Jump to content

Template talk:AllMusic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

AMG URLs: Not as complicated

While Allmusic is far from human-friendly website design, it's actually easier to post links to AMG than it appears. No "id" nonsense is required — just change the spaces in the search strings to periods. Here's how it's done:

First, add this doozy of a prefix string
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=
Then, the number 1 (for artist's name; see SQL key below), followed by a colon
1:
And end it with the artist name, using dots instead of spaces as delimiters. Fortunately, it's not case-sensitive.
Michael.Jackson

The SQL number keys are as follows:
1 = Artist name
2 = Album title
3 = Song title
4 = Style
5 = Label

Examples

Click them all and see for yourself:

I'll let someone else handle updating this template, but as you can see, it's easier than it appears to make links to AMG.

N.B.: You'll still have to use the id argument to link directly to a particular page — this advice moreover applies to general search strings. —Down10 TACO 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

{{editprotected}} There is a proposal to merge the external link templates of the three AMG websites. Please bring any comments to Template talk:AMG. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please restore the documentation to its original version... I dont know of any consensus for the document to be be linked to another templates document! Thats just weird. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the documentation as you request. However it makes sense to me to centralise the documentation for these similar templates. It's not weird actually, but common practice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the restoration. It does not makes sense nor is it common practice if the documentation does not work for the template being used. -- Phoenix (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Italics

The template is italicizing the artist name; that should be corrected. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

All Movie Guide

Didn't this used to work for All Movie Guide? Seems like music and movie have been split and now this only works for All Music Guide. Any editors interested in creating a similar template so that for allmovieguide? -- Horkana (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Found the template for all movie guide, it is under amg movie. -- Horkana (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

URL syntax has changed

Allmusic have changed their URLs. E.g. http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:o8220rnar48n is now http://allmusic.com/album/r164489 - http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:3ifwxqy5ld6e is now http://allmusic.com/artist/p7020 - for now, the old URLs are redirected to the new ones, but who knows ... In the German WP, the template de:Template:Allmusic has been adapted to match the new syntax, and a bot is currently exchanging URLs in articles ... BNutzer (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if a bot could check every instance where we've used a link to "allmusic.com"? For example, sometimes I link to allmusic using {{Cite web}} instead of using this template. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Gyrofrog, maybe you find {{Cite Allmusic}} worth a look (after it has been adapted to the new syntax :) ... Regards, BNutzer (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would, thanks for that! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Another thing I've noticed is that the redirect goes to the "Overview" tab. Thus, if the old link was to the "Credits" tab it now defaults to "Overview". -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
In the new syntax, http://allmusic.com/album/r164489/credits appears to be working for "Credits". That could be handled in a modified template. Clicking the tab on http://allmusic.com/album/r164489 opens http://allmusic.com/album/mekanik-destruktiw-kommandoh-r164489/credits though. BNutzer (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Like BNutzer said, The German Wikipedia has let a bot replace all usage of the template with a correct new syntax and it worked fine. Perhaps that could be done here, too. Hekerui (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


I've made the replacements in the German WP. If you want and assist me, I could do it here in a similar way. The migration consists of these steps:

  1. Changing template Allmusic in a compatible way (supporting old and new parameters)
  2. Migrating direct weblinks already using new url format for template usage (Bot) (it would be difficult finding them after migrating other things)
  3. Migrate usages of template Allmusic (Bot)
  4. Remove compatibility for old parameters for template Allmusic
  5. Migrate direct weblinks using old URL format to template usage (Bot)

For the migration of direct weblinks a parameter like PureURL is needed. This allows also the usage with CiteWeb, so Cite Allmusic is not really needed.

For the compatibility mode of the template I must rename the parameter id. In dewiki I used upper case ( ID) version of this parameter to distinguish old and new usage. Don't know if this is appropriate here (other suggestions?). For the first step I would need write access to the template. Also I would need a bot flag in enwiki. Would you assist me?--Cactus26 (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you know what you are talking about so I would say, just go ahead and get it done! Just one question: It is my understanding that you would target all links to the Allmusic website and not just those embedded in this template. Is this a correct understanding? Regarding your need for a bot here, I don't know enough about those animals to assist, hopefully someone else can step in. – IbLeo(talk) 11:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding is correct all weblinks will be migrated. I first will implement a test version of the template in user namespace then adapt my bot for the enwiki parameters. I'm currently handicaped, I had a bicycle accident yesterday and broke my right clavicle and one rib and I'm not used to handle my computer only with the left had, so it will take more time than expected.--Cactus26 (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I am very sorry to hear about your accident. I wish you a quick recovery! And I understand that it can slow you down a bit. One more question: If you are going to embed all links to the Allmusic website into this template, what does that mean to links that are already within a template, like the abovementioned {{Cite Allmusic}}, or {{Cite web}}? – IbLeo(talk) 18:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I will add a parameter pure_url: {{user:cactus26/Allmusic|class=album|id=r164489/credits|pure_url=yes}} expands to https://www.allmusic.com/album/r164489/credits. This makes the migration of explicit rxternal links easier and allows usage within cite web etc.--Cactus26 (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
add-note: Could you please add an example of cite web usage for allmusic on my testpage?--Cactus26 (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I have done as you requested. But honestly – I am skeptical to the idea that editors will remember to use {{Allmusic}} within {{Cite web}}. How are they supposed to know it? Wouldn't it be better to keep {{Cite Allmusic}} for citation purposes, and migrate it to the new format as well? WDYT? – IbLeo(talk) 12:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a better option than going template-in-template, which might confuse users. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Thx for your helping hands. Presumably you are right, it's not easy to recognise the possibility to use tpl allmusic within Cite web for editors. But I need pure_url anyway to migrate explicit links to allmusic (ext. links w/o any tpl). Perhaps the numerous use cases arising because of bot migration will make this opportunity better known to editors. I don't care if you want we can keep cite allmusic as well. But the little usage of this template suggests that there is also little knowledge of this opportunity. The advantage of this little usage is that we don't need a bot for migration.--Cactus26 (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You are certainly right that {{Cite Allmusic}} is very little known. I only discovered it myself by reading this thread, and I didn't realize that it is so little used. So I won't stand in your way, as I believe the priority right now is to get the migration done. – IbLeo(talk) 17:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

<--------------------------------------------------
I'm open for any suggestions and your concern is reasonable. Unfortunately I'm not able to migrate pure weblinks to Cite Allmusic. But there are a few opportunities we should discuss. It's evident to migrate all usages of tpl Allmusic. Discussable issues:

  1. Should pure webliks already using new url format be migrated for template usage? (not mandantory)
  2. Should pure weblinks using old format only be adapted (and stay pure weblinks) or should they be migrated for template usage?

