Template talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 1

Needs to be smaller
Hi! I've just noticed how large this template is. While it is, of course, great to have an Albums WikiProject, and entirely appropriate to note that an article is part of a WikiProject on a Talk: page, I don't think it's a good idea to take up an entire screenful of each and every album talk page with a project-wide todo list -- if an editor is interested, they can click through. Article talk pages are really only for discussion directly related to the article in question; broader issues should be advertised elsewhere. Can we trim it down? &mdash; Matt 03:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Doesn't particularly bother me but then I'm using a 19" monitor. I would say 95% of the album talk pages have nothing but the template at the moment. I'm neutral on having it trimmed down. RedWolf 04:16, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Certainly, only having a resolution of 800x600 on my laptop doesn't help. &mdash; Matt 04:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm with making it smaller. Tuf-Kat 01:57, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's true that most album talk pages are pretty bare but for this template, but I still think it's way too big and contains more information than is necessary. If people feel like finding out what the current collaboration is, they'll go to the WikiProject page. I think the "things you can do" part should be trimmed. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px]] plattopustalk 17:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, a little smaller would make a big improvement.  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  15:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Template placement
See Template locations for discussion on template placement (article versus talk page). <> Who ? &iquest; ? 15:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please
Could someone make this template look a bit nicer? 16:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave it a shot. -- Netoholic @ 15:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've removed some more unnecessary stuff. This is an infobox for editors, they will know about Portal Music anyway. The links to the Current collaborations et. al. are pretty obvious, they don't need another sentence explaining them. --FlorianB 16:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Pump Up the Valuum
I added the infobox here :) Redwolf24 03:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Despierta Los Niños
I gave that album an infobox, so it doesn't need it anymore. Junkyard prince 01:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Conversion
Could we add a section on this template for conversion? For instance At The Chelsea Nightclub doesn't use the album box template... the basic style but it's not correct... Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One is better but it doesn't use the template (in fact, should that be converted since it is exact same style, or should it be left code?) gren グレン 06:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support putting another section for conversion on the template as long as there are enough articles with boxes that do not follow the template style, since we may also want to make a list for them similar to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox|Needs infobox (maybe Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox conversion?). As for articles that have the infobox style but are not templates, I don't see any harm in leaving them as raw code, unless the code is confusing. Jaxl | talk 19:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Adding an info box takes time... converting doesn't really... so I'd probably conver rather than just adding to a list... music isn't my main task here... but, I just wanted to suggest it. 19:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Well, I still think it's a good suggestion, so if you want to add a section for conversion, then I'm all for it. Jaxl | talk 20:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I started to add that section until I noticed Wikiproject Albums/Incomplete infobox which is basically the same thing. .. except, it's harder to manage I think with tables and all.  I don't think I should add the conversion section since it's more or less incompleteness... gren グレン 10:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The Longest Line
I have granted it an infobox. And all was happy and stuff. -- CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  20:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Are You Experienced (album)
Sort of converted. Didn't find any lists to remove it from, though. -- Parasti 00:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

links / slight expansion
I feel that at a minimum this template needs links to the tasks which were formerly listed here. Code is included.

Thanks Dan, the CowMan 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Other WikiProject templates generally don't have links like those. Best to keep it simple, and allow users to find those links when they go to the WikiProject. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like it either, not least because the scope of the project is very large and most people who edit album articles aren't members of the WikiProject. That said, I think you ought to consider implementing the new bot-assisted Wikipedia 1.0 assessments system, about which I've posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums. --kingboyk 21:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0 Assessments
I've added article assessment code to this template (as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums). The only feature I've not implemented at this time is displaying importance, since some other large Projects have decided not to assess for importance or to not display it. The template will now display a grading, add talk pages to subcategories of Category:Album articles by quality and Category:Album articles by importance, transclude /Comments files and add to Category:Album articles with comments.

In addition to those category trees, I've created WikiProject Albums/Assessment.

WP1.0 Albums:. --kingboyk 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that I'm quite willing to add the code for displaying importance, but I thought I'd wait and see how assessment goes and how editors feel about it. Comments welcome! --kingboyk 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewording
"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on music recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion."

Based on the WikiProject Biography template. Punctured Bicycle 23:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support that change. Being able to edit an article is kinda obvious, that's wiki! --kingboyk 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha... I was sure this had been discussed somewhere!


 * OK, anyway: I've removed "musical". It now says "an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres." Is that OK with everyone or is the scope meant to be music albums only?


