Template talk:Track listing/Archive 2

Visual aspect on album with complex writing credits
I experimented this template on What a Lemon which is an album with many different composers and lyricists. I am not completely happy with the result:

By complying with WikiProject Album's track listing standards ("write (and link) the full name the first time it appears, and then just give the last name") I feel that the Lyrics/Music columns becomes quite unreadable and not very pleasant to look at. Although I am a big fan of templates, this is for me a "showstopper" for applying this particular one. Would anybody have any suggestions about what could be done to overcome this problem? – IbLeo (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, did you make any changes to the template code in above copy, or why did you include it? As for your issue with the credit columns, I'd say the width distribution within the template could still use a little tweaking. But even if you choose to not use it for What a Lemon at this time, would you consider to at least somehow denote lyrics and music credits? I'm afraid many readers will not be able to distinguish them in the current revision of the article. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this is how it looks with the current version of the template, I included it solely for illustrating my point on a real use case. I used the "subst" command to be sure the display doesn't change as the template evolves, and apparantly it expands the template code . The format I use in What a Lemon right now is ' "title" (music writers / lyrics writers) – time'. It is true that the current WikiProject Album guidelines does not say how to distinguish composers from lyricists, so in lack of anything better I use the '(music writers / lyrics writers)' format because it is written like that on the original LP label. I therefore assumed it is some kind of standard in the record industry so widely understood. However, if you feel it is necessary to make it clearer, how would you propose I sort it out (without using this template)? – IbLeo (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess then my approach would be "##. Title (Lyrics: Lyricist / Music: Composer) – mm:ss", track for track. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I like this approach. I have updated the article. If we manage to sort out the visual issue on the template mentioned in my first entry, I will use it. – IbLeo (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on
Before implementing this template on articles and spreading its use any further, a community-wide discussion is necessary as the changes to articles are quite significant. I'd suggest posting invites for a centralised discussion on music-related Wikiprojects to discuss whether the use of this template is ultimately beneficial to the article, and changes to the existing structure are merited at all. indopug (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the most part it's only being used on articles that need it, since it clutters up articles that don't. I don't think it was ever intended to be used in every album article. = ∫tc 5th Eye 12:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted its use from the entire discographies of the Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots and Nine Inch Nails, among others. indopug (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As should be done. It looks really messy if there are no notes or extra writing credits that should be there. Its use is only valid, I feel, in certain cases (e.g. foreign-language albums, etc.). = ∫tc 5th Eye 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you consider to bring this up at WP:ALBUMS before engaging in substantial reverts? The template has already been adopted for well over two hundred articles and per the "silence implies consent" bit of WP:CON (and favorable comments here and on said project talk page), this signifies at least some level of support among the community. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the favourable comments on the ALBUMS talk-page? This talkpage is hardly a well-frequented location on Wikipedia, so a community-wide consensus can't be extrapolated from the positive feedback you received here. indopug (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking back, the template was actually mentioned quite a few times. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those archives all praise the use of the template for foreign language records or hip-hop albums because of complexity of assigning credits. On the other hand, for the rock albums' track listings, which are a largely straightforward affair, and with which I am primarily concerned, the template isn't needed. This recommends only using tables when "when three columns and more are required", which is not the case in any of the articles I reverted. In those archives too, a few people have expressed concerns that using it for simpler track listings is overkill in terms of additional code. Can we agree on this? indopug (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "three column" rule may in fact justify the use of this template in this case. The logic being, the three common columns are track number, song title, and track length. While it may not be often considered its own column, the "track number" field does vary in length, and will offset the list data, giving it a rough appearance. With this template, all column width issues are avoided, as each field is properly contained, and fitted for nearly every commercial monitor. I think the template has proven itself in trial usage, and has been mostly accepted, but even in rock articles, where it may lack blatant praise, it hasn't been met with rejection. I think the editing work on the rock-related articles is a bit impersonal, due to its highly formulaic nature, with almost everything being guided by WikiProject guidelines (unlike hip hop and foreign music, which often requires editors to cooperate and be creative in the development of unique articles). --Jacob Talk 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because rock articles are simpler to format doesn't make them impersonal and formulaic. On the contrary, not having to be worried about templates and MoS complexities enables editors to focus and collaborate instead on content. For eg: Be Here Now and Loveless are gloriously well-written and interesting articles.
 * Of course that is irrelevant to the discussion. Fact is, the additional code is cumbersome and complicated, and even when weighed against the perceived elegance, doesn't match up. (Unconnected detail--when the writer column is empty, the track timings are so far away from the song names that it takes a moment to figure them out. The eyes have to move across the length of the screen from song to corresponding timing) indopug (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is your opinion, to which you are entitled, but it does little to advance your point, when you purport it as some kind of irrevocable "fact", along with opting for a rather dismissive tone in your comments here and your edit summaries. Just about anyone who ever deployed, discussed or worked on the template might be just a tad offended by the assertion that it is "ugly" (while the complaint that it is "[too] colorful" just seems odd, given that it does not employ any actual colors and derives its few shades of grey from our major info- and navboxes).
 * If you want to know my personal opinion as both a programmer and a two-year Wikipedian, then I'll say that additional code is not per se undesirable, if it is well-formatted and (ideally) self-explanatory. There have yet to be any complaints regarding these points, so my best guess is, that people either consider the code they find in existing articles easy enough to adapt or consider the documentation sufficiently helpful. If you would like to see some outside examples for track listings in a table format, feel free to consult Allmusic and Amazon.com.
 * Beyond that, all I can really offer you here is to look into your issue with the distance between track titles and lengths (making the fixed width optional could be a solution), that is if this was meant as genuinely constructive criticism. In the meantime, I will reimplement the template instances you removed, per the "three columns and more" bit in WP:LISTS.– Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Honestly, the template looks like varying shades of pink on my screen. Further, I never meant to insult, but just assert that it wasn't useful for simpler track listings. As for complaints, there is me and there is also this, from a highly contributive user who has written three album FAs. User:5theye above has agreed to my reversions and assertions that it isn't suitable for rock albums (with simple track listings); he even seems to approve of it otherwise. You might say that a template is supposed to be self-explanatory but any template is more difficult to use (for many of us) than just typing #"Song Name" (Writer) – 3:21 (some of us aren't programmers y'know).