("pure weblinks" includes links used inside cite web)--Cactus26 (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say 'yes' to both. Ideally, we should encapsulate all links to Allmusic in a template. Otherwise, we will have to do the work all over again next time the good people over there change their URL format. Would it be feasible to migrate all "standalone" pure weblinks to {{Allmusic}}, and all within {{Cite web}} to {{Cite Allmusic}}? Or am I too ambitious? I do realise that we would first need to migrate {{Cite Allmusic}} itself to the new format, but as you say this could be done manually by someone with a a bit of template coding knowledge. – IbLeo(talk) 21:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. "Yes to both" is the way we did in dewiki. Your idea migrating links within cite web to cite allmusic would be practicable I think. But I'm currently not able to implement this. On the other hand, honestly, I must say that I don't stand behind such a solution. Finally you would have to support nearly all parameters of cite web for cite allmusic too and pass them through, already to allow undisturbed migration. The other way, the template-in-template solution, is ugly and mainly a migration-artefact. But my long termed idea is that tpl allmusic serves as both ("allmusic" and "cite allmusic"), that's why I added parameter accessdate (see user:cactus26/Allmusic and german version of tpl allmusic (perhaps I will translate template doc today). Btw: I was scared recognizing that there are about 77000 pages to adapt, only 5641 using tpl. How many usages appear within cite web I was not yet able to determine. --Cactus26 (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised about the sheer volume of articles. We have currently 120.000+ articles within WP:ALBUM and my quick guess would be that the majority of them links to Allmusic, one way of the other. Also, you have some very valid arguments concerning {{Cite web}} vs. {{Cite Allmusic}}. I was probably too optimistic in my last entry; I guess it would be a safer option to keep them separate for the moment and just concentrate on the migration. As I said earlier, I won't stand in your way and you seem to have a clear idea about how to get it done with your experience from the migration at dewiki. Cheers. – IbLeo(talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Activating version supporting old and new parameters

{{editprotected}} The version can be copied from user:cactus26/Allmusic. See disc. above and Bot Request.--Cactus26 (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've moved your code to Template:Allmusic/sandbox and made a few tweaks. A couple of queries:
  • Is it the intention to stop using Template:AMG. As that template will need to be changed as well, would it not make more sense to make the changes there rather than here?
  • Was it discussed anywhere to add the new parameter accessdate? (I couldn't find this discussion anywhere!)
Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right, {{AMG}} will not be used, it makes no sense anymore, URL for allgame are not changed (http://allgame.com/game.php?id=29532), so allgame needs not to be adapted and allgame and allmusic are no longer similar. Accessdate ist a suggestion (was short discussed above) to avoid necessity for {{Cite web}} or {{Cite Allmusic}}, it needs not to be used and it will not be used during bot migration, so we have more time to decide.--Cactus26 (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
But it is possible (or likely) that {{AMG}} has been used directly in some articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You are right, I've overlooked this opportunity, but actually there are only a few cases, I think, we can fix them by hand.--Cactus26 (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I must correct me, there are more than a few. I will add the translation of {{AMG}} with 1=music to new version of {{Allmusic}} to my bot. I will test this constellation with James Brown. But this has no effect on template code.--Cactus26 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thx. Bot has now made the allowed 10 trial edits.--Cactus26 (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Migration

First usages of {{Allmusic}} will be migrated. Assistance for spot check of bot edits is very welcome. --Cactus26 (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to see that this is moving forward. I will keep an eye on what happens to the 750+ articles on my watchlist (mostly related to popular music). So far a small dozen of them were migrated yesterday and it all went well. I will let you know if I spot any issues. – IbLeo(talk) 08:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thx for your help, IbLeo.--Cactus26 (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

First step done, pages using template have been migrated. There are aprox. 150 pages needing to be adapted manually, for most of them the old url was not redirected at allmusic site so the new url could not be evaluated. Pages to be adapted manually are listed here. It would be nice to have others contributing.--Cactus26 (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I won't mind giving you a hand with the manual updates if we can agree to strike out pages as we go along, so we won't step on each others feet. I don't have time today though, it will have to be sometimes next week. What will be the next step from your side? – IbLeo(talk) 16:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Cactus26! I have updated a few of them and striked (or whatever the past tense is;) them out and may continue to do so if needed. BNutzer (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 Done BNutzer (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Next step will bei pages with pure external links already using new url format. Afterwards pages directly using {{AMG}}. Then pure external links with old url, the biggest chunk.--Cactus26 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Compatibility mode can be removed, category Category:Template:Allmusic/Old parameters supplied can be deleted afterwards (List copied, see above). Please use version from sandbox, doc is already updated.--Cactus26 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the "Song (short notation)" example in the documentation. Is that really meant to expand to "t2454936" instead of "Dust in the Wind"? If so, I don't see why I would want to use it that way ... BNutzer (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It does not work till the sandbox version will be copied to actual template (see editprotected above, I'm surprised that this takes so long). See:
  • {{Allmusic/sandbox|song|t2454936|Dust in the Wind}}
expands to 
--Cactus26 (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 Done. It took so long because I took the weekend off and I seem to be the only person attending to these requests! By the way I've taken out the includeonly from the template. In my opinion it is better not to supress the output because it is harder to see the functionality and detect any errors. Hope this is okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thx. Your modification is ok. In dewiki it is common to suppress output (I didn't know here) but for my self I would actually omit the suppression for the same reason as you.--Cactus26 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You also use some strange formatting with the double braces ;) Is that a de thing as well? I resisted the urge to change it though! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I adpopted it somewhere in dewiki but it's not common there too I think. I've not found my favorite template formatting strategy yet so I wouldn't be angry if you had changed it. I don't work so much with templates even with more complicated ones so it doesen't matter that much.--Cactus26 (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Status of Bot Action

