Template talk:Track listing/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Width issue on mobile browsers

This template renders incredibly narrowly on the mobile web site (look at http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tracklist#Examples for an example). — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 15:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not an issue specific to the mobile site, it's just highlighted by the small screen resolutions, if you will. Opening the mobile page on a PC renders just the same size as the non-mobile version. It's a long standing issue, as there is a conflict with infoboxes on short articles, thus the size of this template is restricted to prevent a clash of the two, or a lot of white space in some cases. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry just filed this same discussion but saw this so moving here:

Track listings when viewed on the mobile site are rendering terribly due to the inline margin style on div with class tracklist e.g. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Skin#section_5 This came to our attention via Twitter and has been filed as a bug - https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36076

Could this be moved/use an existing definition in MediaWiki:Common.css ? If not possible another solution might be to impose a percent width on the table inside tracklist e.g. width:70%; and remove all inline styling on the div with class tracklist - the mobile site is a lot better at dealing with table styling. Thanks! Jdlrobson (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't want the tracklist to be 70% width, we want the tracklist to not overlay infoboxes and images when they appear on the right. All we need to do is use the box-flow model developed for the mbox templates: remove the wrapping <div> and the 100% width from the table, and add mbox-text class to the table header. The mbox-text class causes the cell to 'blow up' to occupy as much screen width as is available, so the table grows to fill the whole width of the screen unless there's something else in the way like an infobox. I've set that up in the sandbox, someone who knows how it's supposed to look needs to check that the styling still looks right in collapsed mode. Happy‑melon 16:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Tomasz pointed me to this... what needs to be done at this point? Do we just need to port it over to the main template? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. But I removed a div that had visible styling, which I think was used when boxes are stacked on top of one another; someone needs to check that that appearance hasn't changed for the worse. Happy‑melon 18:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

While this does appear to be a step in the right direction, there still seems to be some bugs with this approach that doesn't make it a 100% ideal solution. It looks like if there are differing sized boxes on the page and both happen to "conflict" with the table, there can be some issue. In your example on the test cases page, look at "disc two" in the "image on right" test case. The box that is beside the beginning of the table is smaller than the second box it would conflict with. It looks to fill the page according to the first box, which brings it right up to the second box. Seems like a potential problem. Then, one of the main reasons for this template was for a consistant look over several pages/discs/etc. This solution may leave some pages with large Disc 2 tables, but scrunched Disc 1 tables due to infoboxes. To me, that would look rather tacky. However... I do admit there is an issue with mobile browsers. I didn't realize it before, because I would view the "mobile" page on my PC and it would look fine. Brought up a page on my phone the other day... and yeah, aweful. I could only see the Track # column. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't implemented the mbox-text functionality correctly; it was behaving as it would with no width specification at all. Should have nicer stacking now. Happy‑melon 20:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for making that change. I requested something similar a year or two ago, and was happy to notice it today. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Table cut off

The template change has cut off the end tracklisting on some articles, also it doesn't look great with the full width, example with track lengths cut off: Angel_Dust_(Faith_No_More_album)#Track_listing. - The1337gamer (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That page had hardcoded a huge negative margin precisely to counter the huge positive margin that had been hardcoded into the template; that's just horrible. Strip out that now-unneeded hack and you get a template that is the correct size and layout. Although that hardcoded two-column layout using a table is itself very bad for mobile browsers; to the extent that that should be done at all (and I'm not convinced it should) it should be done using column-count styles. Happy‑melon 23:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the guy that started this thread. Having the width of it extending as far as it can go looks horrible and it makes it really hard to see the track time lengths from the song title. I really wish it could go back to how it was before. What's the point of fixing what isn't broken? • GunMetal Angel 13:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks silly on articles like this Live and Inspired where one table has a longer length than another. Another example being Resolution (Lamb of God album), open all the collapsed track listings, and it just looks messy and inconsistent. - The1337gamer (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with this. I do believe that one of the main reasons for the template in the first place was to provide a consistent and uniform look to the track listings. This change puts a big dent in that category. I think there is still an issue with varying sized floating objects too. However, I realize too that the previous markup had some issues as well when it came to non-standard thumbnail sizes and mobile browsers. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

GunMetal Angel, the reason for fixing it is that it was broken, completely and utterly, for all mobile browser users (12% of all pageviews and growing like wildfire), as Mizery Made says for all users with a non-standard thumbnail size, nonstandard text size (whereby 21em ≠ 240px), and on any pages with an unusual-sized right-floating object.

