Template talk:Track

From Touhou Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Tracklists in their current state are not all that complex. They're just asterisks, apostrophes, and words following them. Not that hard to emulate on your own. This template however, makes things more complex. Every time you'd want to add a new track, you'd have to copy the template over and over. For the average album that has say 10 tracks, that would be.

That can be kind of cumbersome to have to erase all of those parameters that aren't needed. Additionally, when tracklists from VGMdb in their raw form look like

01 	Track 01 title 	8:88
02 	Track 02 title 	8:88
03 	Track 03 title 	8:88
04 	Track 04 title 	8:88
05 	Track 05 title 	8:88
06 	Track 06 title 	8:88
07 	Track 07 title 	8:88
08 	Track 08 title 	8:88
09 	Track 09 title 	8:88
10 	Track 10 title 	8:88

it can get REALLY tiresome to have to transfer all of that information to their respective fields when without the template, it's as simple as adding asterisks before the track numbers, parenthesis around the track lengths, and apostrophes around the track titles. And you can copy and paste those characters to make it even easier.

*01. '''Track 01 title''' ''(08:88)''
*02. '''Track 02 title''' ''(08:88)''
*03. '''Track 03 title''' ''(08:88)''
*04. '''Track 04 title''' ''(08:88)''
*05. '''Track 05 title''' ''(08:88)''
*06. '''Track 06 title''' ''(08:88)''
*07. '''Track 07 title''' ''(08:88)''
*08. '''Track 08 title''' ''(08:88)''
*09. '''Track 09 title''' ''(08:88)''
*10. '''Track 10 title''' ''(08:88)''

Little effort required at all.

Not all albums use all of the parameters. It is a case by case evaluation. Let's say this album has all Japanese tracks, was arranged by the same person, had 8/10ths of the lyrics written by the same person and the other 2 by another, and had different vocalists for each track all with Kanji names. I could then just copy and paste

** ''
** lyrics: Main lyricists name
** vocals: {{lang|ja|
** original title: {{lang|ja|
** source: {{

to all the tracks and fill in as I go. It's much simpler than the tedium of having to go and erase all the other parameters that aren't in use for each and every track. Plus, I have a headstart on filling in some of the parameters. Such a copy and paste luxury does not exist with this template.

Another thing this template leaves out are original tracks. Arrangement is not the same thing as composition. An arrangement implies that the track is derived from the musical work of another. A composition has the connotation of the composer making the song themselves from scratch.

To cut to the chase, why should I use this template? What benefits am I getting from it? Is there anything wrong with the current method of making tracklists? jigglyppuff8 Talk Contribs 10:25, 25 December 2010 (PST)

Honestly, I don't like this idea, too. --WGH 12:50, 25 December 2010 (PST)
  • Issue: new track requires copying template
If you are using a complex template in the first place. I see very little difference between using a template for inserting a new track and typing in asterisks and apostrophes. A template for the track would involve me having to type some curly braces and the template name, which will be very simple, and then having to type some pipe characters and then type "lyrics=", "vocals=", "original title=" or "source=" when necessary. There is absolutely no difference between that and what is currently going on, except instead of pipe characters editors are typing two asterisks and instead of an equal sign they're typing a colon.
  • Issue: Template is large and would make the edit page look messy
The example template doesn't seem like a very accurate portrayal of what we might want to do. Why do we have to include every parameter? Why not just list what is needed? It seems very possible to use a template without specifying every parameter if we are going to be using named parameters. Unless you know of an issue with omitting them, it is not an issue that should prevent us from using a template.
  • Issue: Copy the entire template again and again and then have to delete unused parameters
Then don't? I don't believe we need to tell editors how they should be copy and pasting. Overtime they will figure out for themselves what is the most optimal way to copy and paste. That is not our job. However, one thing is certain: you do NOT need to type all of the paramters. If people wish to copy everything and then delete it, then they'll eventually realize that they only need to copy a subset of those parameters.
  • Issue: Other information still needs **
How much "other" information are you going to need? For the most part, I have not seen much "other" information. If there is a particular piece of information that you really want to include, then add it as another parameter. Otherwise, just lump it under "other". In fact, I don't know what this field is for in the first place. It's the same as "miscellaneous" which people are trying to avoid.
  • Issue: Copying from vgmdb would be more tedious
The template part for the "tracknum title length" could be made so that you just need to separate it by pipe characters, with the length being conditional since not all songs have it. Then it's just a matter of replacing tab characters with pipes. Now not only do I not have to type in a star, 10 apostrophes, and 2 brackets, I just need three pipes and the parameter name.
  • Issue: I could just copy paste if 8/10 tracks had the same arranger and lyricist
Yes, same with a template. In fact, that was your argument for not using the template in the first place up at the top. It seems like copy and pasting is not an issue.
  • Issue: leaving out compositions
I don't understand what you mean. I can understand the difference between arrangement and composition, but where are we leaving it out? We just include it with the tracklist as it is shown on the original work's page right? For source, we just write "original" or something to indicate that someone composed it. I have been doing that for awhile now.
In summary, there is no substantial difference between editing it with or without a template. If you design a template with the exact same parameter names as the labels, it would feel the same. There is no new labels that we have to get used to. It just means we have to add some more pipes, but in exchange we reduce the amount of apostrophes and asterisks we have to type. Overall, the entire issue boils down to whether you prefer "stars and apostrophes" or "curly braces and pipes". That's it.
I believe I've covered every argument that is presented? Now for the benefits:
  • if we are to use templates, then it allows us to more easily incorporate any future extensions that may be useful for us. If we need to tag one of the fields, we don't have to go to every music article and tag it manually, we just have to tag it once.
  • If we wanted to change the layout for some reason, we would only have to do it once and only once, not 1000 times.
There's probably more benefits to large-scale edits, but I can't think of any at the moment
Let's compare the two
*01. '''my title''' ''(len)''
** arrange: me
** source: my game
{{AlbumTrack| 01 | my title | len
| arrange=me
| source=my game