  1. pages empbedding {{Allmusic}}. Done --Cactus26 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. standalone weblinks using new url. Done --Cactus26 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  3. pages embedding {{AMG}} directly with type music. Done --Cactus26 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  4. standalone weblinks old url w/o "www" (about 20000).  Done--Cactus26 (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  5. standalone weblinks old url with "www" (about 50000). Done--Cactus26 (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  6. standalone weblinks using very old url like "www.allmusicguide". Done--Cactus26 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  7. standalone weblinks old url for namespaces File and Portal. Done--Cactus26 (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  8. Usages of {{Cite Allmusic}} migrated. Done--Cactus26 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  9. Usages of {{Album citation}} migrated. Done--Cactus26 (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  10. rework on "bottom of barrel"

The purpose of this working schedule is only to get feedback about progress, the bot always handles all issues when working on page. --Cactus26 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to be able to see where we are in the roadmap. I still keep an eye on my watchlist and until now only saw good changes. Keep up the good work! – IbLeo(talk) 07:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it's good to know that there's someone attending :-) --Cactus26 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I observe that the articles on my watchlist are being processed little by little, and so far (55% into step 4) all is going well. – IbLeo(talk) 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Using tabs of Allmusic pages in new template, e.g. "Discography"

Apparently, the "id" parameter of the new template works well with the "/subdirectory" structure of the new Allmusic URLs, e.g. {{Allmusic|class=artist|id=p15139/discography|label=Overweight Pooch discography}}: Overweight Pooch discography at AllMusic. Maybe this should be mentioned in the documentation (if it can be verified in various examples). Otherwise, it will stay a hidden feature ;) BNutzer (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I would very appreciate if you could add this hint to documentation.--Cactus26 (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for a way to do the same thing, and I actually think it would be "cleaner" to add a new parameter "tab" to the template, e.g. {{Allmusic|class=artist|id=p15139|tab=discography|label=Overweight Pooch discography}}. That would allow us to target also the other tabs like "Charts & Awards" in a neat way. However I suggest awaiting the end of the migration in order not to complicate things. – IbLeo(talk) 07:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking about this idea when migrating dewiki, but I neglected it. It would in some cases be advantageous but in other cases confusing, in addition it makes things more complicated. One problem is that there are links that have even more parts than class, id and tab. Besides, when class=explore the corresponding part for parameter tab has not this meaning. In the bot log I found this examples
--Cactus26 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed you have a deeper vision than me, and are consequently one step ahead of my thinking. I see that you are right, we have links to sub-tabs in tabs (your 1st example), and I was not even aware of those explore/essay things (2nd example). So yes, either we have to drop this idea, or refine it further, if possible. – IbLeo(talk) 07:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think if we decide that the template maps the structure at allmusic more precisely we should contact Allmusic to have all informations about their implementation an their future plans. The more detailed we map the structure the more fragile it becomes concerning future changes.--Cactus26 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion adding a "tab" parameter is an excellent idea. Note also that the way things stand, CactusBot is making some updates to the wrong URL, like this, and such updates must be found and fixed manually, like this. Perhaps the bot should be stopped until this issue is resolved. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The bot cannot reconstruct deep links. This is because the redirect at allmusic site does not reconstruct deep links (to tab). This cirticism also occurred when migrating dewiki, but there's no way to do anything against it. In other words: Before bot edit the old url lead to exactly the same page as after the bot edit. Allmusic has to be blamed not the bot.
I will think about "tab" parameter cause there are so many supporters. What would you thing about an optional parameter, that is, you could code the whole url suffix in parameter id as now or, if you want, you could use the parameter tab for the last part of the url, then you must leave out this part in parameter id. What would you think of this?--Cactus26 (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It's true that the Allmusic redirect before the bot edit did not go to the tab anyway. But, wouldn't it be possible to have the bot figure it out anyway, from the URL? To use the example in my previous post, didn't any old URL ending with "~T4" go to the Credits tab? And similarly for other URLs, for example perhaps a URL ending in "~T2" used to go to the Discography tab, I'm not sure. As far as a "tab" parameter being optional as you describe, that sounds good to me. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I've never seen Allmusic before reorganization and I didn't recognize this system yet. Sorry. I've stopped the bot and will try to implement your suggested enhancement. I will first append those potential tab-suffixes to parameter id, support of an additional parameter "tab" I would suggest to implement later, after some more discussion.--Cactus26 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Add note: Could you list some more deep link examples where you know which tab was accessed before reorg.?--Cactus26 (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try to figure out the old URL system and find examples when I get a chance. Or perhaps another interested editor will do it first. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Old and new URLs for tabs

It looks to me like the old URLs refer to the tabs from left to right, with ~T0 being the default Overview tab. I'm basing this on an hour or so of looking at current or historical versions of WP articles that have references to the tabs. If I'm right, that would mean the old URLs translate to the new URLs like this:

Specification

  • For artists:
    • ~T1 = /biography
    • ~T2 = /discography
      • ~T20 = /discography/main
      • ~T21 = /discography/compilations
      • ~T22 = /discography/singles-eps
      • ~T23 = /discography/dvds-videos
      • ~T24 = /discography/other
    • ~T3 = /songs
      • ~T30 = /songs/highlights
      • ~T31 = /songs/all-songs
      • ~T32 = /songs/songs-composed-by
    • ~T4 = /credits
    • ~T5 = /charts-awards
      • ~T50 = /charts-awards/billboard-albums
      • ~T51 = /charts-awards/billboard-singles
      • ~T52 = /charts-awards/grammy-awards
  • For albums:
    • ~T1 = /review
    • ~T2 = /credits
    • ~T3 = /charts-awards (nb: following suffixes for sub-tabs different to corresponding items at artist)
      • ~T30 = /charts-awards/billboard-album
      • ~T31 = /charts-awards/billboard-single
      • ~T32 = /charts-awards/grammy

Problems / Discussion

But there's a problem with this. It looks like some Allmusic album articles have another tab in the middle, for tracks. The ones that have this tab that I've noticed so far are for classical music albums, but I'm not sure if that's consistent, or how many Allmusic album articles have a tab for tracks. The URLs for such an album would then translate like this:

    • ~T1 = /review
    • ~T2 = /tracks
    • ~T3 = /credits
    • ~T4 = /charts-awards

One approach would be for the bot to assume that there's not a tracks tab for albums, which would then produce the right translated URLs in the majority of cases. Anyway, I hope other editors will check my work on this, and give their opinions here. If I figure out anything else I'll post it here. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've modified your contribution and enhanced your list, hope this is ok. I explored the logfile of bot produced yet an found out this:
  • Sub-tabs: There exist links addressing sub tabs. I added all cases I found to specification above.
  • Potential album track-tab. I've tried about 25 album links none of them had a separate tracks tab, tracks were listed in overview tab. Do you know any example?
  • class=song. I didn't find any example addressing tab. Think we can assume there is none and ignore it.
  • class=work. I found examples addressing ~T1 and ~T0 but this had actually no effect. Think we can ignore class=work.
  • How to enhance already migrated pages? Difficult. Only idea: Revert Bot edit an rerun bot on page. Let's detail this strategy later.
A list of interesting examples I found:
--Cactus26 (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now enhanced the bot according to suggestions above and rerun pages of mentioned examples: Henry Glover, Lee Benoit, Jerry Ragovoy, Toto Cutugno, Five discography, Warren Huart. Additionaly I found out, discgarding unnecassary fragments from old url increases translation success, for Henry Glover two more links could be translated.--Cactus26 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. This all sounds good. Thanks for your efforts. Also, right now I can't find an album with a Tracks tab. I'll see if I can find some later. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I will now reschedule bot for the next 2000 pages. This time the bot runs with verification of URL if tab suffix is appended. I think of leaving this out if no errors occur cause this verification is very time consuming.--Cactus26 (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I had errors cause I've overlooked that sub tabs of album for charts-awards don't match artist. Now I corrected this and rerun affected pages. The bot continues to verify sub tab suffixes, it isn't as frequent as I thought so it won't affect performace too bad.--Cactus26 (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued efforts. It's much better to have the new links go to the original tab and sub-tab pages. Here are some additional thoughts: (1) Would it be worthwhile to have the bot mention any tab or sub-tab usage in its edit summary? I think it would be helpful because it would make it much easier for regular editors to find and verify those updates. (2) Has the "tab" parameter been implemented yet? It might be a good idea to implement this parameter, and then have the bot use it going forward, instead of appending the tab information to the "id" parameter. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I've stopped the bot again. I will add a hint, if the bot has appended any tab suffix while working on page. Is this ok?
I'm not totally confident about the tab parameter. One reason for my resistance is that we consequently would need two tab parameters (tab and sub-tab and - if we want to carry it to extremes - additional parameters for page of list or sort information). In addition the corresponding part of URL hast not always this meaning, e.g. for explore. Anyhow I will implement an optional tab parameter, I think, but I see no disadvantage if the bot is not using this, the code is shorter without anyway. As advantage of the tab parameter I accept that a user may comprehend faster what to do when using this template.--Cactus26 (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks again. Also, if other editors either agree or disagree with any of this, I would encourage them to post their opinions here. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I rescheduled the bot. Thanks for your support. It is a little pitty we didn't comprehend this tab system when migrating dewiki.--Cactus26 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Working on the last portion there appeared some "strange" artist pages where the tab reconstruction faild: e.g. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=41:9385~T3 in Richard Adeney. For classical artists the tab structure seems to be different: biography/works/credits instead of biography/discography/songs/credits/charts-awards. The reconstruction of tab failed for these artists. I counted 14 cases where the url was translated without tab. Should we repair this?--Cactus26 (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I am not sure what to say about that as I have very little insight into classical music, in general and on Allmusic. But if I read your entry correctly, the only tab that classical artists can have and rock/pop artists can't is the "works" tab. Would it be a problem to make the template support this? – IbLeo(talk) 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The template-support for this is present, the problem applies migration only. There the "~Tx" suffixes where not translated in new tab suffix for 14 pages.--Cactus26 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can the bot re-do the changes that were done before support for the tab URLs was added? — Mudwater (Talk) 12:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so easy. You would have to undo the bot edit an give me a list of pages that should be re-done. Is this ok?--Cactus26 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to mechanize finding and undoing the bot's old edits -- all that were done before tabs were implemented, or better yet just those for links to tabs, as shown by the previous ULRs -- and then have the bot just redo those? And if it is possible, would it be worth the effort? — Mudwater (Talk) 17:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not impossible but the costs implementing this would be immense (at least for me), in my opinion there's no releation between effort and profit.--Cactus26 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I think editors can just manually fix any "pre-tabs" changes to tab URLs as they find them. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think so, too. On pages where tab suffix is missing the user has to click tabs himself, this is not fine, but perhaps acceptable. Sorry again, I did not recognize this system earlier. But more important is possibly the correction of left 1200 pages where new url can't be evaluated so easy. In addition there are some ugly, unspecific links to allmusic without any suffix following "amg.dll". They where useless before an will remain useless. But let's see how many of the left over external links can be fixed automatically.--Cactus26 (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you still planning on implementing an optional "tab" parameter? I still think this would be a good idea. And if yes, should there be a "subtab" parameter, as you mentioned before? — Mudwater (Talk) 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I already added a tab parameter to the sandbox version of the template, see also last proposal of Discussion here. I would not recommend a subtab parameter. I already made changes to sandbox documentation but actual documentation was improved in the meantime, so changes must be transfered.--Cactus26 (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to report a little problem that I spotted this morning: When direct links to the Allmusic website are commented out in an article (for God knows what reason?), the bot breaks the article by removing a part of the comment syntax. This happened to at least three articles on my watchlist, that I have afterwards repaired manually: Cardiff Rose, Back from Rio, and Born to Rock and Roll. It probably doesn't happen very often, as it seems quite a strange thing to do, but I thought you might want to be aware. – IbLeo(talk) 12:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've stopped the bot an will fix it before restart, it's not that difficult, I think (the bot will still translate link but not eat the "-"). I try to find similar cases in log.--Cactus26 (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I scanned the log and found just one page besides your three. You must have a gigantic watchlist and your spot checking is excellent. I will reschedule bot now.--Cactus26 (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt action. Well, I actually have only 769 pages on my watchlist and I assure you I don't review all the changes the bot does. What got me on the track here was that I suddenly received bot notifications on my talk page page about album covers no longer being used in articles. So somehow it was pure luck. Good to know that the damage is very limited. Cheers. – IbLeo(talk) 15:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. But somehow it becomes even more magic, that you contributed fair use images for 3 of 4 concerned pages ;-) --Cactus26 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, believe me, it was pure luck! Those three articles were about albums by the same artist: Roger McGuinn. – IbLeo(talk) 07:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The pure_url parameter

