Archive
Current 2009 2008 2007 2006

Contents 1 AOTW 2 Wrong images for cover 3 Type=Compilation 4 Japanese Cat Numbers 5 Parental Advisory parameter? 6 Artists 7 Released and Year parameter 8 Allow external links to MusicBrainz release-groups and works (NGS) 9 Multiple Wikipedia links

AOTW Edit

As far as I can tell, the parameters "AOTWfrom" and "AOTWto" for Albums of the Week do not allow for albums that have been nominated twice, such as this one.  Ñô†īṃέ2çяȳ^Talk 15:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably because ideally that shouldn't happen. I would suggest you just put dates relating to the first occasion it was AOTW.  ♫_♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪ ^Actions _Words 16:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong images for cover Edit

I've seen this a couple of times througout the day, artist photos where the album covers should be. Joy Williams:Genesis (2005) and UB40:UB40 (1988) are two articles with this 'problem'. I had a glance at the code and it seems to be Template:AlbumArtFinder and the parameters sent to it through Template:Album which causes the glitch. Feel free to check it out and fix it up. --Frontway 16:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a feature, not a bug… but yeah, I hadn't thought this through properly. (Though the worst example would be an album titled "Done"… which displays a large orange checkmark as album art :-/) I was going to fix this with the next revision, but that might be a while yet… *eyes job queue* Ah well, nothing for it. — 6x9 (Talk) 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Type=Compilation Edit

Some albums may be compilations but not by various artists but by the one given. It should only write "Compilation by various artists" if artist is "[Vv]arious [Aa]rtist", else "Compilation by <<<Artist>>>." - Chris 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an intentional bug :-) "Compilation" and "Soundtrack" have special meaning for {{Song}} (they strip the "Artist:" part from the album link), so you have to use "compilation album" or "compilation&#32;" or similar for non-VA albums. It seemed appropriate (to me, anyway) to do the same for {{Album}}, to avoid confusion. (This also makes things easier for Senv's LWT, since it can just copy the type information over from albums.) — 6×9 (Talk) 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Then again, "Type=Soundtrack" allows for non-VA as well, so we might as well do the same for compilations. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Cat Numbers Edit

Japanese Catalog Numbers (which are really Label Catalog Numbers|Distro Numbers) are more heavily used. Can the Album Template include a space for Cat/Label/Distro Number if the person has it on hand as an optional? --Theomeny 02:02, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Parental Advisory parameter? Edit

I think someone should add a parameter that puts 50px in the template. Any takers? --JPH177 21:53, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could add an explicit tag, so I agree with you. Off subject, I don't think we should use album artwork with the "Parental Advisory" label because it takes up too much room on the picture.--Eonsdag 18:18, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

We used to have a Parental Advisory template for lyrics, but after a long-ish discussion decided to do away with it. The same arguments would apply to albums, I'd think…

Agree about album artwork – if you come across any labelled images and have a stickerless version, please upload it! — 6×9 (Talk) 17:52, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Artists Edit

Instead of putting "Album by (artist)," maybe we should put it in the actual template.

Like this:

"Light Grenades" by Incubus --Eonsdag 18:20, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, as the album name is already displayed in the title bar of the infobox. Also this would remove the option to display other types ("Single by", "Live album by"…). — 6×9 (Talk) 17:54, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Released and Year parameter Edit

What´s the difference between the Released and Year parameter? Do both have to be in the Album Template? --Darknite47 20:48, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that there never was a Year parameter :-) Released used to be required, but is now obsolete, since the template gets the year from the pagename instead. — 6×9 (Talk) 05:38, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

So page Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Albums contain wrong advice about Realize attribute?--194.88.211.253 18:17, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does did. Fixed now. Thanks for the notice! — 6×9 (Talk) 19:22, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Allow external links to MusicBrainz release-groups and works (NGS) Edit

I propose to allow links to MusicBrainz release-groups and works. The difference in MusicBrainz between a "release" and a "release group" is this: releases are physical representations of an album (e.g. a certain CD/Vinyl pressing, a remaster, bonus version, etc.), while a release-group corresponds to an album on LyricWiki (e.g. "Help!" by "The Beatles"). Similar for recordings (which were named "tracks" in MusicBrainz before the Next-Generation-Schema update [NGS]) and works: A work can have many recordings (aka performances), e.g. a remastered edition, but the lyrics stay the same for each.