 * I'll do the other change now. --kingboyk 12:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed "nested" parameter
Per a comment on the WikiProject's page, I'd like to alter this template by adding the "nested" parameter and allowing the template to be used in the WikiProjectBannerShell format. Since it's protected, how do I go about getting permission to edit it? The altered code can be seen at Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Example Album and an example can be seen on Template_talk:WikiProjectBannerShell/Example Album. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know any problems. Agathoclea 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Different links in template for unassessed articles
&#123;{Editprotected}}

Please look at this edit (for an unassessed article) and note that the link "assessment scale" points here, whereas this link (for an assessed article) points here. Is this intended? --Bensin 12:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Could somebody fix this? This will do. Jogers (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

✅ —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 13:42Z 

Class parameters
I noticed that the list and cat (short for category) parameters are not present. These parameters should be included since lists and categories will never be complete and consequently cannot be assessed with the usual stub, start, etc. ratings. Many other WikiProject templates include this parameter.--NPswimdude500 07:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Add WikiProject banners category
editprotected Currently there are three categories that are on the doc page and not on the banner itself. To move these to the correct place, please change the last line of the template from:

to:

Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this protected?
I can't find any explanation for why this is protected. Protected articles should be prominently noted as such and a reason (with links to the edits that provoked the protection) should be given. Can someone fix this? Thanks. Gronky 19:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 21:23, 9 January 2007 Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Template:Album: high-risk, approx. 39928 transclusions [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) Agathoclea 21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Req: Remove duplicate categories
editprotected

Please remove the code  from the bottom of the template. These categories are already set at Template:WikiProject Albums/doc, but one category has now been changed to a subcategory. --PEJL 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please also change "Theeee" to "The". (Does no one read this text?) --PEJL 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Jogers (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Cat-Class, etc.
editprotected The switch

does not include a switch for Cat-Class, Dab-Class, Template-Class, List-Class, and NA-Class album articles. This sends them to the  option, erroneously placing these articles in the "Unassessed Album articles" category. —Werson (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, it sounds like you're requesting something along these lines? {{#switch:{{{class}}} ...tinker as you like, I may not have the categories right, or I may have misunderstood the request. – Luna Santin  (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * fa|Fa|FA=
 * a|A=
 * ga|Ga|GA=
 * b|B=
 * start|Start=
 * stub|Stub=
 * NA|na|Na=
 * cat|Cat=
 * dab|Dab=
 * list|List=
 * default=

Exactly. —Werson (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Importance categories
I don't know why but the template seems to be eliminating the articles from any of the importance categories. For example, reviewing the articles in the old Category:Mid-importance album articles template, it doesn't move them to Category:Mid-importance Album articles like they should. In fact, if you conduct a null edit on any article in the new category (minus the ones nested inside other templates), the article is removed from the importance category completely. Is there a reason? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I don't really know what I'm doing so before I mess up 30k articles, could someone change

to I have a test version at User:Ricky81682/sandbox2 and it seems to get the importance categories done correctly. Also, I see that in the past, the importance categories were hidden but it seems dumb now that the Beatles and other templates are creating them as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANCE_SCALE   =
 * IMPORTANCE_SCALE   = yes
 * For a specific example of the problem, Talk:Chinese Democracy cannot be found in Category:High-importance Album articles where it belongs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why this was removed. It was never discussed neither was a conseous about this. I've been asking to the user who did it and he keeps ignoring.  Tasc0  It's a zero! 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this user asked him to. Do you know why he did? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. You can read my question here. He's an idiot.  Tasc0  It's a zero! 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Either way. I think it's going to take a while until the categories are properly populated again.  The last statistics showed 66k with unknown importance but there are only 17k now.  It's going to take some time until those 40k article appear again.  38k still have to migrate from Category:Unknown-importance album articles over to the one with "A"lbum but I don't know how much overlap that is.  Man, what happens when you change a template linked on 60k or so articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But I agree with the user that explained why in your talk page, it's only that I think this should be discussed before removing it.
 * You think we should leave it or remove it?  Tasc0  It's a zero! 03:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I explained, first, there is no discussion at Template talk:Album or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums about removing the importance parameter. Second, the project template specifically mentions importance as a field, along with its assessment scale. Third, the importance category itself was created in August 2006 so someone was thinking about it a while ago. Fourth, there are thousands of articles that have been tagged with the importance field, so it isn't an afterthought. If someone wants it removed, it should be discussed and removed from both the project template from the assessment scale.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  What have I been doing? I am really, really sorry - I seem to have managed to miss every one of your posts to my talk page, bright yellow banner and all.  Please accept my appologies.  Is there anything I can do to resolve the issue, or have you managed to clear up my mess without me? Again, I am really sorry for being so unresponsive. Happy‑melon 17:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So the categories have to be re-created or they already are?  Tasc0  It's a zero! 13:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with the categories. What has to happen is that the job queue will eventually update the articles with the updated version of the template (or someone has to do a null edit) and the articles will reappear in the categories.  Until then, the categories are going to be missing a number of articles.  It will just take some time (probably after those 30k articles migrate over first).  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorization
Hello,