Did we decide to keep the parameter |pure_url= when the migration has finished? The more I see it used, the more I like it, so I just want to note that I have changed my mind and would like to see it kept. It provides a convenient way to embed Allmusic links, even within another template like {{Cite web}}. – IbLeo(talk) 05:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't clarify yet that there's virtual no chance to remove this parameter after migration, so it's good to hear that you like it in the meantime ;-). I like it too. The idea introducing such a parameter for templates encapsulating external links comes from User:Merlissimo, I think (at least I know it from him). Besides the fact that it's complicated for unexperienced users It has two main advantages:
  • The automated migration to encapsulate all external links becomes feasible
  • The template can be used everywhere, e.g. embedded in {{citeweb}}
In dewiki there are a few templates using such a parameter but its also not common yet. Let's make this practice more common! Regards --Cactus26 (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed! Thanks for your explanation. I hope the community will follow. – IbLeo(talk) 07:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Author name

I notice that you have nominated {{Cite Allmusic}} for speedy deletion because all occurrences have been migrated to {{Allmusic}}. I have no problem with this, but (as noted in an earlier discussion) the parameters |first= and |last= used to indicate the author of e.g. an album review are not part of this template for the moment. I also note that the lack of those two parameters is as far as I can see the only reason to use {{Cite web}} rather than {{Allmusic}}. Consequently I would be in favor of implementing them here. It would make it so much easier to quote Allmusic in e.g. album reviews which in my opinion is one of the most common—if not THE most common—use cases. – IbLeo(talk) 17:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is possible of course to add these parameters. But isn't sufficient that you can get the same result specifying the label parameter (label=author: "title")? I'm not a friend of handling such trivia by template. If we would add it, we had to decide how to handle label parameter then. Has it to be quoted if first or last is supplied? It makes things more complicated and the benefit of this parameters (consistent formating of author) does not justify this. Just my opinion.--Cactus26 (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You might very well have a valid point. I didn't think of using |label=. Let's have a look at how we could simplify the example at {{Album ratings}} which provides the instructions for the WP:ALBUM project:
Code Result
Current {{cite web |first=Steve|last=Huey |title=Alice in Chains: ''Dirt'' > Review |url={{Allmusic|class=album|id=r70661/review|pure_url=yes}} |publisher=[[Allmusic]] |accessdate=31 January 2010}} Huey, Steve. "Alice in Chains: Dirt > Review". Allmusic. Retrieved 31 January 2010.
Proposal 1 {{Allmusic |class=album |id=r70661/review |label=Huey, Steve. "Alice in Chains: ''Dirt'' > Review" |accessdate=31 January 2010}} Huey, Steve. "Alice in Chains: Dirt > Review" at AllMusic. Retrieved 31 January 2010.
Proposal 2 {{Allmusic/sandbox |class=album |id=r70661 |tab=review | first=Steve |last=Huey |label="Alice in Chains: ''Dirt'' > Review" |accessdate=31 January 2010}} Huey, Steve. "Alice in Chains: Dirt > Review" at AllMusic. Retrieved 31 January 2010.
Is this what you has in mind? Indeed, the code is simplified. Regarding the display, the most obvious difference that comes into mind is that the author name becomes part of the link. For me it's not a showstopper. However, I would like to hear other opinions. – IbLeo(talk) 19:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exactly! I'm not able to work it out so brilliant. As said: The author becomes part of link and there is no support of consistent formatting of author.-In addition. it's probably very uncommon in enwiki, cause {{Cite web}} is widespread here (in dewiki the corresponding template isn't as common (and btw.: I don't like it, cause it handles bits and bobs and doesn't actually encapsulate any external link). But as said: This is just my opinion. It's not much effort to add these parameters.--Cactus26 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
On a second thought I have changed my mind and would like to see the |first= and |last= parameters implemented in this template. Mainly to comply with WP:CITE and obtain consistency with the here on enwiki widely used citation templates where the name of the author is never a part of the link. But also because it is convenient for editors like you and me when filling the template. Obviously, the author name (when present) goes first in the generated text, followed by a ".". Could you be convinced? – IbLeo(talk) 09:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to convince me. I actually have little knowledge of working in enwiki, also I've little knowledge working on music topics. But I committed to do this job here and I like to deliver something you can work with. Your concern is reasonable even if I possibly would decide the other way in this conflict of goals. I've added support of parameters first and last, also for tab in the sandbox version of the template (see proposal 2 above). I decided that the quotes for title must be supplied with label parameter, but this can be changed if you want.--Cactus26 (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for considering this aspect (and all others) with so much care. It's really appreciated. While I am convinced about the author name, I must admit that I am not so sure about the quotes. In music articles, according to the manual of style, an artist name is written without formatting, an album name is in italic and a song name in quotes. Example: "Them Bones" is a song from the album Dirt by the band Alice in Chains. So in my opinion, in order to comply you would have to distinguish the formatting depending on the |class= parameter, which obviously complicates things. Also, you say that you added quotes to the label parameter, but what happens when it is omitted? – IbLeo(talk) 14:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If my unterstanding is correct, the correct form of above example would be without quotes:

Huey, Steve. Alice in Chains: Dirt > Review at AllMusic. Retrieved 31 January 2010.