This is why in MusicBrainz LyricWiki links are only allowed for release-groups and works. In LyricWiki on the other hand, links are only allowed to releases/recordings. I think it would be good to allow prefixes for the MBIDs, e.g.:

• 2c053984-4645-4699-9474-d2c35c227028 -> http://musicbrainz.org/release/2c053984-4645-4699-9474-d2c35c227028 (default)
• release/2c053984-4645-4699-9474-d2c35c227028 -> http://musicbrainz.org/release/2c053984-4645-4699-9474-d2c35c227028
• release-group/0d44e1cb-c6e0-3453-8b68-4d2082f05421 -> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/0d44e1cb-c6e0-3453-8b68-4d2082f05421

This way all existing MBIDs remain 100% valid, and new ones can be made to the semantically correct entities in MusicBrainz. What do you think?

I have created two test templates here:

• AlbumFooter testMb
• MusicBrainz testMb

A test can be found here: Big The Boss:Summerday: A Perfect Day To Rap (2000)

TarkinTor 17:27, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the differences & for putting those examples together. It looks to me like release-group would be a great option to have, especially for release-groups which have an inordinately high number of releases (such as popular Beatles Albums, etc.). Because, which would be the appropriate release to link to? If we link to the release-group in those cases, then the user can kind of pick through whichever makes the most sense for him.

The only drawback I could see some people bringing up is that it would be nice to keep all pages standard so that we can always say that (for example) if we have a an album page which is fully filled-out, we have the "release" page (or the "release-group" page). If this is the case, I would actually lean towards the "release-group" because that seems to be more semantically equivalent to what our album pages are.

I'll link to this discussion in the Community Portal to pull more eyes onto it, but if nobody sees any good reason not to merge your changes into the real templates (and update the docs) in a few days, then please feel free to just do it :)

Thanks again for looking into this!

-Sean Colombo 23:43, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support.

Redrkr 23:53, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I was actually thinking about this recently -- especially given the recent changes to MusicBrainz, the release-group page "looks" like a better destination for our links than the release pages do. Trainman 23:56, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if people object to different MB links ("release" / "release-group") I would definitely go for "release-group". I just introduced the two options to keep all entered MB links valid. If there is some way to mass edit all those links (getting the release-group id from the release id is easy), this could be changed later! TarkinTor 00:09, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Last (release-group) variant seems preferrable to me for clarity & uniformity reasons. I think Lwt or any other bot could do the required mb-links migration job, if this approach were choosen. --Senvaikis ^(talk) 17:35, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

It's funny how we all had the same idea. I was planning to implement it exactly that way for my AlbumFooter within the T-Line template system. Support! - Chris 01:11, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

OK, great! I will apply my changes then! The only thing I will change from the current draft is that I won't allow artist/... (because there is no other prefix) and track/... (because the recording/... is much clearer, even if it has more characters) TarkinTor 03:24, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

The changes are through! (thanks to Sean Colombo for applying!). Now to propose something new:

• Convert all song MBIDs (without prefix) to "recording/[MBID]" (and allow only MBIDs with "recording/" or "work/". This is necessary because not all recordings have works in MusicBrainz right now (or ever). But if works exist, they are the better choice (because works are defined through lyrics... if they change, it is not the same work).
• Only allow release-group MBIDs for albums. I looked a bit through the albums, and it seems even if there are multiple different releases (bonus tracks, etc), they are all listed on the same album page. So if no one has an example of where it would be appropriate to link to an release, I would vote for this!

What do you think? TarkinTor 22:44, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Wikipedia links Edit

May be add field for the more than one link on wikipedia article? It's useful for non-English albums similar as Artist pages. Evgmim 09:01, June 17, 2012 (UTC)