This template was considered for deletion on 2009 July 2. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
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)
|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)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)
{{
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)
{{ 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)
{{
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)
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)
{{
editprotected}}
Seems to me this template is in need of a few minor fixes.
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)
The |Cover size=
parameter is proposed for deletion. Editors are kindly invited to leave their opinion
over here – Ib
Leo
(talk)
19:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)
| data2 = {{Infobox | child = yes
| 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)