This is exactely what you get if you omit quotes (label=Alice in Chains: ''Dirt'' > Review instead of label="Alice in Chains: ''Dirt'' > Review"). This would mean that the formatting is not conform to manual of style when using {{Cite web}}. The example shows also that it's virtually impossible to do the label formatting by template, cause the template can't figure out the part of the label having to be italic. In addition in my experience it's mostly disadvantageous to do formatting by template..--Cactus26 (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that you added the quotes manually in Proposal 2 above. I thought they were provided by the template. Yes, your example above is correct. I consequently agree with the sandbox version of the template, it's better if the formatting is left to the editor. – IbLeo(talk) 16:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine. It would be good to here other opinions. I already made changes to sandbox documentation concerning the tab parameter but actual documentation was improved in the meantime, so changes must be transfered. Also documentation of author parameters has to be added, would you assist me? (it's not easy for me, as you know, my English is not as perfect as yours).--Cactus26 (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
With pleasure. I have aligned the sandbox documentation to the current one, improved the language a bit, and added documentation for the 'last' and 'first' parameters, as well as an example. And don't worry, your English is just fine... – IbLeo(talk) 12:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :-) How shall we proceed? It would be good to here at least one other opinion before we activate this version, what do you think?--Cactus26 (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a request for editors to comment. – IbLeo(talk) 09:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please briefly summarize the proposal? I think it's to add "first" and "last" parameters, for the author's name, to be displayed outside the link, as in Proposal 2 above. Is that correct? If yes I definitely think this is a good idea. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Comparing with current version there are two enhancements:
  • Additional parameters |first=, |last=, like {{Cite web}}, parameter |label= hast to be used as "title" in this case, in contrast to {{Cite web}} title is not quoted by template.
  • Additional parameter |tab=, optional, tab can also be appended to |id=
--Cactus26 (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that by now people have had enough time to comment, and since nobody have expressed their disagreement I believe that we can proceed with the implementation of the sandbox. – IbLeo(talk) 18:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Since there are no additional suggestions (see above) sandobox version should be activated. Documentation was updated here and should also be copied when template is updated (Interwiki links must be transfered manually). Please note that sandbox version includes sandbox documentation, this line should not be copied to actual template.--Cactus26 (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Looks great! Well done, everybody! :-) KrakatoaKatie 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but there is a small problem: The template documentation is transcluded from the sandbox documentation. I am reinstating the edit request to get it fixed. – IbLeo(talk) 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it is. Thank you. – IbLeo(talk) 05:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bottom of barrel

The migration seems to be close to the end. What's the exact status for the "bottom of barrel" you mention above? Is there anything we can do to help out? – IbLeo(talk) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to wait till tomorrow if allmusic replies to my question concerning very old ids. Then I will put out list of left over pages (about 1150, I can't do it before tomorrow, at this moment I have no access to my bot environment). I hope there will be some more users helping us working on bottom of barrel.--Cactus26 (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hm... 1150 articles sounds like a lot, probably too many to fix manually within a reasonable amount of time. A solution could be to make your bot run through them and tag all the links with {{dead link}}. This would alert people who have the articles on their watchlist and this way attract some attention. A proposal to think about. – IbLeo(talk) 09:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Good idea IMHO, a comment on the talk page might also be helpful, maybe something like "Allmusic URL syntax has changed, please use their search to find the new location if possible, otherwise remove the link". BNutzer (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
So, the very old links are dead links? Or do they link to the main Allmusic page for the subject, similarly to what was happening with the tab pages before the bot was enhanced? — Mudwater (Talk) 12:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
None of the outstanding links goes to the page for the subject, it's worse, there are two cases:
Used e.g. on Grand Wizzard Theodore. BNutzer (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
--Cactus26 (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe that both cases qualify as dead links because they no longer points to the originally intended page. Reading Wikipedia:External links#What can be done with a dead external link makes me realize that we have to distinguish between those in an External links section and those used in the article body as citation references. The former could simply be removed as they serve no purpose, while the latter could be tagged with {{Dead link}}. This could be completed with a note on the talk page, as proposed by BNutzer. – IbLeo(talk) 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a good idea to tag the dead links as suggested. I must admit that it is not that easy for me to distinguish between external links used for refs and those in External Links section and remove the latter (about 3-4 hours effort of implementation and there's a risk to disfigure the page). To add a comment on talk page would be possible, but I don't know if this causes significant more attention on this topic as the tagging as dead link itself (would be about 2-3 hours of implementation for me). To summarize:

  • we will tag uncorrectable external links (all remaining links) as bad link
  • should we remove links in External Links section instead of tagging them?
  • should we add an additional comment on talk page? (if yes: What should the text be?)