A little magic will be required for the template editors, but it can be done
Trade-off? For 4 curly braces, a template name, some pipes and some equal signs, we have eliminated all those apostrophes and asterisks. And we have made a template that will be consistent across all music articles. And changing the appearance will be so much more efficient. If such magic works, then vgmdb copy-pasting is a non-issue. If it doesn't work, there is still magic available to make it work.
To your final question, why should we use templates when the current method works? Yes, it works, but with a template it would be better. I would hate to edit 1000 articles to make a tiny update; would you? If so, we should probably finish converting all outdated templates to the current one quickly --Tsukihime 09:08, 4 January 2011 (PST)
I like the last one, but I'd still prefer to enter fields like arranger, source, original title, etc. manually. Because it's more flexible and obvious, and template doesn't make it really easier. --WGH 09:59, 4 January 2011 (PST)
That's the thing: you ARE entering it manually. You have to set up the template manually unless you use scripts. Editing with the template is exactly the same as editing it without. You are using the same fields and the same information. Except you just type less asterisks and apostrophes but more curly braces and pipes. If I may ask, what do you mean by "more flexible and obvious"? From my understanding, we don't really offer any sort of flexibility beyond what is laid out in the existing outline. --Tsukihime 10:06, 4 January 2011 (PST)
Multiple original titles and sources, for example. Some less used fields like guitar, narrator, moans, rap, banjo, etc. While it's still possible to introduce other field, it would look ugly because of mess. Just look at existing Template:MusicArticle. How would you add additional sections?
Templates are made for convenience, and making them complicated won't make it convenient. --WGH 10:25, 4 January 2011 (PST)
Templates are made for the convenience of both editing and maintaining. If typing 10 extra bytes of characters would allow us to save months of time if we ever wanted to update something, I would gladly type extra characters. If we don't use a template, and someone wants to change the entire layout of the tracklists, we would simply refuse their request or tell them to do it themselves, cause we're NOT going to put that much time and effort into it. How discouraging is that?
Multiple titles and sources is a valid issue. Less used fields? Just toss them into "other" and manually use wiki code for them then. --Tsukihime 11:02, 4 January 2011 (PST)


I have removed the following named parameters

  • tracknum
  • title
  • length

For they are unnecessary. They are now unnamed and are the first three arguments you pass in. Length is conditional, and I have retained the track number's conditional as well (though I don't really see the point for that) --Tsukihime 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another opinion[edit]

For this template hasn't become popular, I propose the following.

Use this template solely as shortcut for the "title" line. Compare:

* {{Track|01|{{lang|ja|地霊達の起床}}|04:19}}
** arrangement: {{lang|ja|江口孝宏}}
** original title: {{lang|ja|地霊達の起床}}
** source: {{SA}}
* 01. '''{{lang|ja|地霊達の起床}}''' (''04:19'')
** arrangement: {{lang|ja|江口孝宏}}
** original title: {{lang|ja|地霊達の起床}}
** source: {{SA}}

Example page: 東方幻奏祀典6 "Grimoire" --WGH 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)