this template is not a member of Category:WikiProject banners; is this intended? --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it's a member of Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment instead, which is a subcategory of CAT:WPB. Happy‑melon 18:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Probable miscategorization this Template of Album Articles needing attention
As of this post (viz., 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ), my prototype Article Rhino Hi-Five: Debbie Gibson (Main Article: User:B.C.Schmerker/Article PrototypeB) is in need of attention concerning unclear Date of Release info, but already has an Infobox Album to receive the data when I have them. I have reason to suspect similar actual or potential miscategorization of other Album articles needing attention that already have otherwise-specification Infoboxes. I therefore request replacement of: ATTENTION_CAT     = Album articles without infoboxes with ATTENTION_CAT     = Album articles needing attention B. C. Schmerker (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I always thought that double categorisation was ridiculous, but it was in the old code, so I just copied it over when I converted the banner to WPBannerMeta. Happy‑melon 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

add C class...
per a request at WP:Requested_templates, can someone modify the code to add a C class to the template? modification needed is this - the line that reads:


 * GA | ga | Ga | FA | Fa | fa | A | a | B | b |Start | start | Stub | stub|=

should read:


 * GA | ga | Ga | FA | Fa | fa | A | a | B | b | C | c |Start | start | Stub | stub|=

I've tested this in my own space (you can see it at ...). removed userspace link

editprotected -- Ludwigs 2 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I checked, and I don't think it screwed anything up, but let me know if you find anything.  Cheers.  --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yuck! Seems this was converted before the comments functionality was hardcoded into WPBannerMeta. Please update with:

(also) <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 06:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Substcheck
Please add the following code to the template:

|substcheck=

This allows the template to detect if it has been substituted instead of transcluded and give an error message. The notice for this has been on the template page for a while. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Custom mask
Based on this conversation at the project page, I have added a custom mask to the template, allowing it to accept the full range of available class parameters. I have created all of the attendant categories and modified WP:ALBUM/A to reflect the changes. This allows the project to use the less common assessments like Future and Disambig, which can be useful to the project. I've also updated the template documentation. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs listas parameter
Hi-There are a few updates that need to be made on the template. The /doc pg refers to using the listas parameter, but that isn't in the template. Also, the pagetype parameter needs to be added. Is the nested parameter still being used? If not, then it needs to be removed. There is a version in the sandbox that may work. Thx --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Also made a few other changes and moved the template per the convention for WikiProject banner templates. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to redirect templates, keep the code in the redirect
Because a redirected template won't show up when called. This creates a lot of work for nothing. Please add the content of WikiProject Albums into Albums and Album so that they can be used interchangeably. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 20:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This redirect is causing problems, see Talk:My Life (Iyaz album). Reverse recent actions or copy and paste template into redirects. Adabow  ( talk )  06:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem you signal is caused by a double redirect Albums → Album → WikiProject Albums. It can easily be fixed by eliminating the double redirect, i.e. Albums → WikiProject Albums. There is no need to repeat the template code at several places, it will only lead to divergence. We need an admin to fix the double redirect. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a note at User:MSGJ's talk page, hopefully he will help sorting this out. – Ib Leo (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * , sorry about that. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Martin. Adabow  ( talk )  08:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Feature request - album cover parameter
This template could use a parameter to request album covers. Would be nice if someone could implement that. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I second this motion. I feel like people might use the "needs-infobox" parameter as a way to flag the article as one needing an album cover. This would obviously be incorrect, and it should be a separate flag like "needs-albumcover". I think that a bot would need to be created that would go through everything with an Album tag and put in the "needs-albumcover" to yes or no, depending on whether | Cover =  has a value in the infobox template on the main page. One big problem would be for those that have a cover there that is 1) not valid (redlinked) or 2) up for deletion pending licensing. This could incorrectly flag "needs-albumcover" as "no" and then the file would be deleted and the album would end up without a cover and no one would know until someone stumbles upon it. Rlholden (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that the cover is so vital for the article that we need such a flag? I don't see anywhere in WP:ALBUM where it is written that an album article MUST have a cover image. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:ALBUMS: "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album (or a reissue, if no original cover can be found) should be included at Cover." We have "needs photo" parameters for articles about people & musical groups, & this seems to be a parallel need. Granted there are concerns about fair use, but WP:NFCI explicitly allows cover art for identification in the context of critical commentary (& even though there are a lot of stub album articles out there, the goal of this project is to improve them). A cover image in the infobox would be something that'd most likely be requisite for an article to reach GA/FA, wouldn't it? So yes, I think it's fairly vital. This would also hopefully cut down on the use of totally worthless placeholder images like this one (I hate those useless things). --IllaZilla (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I agree more with IllaZilla. One good point that he makes is that we're always trying to improve album articles to reach GA/FA level. Along these lines, another problem we always come across is that some albums are not "notable" enough to have their own article. If one were unable to find the cover art for an album, it is either 1) not notable enough or 2) not a real album and thus should be removed. Rlholden (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comedy Albums?
Should Comedy Albums be included in the Albums project? I feel like this project is mostly designed for music albums, but what about albums like Richard Pryor's ...Is It Something I Said? and Dane Cook's Retaliation? Both of these currently have the Album tag on their discussion pages. Should these also be included in this project? My vote is no, but I'm just one person. --Rlholden (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe this project includes comedy and spoken-word albums in its scope. The project is heavily geared towards music albums because that's what the majority of albums are, but any album (really, any article that would use Infobox album) is within the scope. They're albums, and this is the albums project, so it makes sense. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Videos?
Much like the Comedy Albums discussion above, should Videos be included in the Albums project? My vote is no because they are more like a DVD than a music album. As this project is designed for music albums, I don't think Videos count. Please see the |Oasis video ...There and Then and the Motörhead video 1916 Live...Everything Louder than Everything Else. Both of these currently have the Album tag on their discussion pages. Should these also be included in this project? Rlholden (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Infobox album includes support for "video albums", so I say yes. Why don't videos "count"? We're generally talking about live concert videos here... if we don't cover them, who's going to? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Singles?
There are two projects out there: Albums and Songs. I think that the Songs project should cover singles, such as 99 ½ by Ice-T. I do not think that these should be part of the Albums project. What are your thoughts? Rlholden (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that's the standard, actually: We don't cover singles, the Songs project does. Unless you've seen otherwise...I always thought that was the status quo. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking article against B-class status
The WikiProject Film template has an interesting Quality Scale where articles can be checked against B-class status criteria. Should WP Albums have a similar option? I like the checklist style, and it would help get some people involved with certain articles into knowing exactly what needs to be focused on. I'm simply not good enough with code to figure out what needs to be added with an edit protected suggestion, but I wouldn't mind seeing if anyone else is interested in adding it. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 04:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to add B-class checklist
editprotected Please allow for B-class criteria checklist as I don't believe it would be controversial (no one has responded above) and a similar "discussion" at Template:WikiProject Songs hasn't received any objections (or any reply) either... I also figure we may as well add an "image needed" request (sort of goes along with the discussion above about missing album covers, but perhaps band pictures for the article would work as well) and an "unreferenced" warning.

I used my own sandboxes to test this. You may look here for the template itself, and this is the template as it would be used on a talk page.

Replace all the coding from "QUALITY_SCALE", down. All previous code remains intact and in order. The additions only include the B-class checklist, and at the very end: Image Request, and Unref.

}}

I will gladly update the documentation and /Assessment pages to reflect the changes. For quick reference, the documentation template would include:

Imageneed
In addition, I will create Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in album articles and Category:Unreferenced album articles to avoid red-link categories during use. Or, if anyone objects to these latter additions, that's fine too. My intent, though, is to add the B-class checklist since I think this would be a very helpful addition to the template. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 03:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please change the category in which the articles are place in to, to the long established Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums. Thanks.--Traveler100 (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as Traveler100 requested above, can the following code be pasted over the old code (the first line is the same; the second line has the new category name):

Thanks. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 08:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin. I do have one question about a category that's confusing me. You cleaned up the template just now, and Category:Albums articles with comments no longer backlinks to this template. But albums still appear in it. I created this category yesterday, but I have no idea why these albums are even listed here. Should I not delete this category? –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 08:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. The name of the comments category is Category:Album articles with comments and I don't think I changed this? I will delete the other one for you. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was completely confused too. Maybe I just added an "s" by mistake, though I could've sworn the template had an automatic warning on the main template page telling me of three categories that I needed to create, and I just clicked on those. But it's all done now. I just wasn't sure how to proceed with "Albums articles with comments", so thanks for getting rid of it. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 08:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sixth criteria
editprotected The sixth B-class criteria is for reader accessibility. Please add the sixth B-class criteria to this template. First, insert the highlighted code below into the proper part of the template:

and in the middle of the template, insert the following highlighted code:

{{pre2| |HOOK_ASSESS = {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/bchecklist |BANNER_NAME       = Template:WikiProject Albums |category={{{category|}}} |class={{{class|}}} |b1={{{B-Class-1|{{{b1|}}}}}} |b2={{{B-Class-2|{{{b2|}}}}}} |b3={{{B-Class-3|{{{b3|}}}}}} |b4={{{B-Class-4|{{{b4|}}}}}} |b5={{{B-Class-5|{{{b5|}}}}}} {{hl| |b6={{{B-Class-6|{{{b6|}}}}}} |lightgreen}} }}

Thanks! –  Kerαu noςco pia {{sup|◁}} {{sub| gala  xies }} 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs-infobox
Did recent changes to the template affect Category:Album articles without infoboxes? It is empty and adding "needs-infobox=yes" to the template on album talk pages doesn't seem to do anything any more. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. I don't get it. The code is still there:


 * But something else must be affecting it. Source code from before my requested updates copied into my sandbox work like a charm, the category is there and everything. I even tried removing the "notes" at the bottom of the template, but that didn't help. I'm so sorry, I tested the template in my sandboxes and I obviously didn't bother to check if the actual categories appeared. Maybe we should just revert the whole thing. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 07:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember why I never saw any categories! Because I had category=no in my sandbox tests (I just did it again and remembered), to keep my tests from being categorized. Some banner was warning me to do that. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 07:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixing needs-infobox
The following three highlighted lines of code:


 * note 1=

}}

need to simply be moved down three lines until they are outside of the WPBanner Meta template brackets. The resulting code will look like:

}}
 * note 1=

Please see my sandbox diff for the exact example. (The template test can be seen adding the needs-infobox banner and category at my sandbox here.) Thanks so much! –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ In a slightly different way. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see, there was still text within the b-class subtemplate that shouldn't have been there either. Thank you so much for catching that WOSlinker! –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviews
"The reviews parameter has been deprecated. Please move reviews into the “Reception” section of the article. See Moving reviews into article space." - with a big ugly icon next to it.

Is it necessary to display this message to every reader of Wikipedia? Can't you put the "affected" articles into a maintenance category so that interested parties can find and clean them up from there? (Poor choice of words really as I don't see removing that parameter as helpful but c'est la vie). --kingboyk (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * They are in a maintenance category. If you clicked on the link in that notice, you'd find it. It's Category:Infobox album with reviews. The message is designed to notify readers and editors of the change and hopefully get them to help move the reviews out of the infobox. This change has involved over 52,000 articles; It needed to be well-advertised and required the help of as many interested editors as we could get the word out to. As you can see from WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space, we're 70% complete but there are still almost 16,000 articles to go. A bot is performing the bulk of the moves, while some dedicated editors are also pitching in. Until the drive is complete, the notice helps readers and editors to be aware of the change and its background, and instructs them how to pitch in if they are interested. So yes, it is necessary to display this message in articles that still have reviews in their infoboxes, but the message will go away in the near future. If it offends you that much, why not help out? If you moved the reviews yourself the "big ugly icon" could be gone right now. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done my bit here thanks (check my contribs) and a fat lot of thanks I got for it. I shall continue to maintain my stance that wiki should be optimised for readers and not editors! That means keeping maintenance messages as small as possible. --kingboyk (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested template edit
See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_17 Please remove  as it's redundant to an automatic process of Infobox album. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I suggest waiting until the CfD request is closed to make sure we don't empty a category that might be kept. Also, what code exactly needs to be deleted?   Sandstein   07:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Main image
File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg as copyright violation. The image will eventually disappear from the caché. I opened a discussion at TT:WPSONGS which image should replace it. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  22:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Dead image link
has been moved to. Please update the template to reflect this move. Thank you! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&offset=20111003045206&limit=1&page=File%3AVynil+record.jpg moved on 8 January 2013] which left it as a redirect to File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg; but that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3A2+vinyl+records+%2B+1+CD.jpg was deleted yesterday], which left an orphan redirect. I  yesterday, but for some reason it doesn't work properly, even though File:Parlophone LP PMC 1202.jpg exists. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oopsy-daisy; my bad. :-( Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)