In addition I will post the list of this pages here.--Cactus26 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing would be nice to have, but with the danger of disconfiguring the page I think it is not worth your 3-4 hours effort, IMHO. I think that a talk page notice is useful since it can provide useful hints for editors willing to help. Text suggestion: "Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, one or more links used in the article do not work anymore and have been marked as "dead link". Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed." If the talk page notice would require too much effort, the text should IMHO at least show up in the edit summary. My 2 Eurocents, BNutzer (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The dead links in an "External links" section should strictly speaking be removed; in that case it wouldn't be necessary to place a notice on the talk page. However, if it represents too much work and a risk of mistakes, I agree to simply tagging them as the rest. I also concur to BNutzer's text proposal for the talk page. And by the way: Merry Christmas! – IbLeo(talk) 17:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, same to you! I will work on tagging links and adding a comment on talk page, I will come back to you when I have a test version working.--Cactus26 (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the details I recognized that it's not that easy to place {{Dead link}} at the right place, e.g. if the link is coded inside {{Cite web}} the tag must be placed behind the entire template. I've overlooked this so far and it would be pretty much effort to implement this. Would it be sufficient to add a comment at talk page? There all dead links of the page could be listed. There would be no tag of the dead link on the page then, also the categorization as dead link would be missing (e.g. Category:All articles with dead external links). I could add these categories working around the template {{Dead link}} (b.t.w. I consider this template as clumsy, why doesn't it take the url as parameter and encapsulates the url then all these problems would not occur). But, honestly, does it really make sense to add such a spam category?--Cactus26 (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Maybe you could use {{Dead link header}} instead? I have the impression that it would be easier to put into place.
  • I think that adding a talk page notice only and not use any template in the article would be much better than nothing and acceptable. Cactus26, you have saved the world by updating the template - if a small percentage of articles suffer collateral damage, oh well ... You have to break an egg to make an omelette ;)
  • Re: Category: At first thought, I think it would be useful to add Category:All articles with dead external links so that editors who use that category can find the articles in question there.
BNutzer (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
True enough, Cactus26, you have already provided a fantastic effort in this migration, so please just do your best for the "bottom of the barrel". If it comes down to simply adding a notice to the talk page, I am perfectly happy with this. I am not a fan of the idea of adding any subcategories of Category:All articles with dead external links explicitly to the articles, as I don't expect editors would remember to take them out again when they fix the link. On the other hand, if you find an easy way of adding {{Dead link}} to a subset of the articles, then it would be better than nothing. But again, I won't consider it mandatory. – IbLeo(talk) 07:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately for {{Dead link header}} it seems not much easier to figure out where to locate, in particular if the link is at beginning of the page (Infobox). I've implemented now the addition of comment on talk page, see [[1]] (Edit comment: "Dead links for Allmusic"). Please enhance the text where possible. It's certainly true that if we would add the hidden categories explicit they would never be removed. The only way making sense seems {{Dead link}}, I'm looking if I can figure out the position for some cases.--Cactus26 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Now I've been fiddling around and the bot will now be able to tag some dead links. I've tested it with London SS and In This Skin). Don't know how many cases can be handled (e.g. I ignored the bothersome redirects for Cite web, you can append a dot and Cite web will work, great! The bot won't).--Cactus26 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please note that there have been some changes and feedback to the talk page notice, see User_talk:Cactus26/TestAllmusic. BNutzer (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I've adopted your corrections/enhancements/suggestions. Thanks. The quesions regarding dead links on In This Skin:
  • The slash at end is shown cause the actual link is coded like this. I don't think this needs to be handled explicit
  • The following link is not reported: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg. The reason for this is that this link contains no "sql=". It is somewhat difficult to handle this link and this has to do with the "pipe in URL" problem you reported before. I tried to lessen this problem (does pipe end the URL or not?) utilizing the fact that pipe in almost all cases is coded before "sql=". I will think about if I can get arround this. But btw.: I left all links without any suffix anyway (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll). They where unspecific before and will remain unspecific.
--Cactus26 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I've rerun bot on London SS and In This Skin (comment on talk now contains your suggestions)--Cactus26 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me, those two. Thumbs up! – IbLeo(talk) 18:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added support for {{web cite}} redirects. They are used too frequent to ignore them.--Cactus26 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I detected problems if same link occurs more than once and if link was already tagged by another bot. Working on this.--Cactus26 (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem fixed (I hope). Last stage for bot. If you have time please help spot checking.--Cactus26 (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Short break. I've recognized a correction here (where bot afterwards migrated to template cause I accidently rerun the bot on the page): Shell we point out on talk page to use template when fixing link if possible? If yes, please make a suggestion for the words.--Cactus26 (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd chime in and say that the dead link tagging seems to be going well. Having a small tag in the article and a new section on the talk page is a good approach, I think. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear that you like it :-) --Cactus26 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note: in a few hours, the talk page notice header needs to be "January 2011" instead of "December 2010". Happy new year, everybody btw. BNutzer (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you! The bot will change header according to my local time (CET), it has to be UTC, I think. I'm thinking of fixing this to run the bot over the turn of year ;-) What to you think about pointing out template usage on talk page?--Cactus26 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy new year to all of you! I think it's an excellent idea to mention the template on the talk page notice. I suggest you simply add to the wording "... and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template." – IbLeo(talk) 16:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. Now I rescheduled bot for last stage. I think he will need approximately 4 hours.--Cactus26 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Now all outstanding links are tagged, I've put the list of outstanding pages here. I can update this list periodically cause (hopefully) other users fill fix links due to bot tagging without updateing this page.--Cactus26 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Like many here, a number of articles on my watchlist have had "dead links" spotted by CactusBot and have been tagged accordingly on their talk pages. Almost all of these have the same basic problem though, and that is to do with cover version info that has disappeared from Allmusic. As I'm sure many here will remember, Allmusic used to include lists of cover versions in a particular song's entry but since the recent URL migration, this info seems to have vanished, leaving only album appearances of the song by the particular artist who's version of the song you happen to be looking at. So, in almost all cases the problems with the articles in my watchlist are for sentences like ""Song X" has been covered by Band A in 1979, Solo Artist B in 1987 and Band C in 2005." With all references for this info citing the old Allmusic cover version lists. Apart from citing the individual albums on which these covers appear, which is the obvious but long winded way round this problem, does anyone know of any other reliable cover version source that could be used? Or better yet, where to find cover version info on Allmusic nowadays? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Have you seen my comment down there? I supposed that here was more/other info at allmusic before. As said, the possibility I found at allmusic for this concern has the disadvantage to be compromised by songs with accidentally same name (but not all tagged links share this problem).--Cactus26 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I had seen your comments below but this isn't a problem with CactusBot or the migration per se, it's just that Allmusic have removed the cover version info from their site altogether. I'm sure that not all taged links share this problem but most in my watchlist do, which is why I mentioned it. Again, this isn't a problem with CactusBot or anything, I'm just asking for sugestions of how to work around these vanished links and source alternative citations. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually understood that your concern is not CactusBot. But what do you think about the sugeestion of using http://www.allmusic.com/search/track/Ay+Amor/order:default-asc in case of the similar probolem in Ay Amor? This is not perfect, as said, you have to compare the column "Composer" to ensure that the line does not belong to another song with simialr name. What do you think about this?--Cactus26 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, cool! That's actually a pretty good work around for many songs, especially if they have unusual titles. Of course, it's less useful for more common song titles but nonetheless, it's going to be a very useful substitute link for me in a number of cases. Thanks for that Cactus26. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bug report? Problem detected

Converting the article Country Joe McDonald led to a non-working URL (due to a pipe "|" in the previous version?). The previous version does at least go to the artist article on Allmusic. I have fixed it manually, but could it have happened elsewhere? BNutzer (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. In principle I know this problem but this case is abnormal. Pipes in URL are challenging cause pipe does not belong to the URL when coded in template call, then the wiki parser looks at the pipe as parameter delimiter. (see my test page, especially comparing No. 6 of both categories). This occurs for allmusic links normally only when no id is given, this links can't be translated anyway. Your case is special cause the suffix was nonsense already before rearrangement at allmusic. I'm not sure that there's no other case like this but I think this cases are very seldom.--Cactus26 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Performers of a Song