The table doesn't have to be full-width if people would rather; it can easily be shrunk. Do people prefer the current sandbox? Happy‑melon 14:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you shrink the table? Because at full width it looks messy and inconsistent as I wrote in my last post.The1337gamer (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You just add a max-width style, in pixels as I've done in the sandbox. Happy‑melon 22:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Can this be added as a parameter in the documentation? - Salamurai (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Makes more sense to just set it as the default for the template; I'm happy to do that if people can agree on how wide it should be. Happy‑melon 18:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

two extra columns

Hey! I'm working on a tracklist and i was thinking on columns "Producer(s)" and "Original album", since the album is a compilation and all songs come from other albums, but i wasn't able to do so. Is it possible? --Hahc21 (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to do this too - is it possible? Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 15:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Producers is unnecessary if its a compilation, as for "original album" that can be covered in the "extra" parameter. you can name it to whatever you want.Lucia Black (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

ununderstandable source text

I've read source text and it is confusing, could anybody post the verions of this template without other templates inside it, just sole texts, just as other templates didn't exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.31.32 (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

it:template:Tracce

Please, add it:template:Tracce. --DeLo 99 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding track 0 to template

I see this issue was raised a few months ago (see here), and looks to have received unanimous support at the time, but the option still has not been added. Does anyone know what became of this project? Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As per the notification above and the linked discussion will an admin who knows how to process and edit templates make the required support improvements? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Done see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for finally getting that set up. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks a lot! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Minimum Size

Hi, I've done some work previously on making pages WP:ACCESSIBLE - the jist of which means making pages easier to read for those hard of sight or those that use screen reading technology or other software to make it easier for those who have disabilities. Amongst the changes made were those to WP:DISCOGSTYLE which included using <span style="font-size:85%;"> instead of <small>. This renders the size of the text slighty larger and more readable. See the example below:

• Example 1: When you use the <small> tag → text renders like this.
• Example 2: When you use the <span style="font-size:85%;"> tag → text renders like this.

Whilst a small difference it makes a big difference to the rendering. I'd like to see the template altered so that the 'notes' field renders text a little large more like the 2nd example. Does anyone have a big opposition to this? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

the only small tags are in Template:Track_listing/Track? I agree with replacing small tags with {{small}}, which uses the 85% font-size, or the equivalent untemplated version. Frietjes (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add my support to the proposal as well. The small text in example 1 above is readable for me on my desktop but illegible on my laptop without zooming. I know I can redefine <small>...</small> in my personal css, but IP visitors can't, so I'd like to see us moving toward a minimum text size that most people are happy with without fiddling. On my laptop 85% is on the edge of legibility most of the time, but I'm grateful for progress of any sort. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to also offer my support to this proposal. I must also add, that since we are talking about changing things, what what adding a Producer(s) field? Most articles seem to use the extra column for that purpose, and I just find that quite unnecessary when it can be done much easier. We have writer, music, lyrics, but why not producer? Zac  21:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In answer to RexxS, I know i was once an opponent of Access stuff but seriously since moving to a laptop and widening my social circle I can genuinely see the issue with small formatting and other such things. I thought we would start baby steps. also Zac, i believe there isn't an issue because we have the extra field. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems uncontroversial with several editors in support, so I will go ahead and make the change. Let me know if there is a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Album name + artist

There was an unresolved discussion a couple of years ago in which I said that I'd like to develop this template by including optional album name and artist table headers. It can then be made to emit the hAudio microformat (for which the Extra field is not suitable). For example, in this template's own documentation, "Greatest Hits by Queen" would be part of the template and thus within the resultant HTML table. I'd still like to do that. Any questions, or suggestions as to how best to do it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you mean more specifically? To a simpleton like me with no programming/web experience its hard to picture what you envision. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:DVD track listing?

