycology? You used the word redundant innacurately)...Either way, the "need" is standardization of articles. If an article is going to have a track list template and it only has title and length, will someone manually remove it just because of a guideline? Its so "optional" its not really something that has to be enforced, but because its being used by the masses, it leaves inconsistency between such.


 * Here's another thing to consider. If the prose of an album in an article is so short that the tracklist covers most of the space of tracklistt 1 but tracklist 2 doesn't. It looks unorganized. Lucia Black (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This case is different because reducing the width of the template where the track listing is "basic" adds nothing to functionality. It simply creates a visual appearance to the suit the preference of some readers. A numerical list performs exactly the same function listing the track listing succinctly and therefore I cannot support a change to the template which adds an unnecessary functionality that can already be served by an alternative means (a numerical list). Whilst I'm sure somebody more experienced will tell me that additional functions are fine to add to templates etc. I think we should keep templates streamlined in terms of functionality as they can get complicated. Particularly where the proposed new parameter/option has no functional use and is purely aesthetic. It is redundant in that sense in that it adds zero value to the functionality of the template. A functionality which is already served elsewhere. It would be an unnecessary bloating of the template documentation (much like when your smartphone comes with software preloaded that cannot be removed and doesnt serve a purpose to the majority of the audience). Of course on wikipedia its done by consensus so if others decide it is a worthy change then by all means it will go ahead however, I wouldnt be in favour of the change. That's all I really have to say on the issue.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1  - {  Talk  } -  00:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you know what the word "redundant" means. Also...if we go in terms of necessity, this template itself is unnecessary if a simple wikitable works fine. And if there's too much already, than we should be satisfied with the headline parameter. Plus the argument before has been dodged continuously because in reality doesn't serve what andy claimed.Lucia Black (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redundant means not/no longer useful or superfluous. As I've explained several times, already the change would add ZERO value beyond editor preference/appearance. Giving the editor the option to shrink the of the the template output because "it looks better" adds zero value, and does nothing to improve functionality. IMO its of no use therefore per the meaning of redundant - it would be a redundant change. Quite simple really. And this change has nothing to do with the above and on-going discussion regarding the artist parameter. Learn to keep the discussion separate as it dilutes the issue at hand were someone else to get involved.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1  - {  Talk  } -  00:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were to make my POV easier to understand substitute every instance of redundant above for the words pointless, zero-value or unnecessary.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  01:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It does...you can't use one ideology and change without any difference circumstances (especially involving the same template/article)....You have to keep your arguments consistent otherwise it looks like WP:ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. It does have a point, you simply don't see it as something necessary. And I know you got that definition off google, but more accurate definitions are "in exceeding what is necessary or natural" or to put simply in "excess". Or in wikipedia's definition, " saying more than is necessarytoconvey a meaning " such as the artist parameter that is already revealed in infobox and prose of an article would be "redundant"Lucia Black (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've steered clear of the additional discussion regarding the artist parameter because it has gone beyond my area of knowledge/expertise. Its not a case of it does have a point and I just don't see it it, its a case of someone wanting to modify the template to suit their appearance template for a particular basic situation track listing and my POV is that that particular functionality is better served by a numerical list. So far you've not presented a case as to why such a change adds value, or why it is necessary. All I have see is a sentiment that it would be a nice appearance change because editors prefer to use the template as opposed to the numerical lists. That doesn't sound like a great reason to change a template. But like I said, myself and yourself are going round in circles. A consensus isnt built between two editors, it needs multiple opinions so it'd be interesting to see what others think.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  22:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why have a universal template, and not allow it to be universal? It helps keep things more organized. Plus it just looks messy, there's a template for nearly everything that would normally need bullet list. I also see great clean articles. Its even more pointless having 2 different formats for track listings.Lucia Black (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is already universal, the template can be used for basic track listings already the only difference between the present and the proposed change is the width of the table that is generated. If people don't like the way it spreads out the tracks and titles the alternative is a numerical list. You're saying its pointless having two different formats for track listings, however, if this change goes ahead you'll create three formats essentially: track listing template (shortened width), track listing template (standard 100% width) and numerical lists. The latter of which is still used in some articles. The argument that's "its messy" is totally subjective... You obviously think its messy, whereas I don't, its a pure matter of opinion. Other stuff existing is never a great argument for the creation of something. Essentially creating a shortened width is about bringing the length closer to the album title, something which the numerical list already renders. And IMO the table formatting (as it alternates the background) would look worse if shortened for simple track listings.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  21:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its been brought up numerous of times. And three formats? Its technically two. Just the tracklisting template able to be shortened width. And not only that but that's the point I'm trying to make. If we allow this template to be shortened, we wouldn't need two formats, we would have just "1". And considering that there is already a grey aspect, it wouldn't affect so much.Lucia Black (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * if uniformity is the goal then it should be left at 100% width as the universal use of the template would then mean that all track listing sections would end up looking nearly identical. I'm guessing on a technical level it would be possible if the wider community wanted it? So far the discussion hasn't really attracted if a wide rang of discussion to warrant (or to be fair oppose) the change. If yourself/the party who first initiated this idea are still interested in pursuing then perhaps an RFC/poll is the way forward before making the edit request. I'd support the overall consensus even though on a personal level I don't think its required.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  23:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not the only goal, this is just the new goal in light of your reasoning. Previous goal still stands. It has been brought up in the past that when multiple collapsed tracklist are under a section that is being taken up partially by the infobox, one of them will have shorter width than the other if both are uncollapsed (or maybe even if they both are collapsed, the infobox still affects it so that one shows at full width, and the other doesn't. So uniformity and good clean up.


 * It may not be as necessary...but neither is two formats for the sake of convinience to us editors. And even then, if we make a template that is potentially universal in use, we should att least make it potentially organizable for every use. But if you believe RfC will cover it, I could bring one up.Lucia Black (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well tbh apart from yourself and myself there hasn't really been much interest in the proposal. Im just wondering how you should engage others? I suppose if there is a perceived need it shouldn't be difficult to reduce the template width by say 50%.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  02:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's a compromise you're willing to accept I could figure out a way to make it. (And if not I will just RfC it). I'll show you how it looks in a sandbox.Lucia Black (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

'all' placement
When using one of the 'all' parameters, such as 'all_music', the text is placed above the table. When using 'collapsed', it is outside the collapsed div. This looks odd and disconnected, especially when there are multiple collapsed track listings. For example

I think this would be better placed below 'headline'. --  Gadget850talk 14:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Can that even be done?Lucia Black (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hidden track - best practice?
What's the best practice (with this template) for hidden tracks? Before this template existed, I had been using line breaks.
 * Example line breaks (no Template)
 * 1) "Something in the Way" – 3:52 Silence – 10:03 "Endless, Nameless" – 6:44 (hidden track)


 * Example line breaks (with Template)

Notice the dangling quote after the parentheses. How do you get rid of the quotation mark at the end? StevePrutz (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * we just make it as a separate track. not a single one.Lucia Black (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Cushion space
I am curious if there is a way to add some additional cushion space between columns. Sometimes there are several writers or producers, etc., causing the list of names to go to a second line. However, the names on the first line sometimes look like they merge into the next column. Perhaps there is a way to force the text to the next line while still keeping a small amount of space between the next column? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional columns
Please see discussion at Help talk:Template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)