Template talk:Extra album cover

Broken parameters

I noticed that the Cover size parameter doesn't work, see Souvenir (song). The picture is 170x170, I specified Cover size = 170, but it shows deformed. --EHonkoop (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The border parameter seems broken too. Gargile (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing |200px should do the trick. I've copied the template to my user environment, corrected and tested it, and the results for both the resizing and border are ok. Because of the protection, I can't edit the template here though. EHonkoop (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More error-proof way is replacing "200px" with "{{#if:{{{Cover size|}}}|{{{Cover size}}}|200px}}", I guess. We just need to wait for someone who can introduce it. Uzyel (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} From the template can be removed "|200px" since Coversize is already set before that. Now coversize is not functional, because |200px always overrides the Coversize value. Note that Coversize has "200" as a fallback size, so a proper default remains in place. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks all. --Amalthea 18:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fix alignment in {{infobox single}}

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync with the new sandbox to fix the aligment of the title when used in {{infobox single}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Alt text support

{{editprotected}} As per WP:ALT images should have alt text, for WP:ACCESSIBILITY by the visually impaired. Please install this obvious sandbox patch to add support for a new Alt parameter. I've checked it with the testcase and have documented it. Eubulides (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Unfortunately the sandbox patch mentioned in my previous comment was not installed correctly. You can see the bug by visiting Template:Extra album cover 2/testcases; the current version's alt text reads "Black square with the gray word "NIRVANA" in the centerLower caption" (my italics), where the italicized part is an error. The sandbox version is correct. I happened to notice the problem when I saw that the alt text for Sgt. Pepper was messed up. Can you please fix the problem by installing this further sandbox patch? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Chekhov's gun

Here we might say "You shouldn't add a parameter like | Cover = to a template unless you want people to think that they can and should and perhaps must use it." But I don't see where in WP:NFCC or even WP:NFC it says that we have to include every variant form of packaging. This template is a Bad Thing. Perhaps even the Wrong Thing. It's used between four and five thousand times, which probably means that around 1% of all non-free images are here because of this one bad idea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixes

{{editprotected}} Seems to me this template is in need of a few minor fixes.

1. The {{pp-template}} template is now superfluous.
2. "Images" are now called "Files".
3. I think there should be a "|" in front of "alt=".
4. There is no need for an upper caption if there is no cover, so the upper caption should be brought inside a {{#if:{{{Cover|}}}| part.

I tested these changes, with exception of the third, in Template:Extra album cover/sandbox, and they work. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, with the exception of #3 (there already is a pipe, it's just escaped). Any problems, please ping me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please explain that to me, about the pipe? Debresser (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The if statement immediately following the last pipe contains, at the very end, a {{!}}, which conditionally adds a pipe if the statement is true. If it isn't true, then the pipe immediately before the if statement is "unused", so to speak, and thus can be used for the alt text. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sophisticated. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of parameter 'Cover size'

The |Cover size= parameter is proposed for deletion. Editors are kindly invited to leave their opinion over here – IbLeo^(talk) 19:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding generic record labels

George Ho: Hello, I see you've been adding generic record labels for song infoboxes that already have picture sleeves. It seems like these significantly increase the size of the infobox without much real benefit. The picture sleeves are better at identifying the single, because usually the title, group name, and their image is prominently displayed. For example, what does the image of the Australian label add to the "I Wanna Be Your Man" infobox or article? Likewise, what does the US label add to "Bohemian Rhapsody"? In both cases, these are not the home country releases and don't provide any better information. They do, however, increase the length of the infoboxes to four or more paragraphs and give an unbalanced, busy look. This should be discussed before more are added. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: for "I Wanna Be Your Man", I would have replaced the Danish cover (incorrectly labelled UK cover) with the UK single, which lacked a picture sleeve. However, considering that it would lead to edit warring and more backlash, I decided to leave the Danish cover alone for now and to add the freer Aussie label instead. For Bohemian Rhapsody, I saw the caption saying "US single release". I didn't realize (or I almost forgot) it was previously described as the UK cover until someone made an inaccurate change earlier this year.

Another example to consider is Time After Time (Cyndi Lauper song). I added a caption last year for accuracy and then added a generic US label, intended as the main lead image. Well, someone else swapped the images to make the European picture sleeve the main lead image (again) and the US label the secondary lead image.

If a generic record label is unnecessary, then feel free to remove it. However, I feel that an extra image helps readers how singles were distributed in various regions and how variously packaged singles were charted in music. Captions can suffice, but sometimes a reader can still wonder how record companies packaged singles. Moreover, someone else can make an inaccurate caption. Considering that, per MOS:LEAD, many readers would likely read the whole introduction of an article and then move on to a next article, the readers would still likely look at images (and image captions if they are used).

Also, I still feel that illustrating an original (or more significant) artist/band is not the main job to help readers understand the song. A free image of a band or an artist can take that role away from a lead image. Accuracy is what I have become very concerned about more than merely just the regional status of any release (which I used to think was a main point). Without a caption and/or an extra generic company label, readers would mistaken picture sleeves as standard picture sleeves or something like that.