Hey, anyone concerned. I was just wondering, do you think we should have a template for track listings for music DVDs, without track lengths? I know track lengths are obtainable, but a lot of the time it is hard to find them from sources, so it would be good to omit them and not have the length column there, empty. Thoughts? Wouldn't be hard to do, I imagine. Andre666 (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DVDs don't have a list of tracks per se. They typically have menus from which the tracks may be accessed; some have a "play all" feature, but these might not actually play all the tracks, particularly if there are easter eggs. For instance, the bonus DVD included with All Hits has 12 tracks according to the back cover (6 music videos - "Never Ever", "Lady Marmalade", "Under the Bridge", "Bootie Call", "Pure Shores", "Black Coffee"; 5 audio remixes - of "Under the Bridge", "Lady Marmalade", "Black Coffee" (one each) and "Never Ever" (two); and a gallery). However, according to the "Display" button on the remote of my Sony DVD player it has 11 tracks - none are missing - in fact, four of these tracks aren't really "tracks" in the usual sense - they are menus or short lead-in items. The "real" content occupies tracks 5-11 - track 5 is the six videos arranged as a single track with chapter points between each song; track 6 is the gallery; tracks 7-11 are the audio-only tracks. There is a "play all" feature, but that simply plays track 5 through, without returning to the menu at the end of a song. So, does this DVD have 12 tracks, 11, seven, or some other figure? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Bug?

In the listing for Frank Zappa's Uncle Meat, Irving Berlin's name does not appear with God Bless America:

Side two

No.	Title	Writer(s)	Length
9.	"Sleeping in a Jar"		0:50
10.	"Our Bizarre Relationship"		1:05
11.	"The Uncle Meat Variations"		4:46
12.	"Electric Aunt Jemima"		1:46
13.	"Prelude to King Kong"		3:38
14.	"God Bless America (Live at the Whisky a Go Go)"	Irving Berlin	1:10

Presumably this is because the section leads with 9 rather than 1?
Varlaam (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Writing Credits" isn't enabled for that section of the track listing. See:

Side two

No.	Title	Writer(s)	Length
9.	"Sleeping in a Jar"		0:50
10.	"Our Bizarre Relationship"		1:05
11.	"The Uncle Meat Variations"		4:46
12.	"Electric Aunt Jemima"		1:46
13.	"Prelude to King Kong"		3:38
14.	"God Bless America (Live at the Whisky a Go Go)"	Irving Berlin	1:10

– Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. So much better than a bug.

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: 28 December 2012

Please revert this edit by Neelix (talk · contribs) which was undiscussed and has affected thousands of articles. Credit listings are not designed to be complete sentences and are generally not written as such. In a track listing they are treated more like an image caption. In any case a substantive edit to a fully-protected template should not be made without discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the grammar in this change sounds weird and should have been discussed prior to being made. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Done Reverted - no other changes made. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 January 2013

{{edit protected}} Where track names or credits wrap onto multiple lines, inconsistencies in vertical alignment are seen. For example, Apocalyptour (album)#Track listing - the credits on track 5 cause the row to have two lines. The track number and title are top aligned, but the credits are middle aligned. This should be changed to either one or the other. Eladkse (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Eladkse (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the subtemplates, {{Track listing/Track}}. I think that this change should do it. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that would do it.

Also, the talk page for the subtemplate redirects here, hence why I made the edit request on this page. Eladkse (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are parentheses automatically added around the note parameter?

Please see discussion at Talk:With Ears to See and Eyes to Hear#Final track. The actual song title is a URL and an editor has suggested adding a note (but the same situation would also apply for a ref), and the formatting is way less than optimal. In the following example – excerpted from that article – adding an explanatory note or ref such as note10 = {{r|group=lower-alpha|a}} formats as follows with the note/ref number/letter floating in superscript high above the useless parentheses:

No.	Title	Length
7.	"With Ears to See, and Eyes to Hear"	3:43
8.	"In Case of Emergency, Dial 411"	2:46
9.	"The Left Side of Everywhere"	3:00
10.	"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMzriO93-Y" ()	1:33
Total length:		33:05