I understand that you've worked hard on this and I am sorry to deem it ugly. All I am came here to say is that if you want to standardise its use of your work on every type of album article, you will need a larger consensus. (since clearly I've broken the "silence = consensus" clause). Until then the status quo remains (not having the template on rock albums). Furthermore, there the code is not perfect yet, considering my complaints of the timings being too far away from the track and the weird pink display on my screen. indopug (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You speek of "MoS complexities", but writing #"Song Name" (Writer) – 3:21 correctly is 10 times harder than writing

| title1         = Song Name | writer1        = Writer | length1        = 3:21
 * I cannot even begin to tell you how many articles I have seen without the Song Name double quotes, the wrong dash, writer parenthesis ill placed etc. While you say you are not a programmer, most people on wikipedia know more about templates, then the way WP:ALBUMS standards work, and this template does not even require the knowledge that such standards exist. If this template is already used on so many articles, it is because it is easy to use and understand, straightforward, looks good, and generally accepted by lots of people, who probably have never been on ALBUMS. The only thing I will grant you is that it is new and requires tweaking, but that is all.happypal (Talk | contribs) 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay then, if it is as good as you say it is, maybe we should advertise the proposal to change the standard format track listing? Not everybody works on music articles, even album articles, hangs around ALBUMS talk pages.
 * Apart from myself, I have pointed out other editors who are discontent with the template; the archives Cyrus pointed out show that while there is praise for its use in Hip-Hop/Foreign language articles, support for its use in articles with simple track lists is hardly unequivocal. My prime concern, even more than difficulty of use, is that the template is being applied to a large number of articles by a small number of editors. indopug (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think this template is needlessly complicated. If anything, it should be used like the Cite templates--that is, you can use it, especially if you have no idea how to format an album tracklisting and need a template to follow, but it certainly shouldn't be mandatory. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Wesley. I don't think I'll be using it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it is worth: Templates help authors like me to quickly deal with tedious tasks like complying to formatting conventions and thus give me more time to concentrate on the important stuff: Writing the content of the article itself. As resumed by happypals excellent entry above, when there are no template, even the most simple formatting convention is often disrespected, simply because a lot of people writing articles don't necessarily find their way to the project pages. Using templates overcome this problem, and I think this one does an awful good job even on albums with "simple" tracklists like #"Song Name" (Writer) – 3:21. When I started on Wikipedia only 2 months ago, I was actually quite astonished that there is not already a template in place for the track listing, and subsequently happy when I eventually found my way around to this one. So yes, I definitely support this template (though it still needs a little more tweaking, as requested above), and I would like to see it applied on ALL albums (not only hip hop albums and foreign albums - what is a "foreign" album anyway?). Just like it is the case with the Infobox today. However I do believe that it it should be properly agreed and adapted as a standard over at WikiProject Albums and I won't use it before this is the case. – IbLeo (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on (arbitrary section break)
Indopug, I don't understand what you're complaining about. Okay, you say you don't like how it looks, so you reverted its use on dozens of pages. Is that it? But now you're saying we need wider consensus before it's allowed on all pages. What that statement really means, is a wider consensus before it's allowed on more than just a couple of pages. People tested it on a few articles, but if testing is complete, we should stop until everyone else agrees that it's okay to use? And if consensus is not reached, it should be deleted? There are only two choices here - consensus to allow its use, and consensus that it should not be used. If the consensus is to allow it, then it should either be recommended for use in all articles, or left up to editor prerogative. So I guess that's three choices. Ah, I think I get it. You don't like it, and won't allow its use on pages that you edit, unless consensus is gained for it's preference?