I don't know whether I should be mainly concerned with the balance between the infobox length and the article content, especially considering my current preference size is "400px". However, without striving for more accuracy, how would many readers know how singles were manufactured, packaged, and distributed in various regions? George Ho (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

-- Oh... Almost forgot. Of course, I can use an available picture sleeve (because it's the most preferred) if a single wasn't released in a band's or an artist's home country, like Wild Horses (The Rolling Stones song). I added a Japanese picture sleeve and File PRODded both the US label and the US CD promo, which have been used until I removed and then PRODded the CD promo one. Same can be said for Money (Pink Floyd song), which wasn't released as a single in the UK; well, someone else added the picture sleeve already long ago. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy is important, however, not all details are appropriate for the infobox. Some singles are released in dozens of countries with different sleeves, labels, B-sides, etc. Obviously, not all can be included. Template:Infobox song notes for several parameters "Generally, later releases or in secondary markets, reissues, etc., should only be included in the body of the article" (B-side, released, format, label). For "Bohemian Rhapsody", the B-sides for Poland and Turkey are listed, but the Charts section doesn't show that it charted in those countries. These, like extra generic labels, are unnecessary for an infobox. Also, including a second cover may not meet WP:FUR if there is already a non-free one or it can be replaced with a free image or is not otherwise discussed in the text. I'd like to hear what others say, but one cover (preferably a "descriptive" picture sleeve) should be enough. Others should be discussed in the article if they are noteworthy. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Point well taken (maybe or almost?). I moved the label into body article as it's just a US release anyway but also successful. I did try on "I Will Always Love You" to insert the US label of the original release as secondary lead image. However, I figured that the reissue of the Parton recording is more prominent as it was more successful than the original release, so I moved the label down to body article. Usually, extra covers are deleted. However, in some cases, they remain per FFD results.

In one instance, I tried nominating a US cover of Dreams (The Cranberries song) for deletion, but that led to "no consensus". Same for Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song), which we were involved in. I put the US label in Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground) as the main image because the US release was successful and the label is free to use. However, I put the picture sleeve as secondary lead image rather than remove it when it was used as the main image; I have yet to take the image to FFD because I feared the result would be "no consensus". --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: We've been waiting for others to reply. Not one has been said by others yet. Must I wait for several more days, take this issue to WT:SONGS, or what else? George Ho (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Moving the extra covers to the body of the article reduces infobox bloat and is consistent with image guidelines (preferably, images should be in an appropriate section and distributed evenly throughout the article). It seems that miscellaneous infobox template issues receive little interest. What about raising it as a WP:NONFREE issue? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Whatever it takes, Ojorojo. WT:NFC, WP:VPP, WT:SONGS, or wherever suits best. George Ho (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Similar issues have been raised at WT:NFC.[1] It doesn't appear that adding extra non-free covers just to show that the single was released in other countries, formats, or artwork satisfies the WP:Non-free content criteria. Template:Extra album cover#Usage includes "not using multiple non-free images when one would suffice." Also, adding an extra free cover (some generic labels are marked free and others non-free) seems to remove the "No free equivalent" rationale for a picture sleeve, unless it is discussed in the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

They are probably very older discussions, Ojorojo, and 'album covers' is a term that I would not use in regards to singles. Besides the discussion that I made last year (which lacked responses), the (previously) latest one was Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 55#Cover art, which was 2012. The lengthier discussion Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 49#NFUR for album/single covers and posters was made in 2010, yet single covers weren't exactly the main topic (but rather "album/single" was used). Apparently, picture sleeves are the most preferred by some editors (if not consensus).

For instance, I added a US label, pushed the image down to the bottom, and nominated the sleeve for discussion, leading to deletion. A year later, the same sleeve was re-added just to replace the US label. However, that version that was uploaded this year turns out to be different from the deleted one. I would like to add it back into the body article (instead of the infobox), but I don't know whether the editor would like it or not.

On the other hand, other editors tolerate having a generic label and a picture sleeve as long as I won't remove the sleeves as seen in Talk:Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground) and Talk:Blame It on the Boogie#Infobox images and one user page. My interactions with other uploaders vary. Mine with the one who replaced the label is... I can't talk about it. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Two issues seem to be 1) if a free generic label is available, should any non-free covers be used (alone or as extras)? 2) if a non-free cover is used, should any extra non-free covers be added? If this covers it, I'll specify "For singles using {{Infobox song}} and {{Extra album cover}}" and post this at WT:NFC. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this covers the two issues for now, User:Ojorojo. However, I would recommend using "Template:(Something)" instead of "{{something}}" as the Edit Summary can read "{{tl|something}}" (unless modified) and permalink to a section at an edit summary wouldn't work (unless properly modified). BTW, I didn't catch the ping notification because it wasn't used at first. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: This has been added to WT:NFC#Adding extra record images to Infobox song. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Pursuant to the discussion at Category talk:Articles which use infobox templates with no data rows#Categorisation, a rather old discussion that has just been revived, I found that the fix applied to Template:Infobox Chinese/Header in Diff/604144833 may be a possible fix, or at least remediation, for this template. The change is simple: insert a decat=yes parameter after line 2:

|decat = yes

The decat parameter is respected by the function renderTrackingCategories() in Module:Infobox and will avoid the problem of needlessly populating the category with every page that uses this template. Pinging Redrose64 as they will know better than I do if this is a proper fix.

This template already has code to otherwise validate its parameters and populate Category:Music infoboxes with deprecated parameters when there are errors, so this change will not lead to true errors being missed. For another comparison, Template:External_media at Diff/630722163 was fixed in a similar fashion, but needed the parameter check added.

[By "proper fix", I refer to a discussion at Template talk:Infobox/Archive 9#Articles which use infobox templates with no data rows where RedRose64 appears to say that invoking infobox as a child is a vestige of a now lifted implementation restriction. That would be more of a restructuring of the template than I feel competent to suggest.]

Once this change propogates, I'll see if there are other common templates that are populating "no data rows" and would be amenable to a similar fix. Thanks. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but could you also make the following change:

Line 7, change:

| data2       = {{Infobox | child = yes

to

| data2       = {{Infobox | child = yes | decat = yes

Apparently the decat parameter needs to be passed down to every child infobox, it's not inherited. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done $\color {blue}\chi$_chi (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks X, that appears to have done the trick. This one change has just affected the categorization (correcting the mis-categorization) of more mainspace pages than I think I've edited in my career here. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)