Any ideas on how to inhibit the parens or other thoughts on how to proceed? Mojoworker (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not just include the information as a sentence in the article itself? Why the convoluted superscript note thing? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure that can be done, but I'd also like to add a citation for the title in the tracklist, so the problem remains. Mojoworker (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Or, just have a citation on the sentence I suggested. Again, this can be much simpler than the complicated way you're trying to do it. Why not make it easy on yourself? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

the easiest thing to do would be to just add a sentence beneath the track listing to explain. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who proposed the note in the article. About this case, I have no problem with putting it within the article, it's just that I think that by it's nature the information belongs in a footnote. But I support what Mojoworker is proposing above, that is having the possibility to include a reference or a footnote in the tracklist for cases when it is necessary, without having the superscript being forced within the quotes or inside a parentheses. Is it possible to have a different parameter for a refgroup, so to not conflict with the existing note parameter? — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think some other templates that have fixed formating for certain elements (particularly, titles with quotes), contain as you propose, a "ref" parameter to add a reference to the element without shoehorning it in incorrectly due to formating (eg Template:Episode list). I think I may have mentioned the idea of a "title_ref1, title_ref2, etc." some time ago due to someone else raising this issue. I don't see why it would necessarily be a bad thing (other than the argument that the information can be sourced elsewhere, leaving the "table" just a collection of such information). I think this 'fix' would be less disruptive than removing the formatting from the note parameter due to the number of articles this is employed on, the majority of which would then need the parenthesis added due to the format change. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a set of ref parameters would seem to handle it nicely. Too bad it's fully protected and no admin seems to have the inclination to fix it. Mojoworker (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Songs"

E.g. in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (original soundtrack): "All songs written and composed by Koji Kondo.".
Most of these "songs" or maybe even all have no singing in it, thus aren't songs ("a song is a composition for voice or voices, performed by singing"), thus "songs" should be changed to e.g. "tracks". -Yodonothav (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

control over column width

Is it possible? See Voices in the Wilderness, where much info is squeezed on the right column, while titles are short and leave wasted space. trespassers william (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

At present, there is no provision for custom column widths. The template has seven columns defined, although no more than six may actually be shown. Three of the columns are always present: of these, the "No." and "Length" columns are fixed-width, but "Title" may be 100% wide if there are no optional columns; 60% if there is one optional column; 40% if there are two; or 30% if there are three. Note that although there are four optional columns, it's not possible to have all four present, because "Lyrics" and "Music" only appear when "Writer(s)" is absent. The four optional columns - "Writer(s)", "Lyrics", "Music", and that set by |extra_column= - occupy a percentage of the remaining width, the calculation of which is based upon the choice of columns that are to be shown. If one is present, it's 40% wide; if there are two, both are 30%; if three, 20%.

What I would do with Voices in the Wilderness is to add a serious amount of text, sufficient to push the tracklisting below the infobox, so that it can use that big blank strip up the right-hand side. If you can't add enough text, pop a {{clear}} in between the section heading and the track listing template. Whether that goes above or below the "All songs composed by John Zorn." bullet is a matter of taste. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is all that information in the track listing template anyway? It should be moved to a Personnel section per WP:MOSALBUM#Personnel. Then this issue need not even exist. I'm also not sure why it's in a wikitable, that is completely unnecessary. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Now there should be no width concerns with the track listing template. I didn't look through the names of the personnel, but any duplicated should be delinked per WP:REPEATLINK. Additionally, instruments should be linked per WP:MOSALBUM. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You can use {{-}} to create a section break so the track listing isn't squashed by the infobox. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried template:clear before and was not happy with the space between lead and section. I don't see how {{-}} is better, but tried something else just now. isn't it neater? trespassers william (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I mean, I didn't like disc one skewed by the box and disc two streched and enveloping it from below. trespassers william (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Performed by" parameter?

Is there a way to display the track name, length, performer(s), writer(s) and producer(s), each with their own column? See Music from Baz Luhrmann's Film The Great Gatsby for context. Right now the performers are added as parenthetical notes; I think performers should display as a column, especially since people are more interested in performers than producers. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not use the |extra_column for the performer instead of producer, and then instead list producers in the personnel section. It is done like this in a lot of album pages. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)