I like the template, but if it makes you feel any better, I would like to see consensus. -Freekee (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with WesleyDodds, the comparison of tracklist with citation templates is actually quite fitting. Both present the information they convey in a consistent and more transparent fashion than their free-form counterparts (access dates for citations, proper alignment of titles and lengths for track listings), but almost always take more time to deploy. With that in mind, I would not support a motion that made the use of this template (and most others) mandatory, as that would ultimately keep many people from contributing to Wikipedia altogether. Yet if some editors want to take that time to add template based citations, navigational elements or track listings to an article, it is fairly unreasonable to keep them from doing so, especially since cleanly formatted template code requires fairly little maintenance later on, even more so if the data in them is unlikely to change.

The reason I have not made a move on WP:ALBUMS to make tracklist "teh standardz" is not just because I think it does not need to be that to be useful, but I also don't believe in prescriptive, top-down consensus building on guideline and WikiProject talk pages (at least as long as none of our prime policies, such as verifiability and neutrality are concerned). Like happypal stated earlier, many editors never frequent these venues, but still make valuable contributions to articles in the respective fields and as such, guidelines should remain descriptive of what happens down in the trenches. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't make this template the standard either, as I strongly believe in WP:IAR and that each page should be decided individually, and for the same reasons stated by Cyrus XIII.
 * Furthermore, as WP:ALBUMS currently prescribes, use inline when simple, and use columns when more complicated. If the tracklist is nothing more than 05 "Song Name" – length, then I would not use the template. If every song requires notes, individual artists, composers etc, then I would prescribe the template.
 * From experience, I have noticed most users prefer copy-pasting templates/tables etc, and then adapting them, rather then create anything on their own, or look up references. I had created a special collapsible track list layout for Music of Final Fantasy VII, and I have already seen it in more than 10 other articles, I had strictly nothing to do with. It's just so much simpler that way.
 * So yeah, I say let it be used if it makes the article better, but leave it at the editor's discretion.
 * happypal (Talk | contribs) 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even now, after a full year in ALBUMS, I still regularly go back to the project page, because I cannot for the life of me remember the song title formats (and I hate that en-dash to death).
 * What this really makes me wonder, is why there isn't a template that automatically formats inline lists and/or song titles. i.e, something like:


 * which would return:

5. "I love beer" (happypal) – 3:21
 * This is exactly the same as the Template:nihongo. It doesn't do much, but it does it well, and has had great success in standardizing all Japanese related pages, even though I'm ready to bet no more than 1% of the people who used the template actually looked at the template page's specifications.
 * I digress, and as this is an entirely different subject, but I still believe worth discussing.
 * happypal (Talk | contribs) 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden tracks
Can anybody add a title+ to the template? That would be very useful for the hidden tracks. For example, here at 7:20 the band refers to "Famous last words" as the last song, and that's because there is a hidden track that's completely different from the album style, so I think it would be better if it was listed as with a + sign --Moraleh (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another row for an unnumbered track could be easily added, but it would appear in a fixed position after the (hypothetical) 99 tracks it currently supports (the markup we can use for the template isn't very dynamic). There are however a few hidden tracks that do not appear at the end of an album. For example, artists (or their technicans) have become quite inventive when it comes to hide a track in another one's pregap, for example (I'm aware of at least one album that hides an instrumental version of one of its songs right before the first track).
 * I'd approach the problem by just using regular tracks and notes, in a fashion that reflects the actual CD layout (or files, when it comes to the incressingly relevant digital downloads). If an unlisted song occupies its own track on a disc, just add " hidden track " as a note, if it is an extension of another track add " contains the hidden track "Song Title" at its end/after two minutes of silence/in its pregap " or something to that effect. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be clearer if we added the "+", just like Coldplay did on the X&Y discs ... --Moraleh (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The width
There are a few issues with the width of the template that I've found in that if it isn't already past the infobox by the time the browser width is about 960/970px it can create large amounts of white space (as you can see on Inhuman Rampage). What I propose instead is that instead of "width:65%" using "margin-right:270px" (as you can see in Infiltrate•Destroy•Rebuild) or alternatively simply removing the width attribute (on the table, not the cells) so that so it automatically sits by either the edge of the infobox or page, as you can see in this demo. I've only tested this in Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox 3. — Balthazar  (T 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing any width requirements entirely would lead to columns of consecutive track listings not aligning properly when one is limited by an infobox and an other isn't. But I do like your initial proposal, as that tweak would eliminate the old infobox overlapping/bump down issue (see previous posts above) and afford the template a bit more space in general.
 * However, I've noticed some issues in connection with the collapsed option as the show/hide buttons no longer stay in one place (which makes them easier to locate and limits the mouse movement necessary to quickly skim through such lists) and does weird things in connection if bulleted lists (useful for listing multiple releases without standalone notability). It'd be great if we could come up with a fix for that. I've demoed that behavior in my sandbox using a a modified copy of the template code. Feel free to modify those pages as you need. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Having the margin on a div around the table and the table as 100% width solves the shrinkage issue with them, hope you don't mind me editing in your sandbox. — Balthazar  (T 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all, thanks for addressing that issue so fast, the new revision looks great! – Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)