I tried to fix some links apparently linking to the performers of a song (e.g. on page Cómo Fuí a Enamorarme de Tí and Ay amor). I suspect that all these links use an old id beginning with "17:". Would you also fix this links using http://www.allmusic.com/search/track/Ay+Amor/order:default-asc (in case of Ay_Amor, you get there searching for song and clicking on search result)? It seems that songs with accidentally same name compromise this list. Don't know if page before rearrangement at allmusic looked like this. Note that class to use with {{allmusic}} ist "search" and id is also somewhat strange in this case. Should we add a comment on template doc for this or what do you think?--Cactus26 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars

I have awarded the rock music barnstar to Cactus26 for his outstanding work on this migration. Thanks a lot! – IbLeo(talk) 18:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added the Template Barnstar! Thank you very much indeed, Cactus26! BNutzer (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! It was a pleasure to work with you! It's not naturally to have fellows around focused on the problem like you, without any pomposity or wiseacring, neither in Wikipedia nor real life.--Cactus26 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about the template

My question is: will the bot continue to format Allmusic URLs into the template form? Because I feel it's not in the best interests of individual editors if the bot makes them utilize the templates in articles. Note that citation templates aren't mandatory, and similarly, I'm a bit wary of this template being made an unofficial requirement. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No worry, the bot will not proceed. For migration we decided to adapt external links already using new format of URL cause we could not distinguish if the template wasn't used cause it was not possible (template wasn't adapted) or if this was intentionally. The strategy of the bot is to adapt everything he sees, so the bot adapted recently fixed URLs not using template, but this was more or less a secondary action, no educational intention.--Cactus26 (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: "Quote" parameter

{{editprotect}} Could this one get a "quote" parameter as in the {{cite}} series of templates? I think it would be a helpful tool to quote lines from reviews etc. De728631 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put the edit request before your proposal has been discussed and consensus reached; I have deactivated it for now. – IbLeo(talk) 06:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am hesitant about this. I have read lots and lots of music articles quoting Allmusic via {{cite web}} and I can't recall seeing it used with the |quote= parameter even once. I don't think we should add more parameters unless there is a really strong need for it. And anyway, editors always have the possibility to use {{cite web}} (potentially embedding {{Allmusic}} with the "pure_url" option) for more complicated cases. – IbLeo(talk) 06:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with IbLeo. It likely unfeasable to support all {{Cite web}} opportunities here, it seems to be sufficiant in this cases to use {{Cite web}} with embedded {{Allmusic}} and pure_url=yes.--Cactus26 (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't think a simple parameter would be so controversial, hence my "editprotect" request from the beginning. I've seen lots of other templates being expanded this way without anyone raising objections. That said, how exactly do you think a "quote" parameter would not benefit this template? If nobody uses it, fine. It can still sit there and wouldn't do harm but I for one was trying to cite a sentence about a specific genre (which are frequently avidly debated on WP). And what is the purpose of embedding the {{allmusic}} template into {{cite}} with "pure_url"? If I use {{cite}} anyway I can always copy and paste the site's complete url faster than to extract the ID and then type up the full {{allmusic}} syntax, you don't need an embedded template to paraphrase a url. In turn {{allmusic}} spares you typing some of the longish {{cite}} syntax — that's why this template and any of its kind are valuable. Of course we don't need all "cite" paramaters here, but the basics should allow for a quote. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Every new parameter compromises the principle "Keep it small and simple". It's right that one new parameter will not be the the straw to break the camel's back. But there are many equal possible requests. The dose makes the poison so I find it important to check for every request if it is worth this. The advantage of using template for Allmusic is not predominantly to allow shorter notation but to encapsulate the URL and be prepared for future changes.--Cactus26 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Then why does it even support author, title and date parameters in the first place? A standalone template which is also used for referencing should have a quotation option. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
      • This is likely a valid argument, I actually can't assess the importance of the quotation parameter.--Cactus26 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Finally I think this is a reasonable request. De728631, your argumentation makes sense and I understand your use case about sourcing the genre with a quote, which is very much needed in many articles. – IbLeo(talk) 21:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: "." after access date

{{editprotect}} And another thing, {{cite}} places a full stop behind the access date, "Retrieved 2011-1-1.". Maybe we should adjust this over here for conformity. De728631 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When using as a source...

Allmusic is missing the publisher parameter. Normally when we reference the website we list Macrovision as the publisher. To comply with WP:MOS rather than list it as work=Allmusic | publisher=Macrovision it gets listed as publisher=Allmusic (Macrovision). Could you update the syntax to match? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: who is "we" in "Normally when we reference the website we list Macrovision as the publisher"? I have e.g. never referenced the website with Macrovision ... should I do so? BNutzer (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Neither have I. I am also curious to know who "we" are and which MOS that is...? – IbLeo(talk) 21:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Allmusic is a website which in turn is a work owned by the Macrovision corporation, in the same way that Billboard is owned by Prometheus Global Media. The MOS part of my comment referred to websites not being italicized. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

class parameter

The link to http://www.allmusic.com/explore/style/soul-jazz-d297 on the soul jazz had broken. "class=explore" did not work, and neither did "class=style," but as of this writing, "class=explore/style" does work (i.e. {{Allmusic|class=explore/style|id=d297}} produces AllMusic/Archive 1 at AllMusic). I'm not sure if this needs to be addressed - but if it does, then I'll need to go back and re-configure this one link. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Album and song title formatting?

Perhaps a stupid question? ...but should the album and song titles render in italics and quotes per our usual title formatting?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I just came here to request that album names be rendered in italics. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I third the requests made in May 2011 to render the album title in italics by default, rather than requiring a label to do so. (In other words, whenever the class is album, the text should be italicized unless there is a label tag to override the default text.) I also second the request to render song titles in quotes by default (i.e. when class is song). These changes are both simply a matter of making the text of these links follow Wikipedia style. 66.68.23.185 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to make the required changes to Template:Allmusic/sandbox and reactivate the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I will, but I currently don't know enough wikitext to make the changes, and it will be a couple weeks before I have the time to devote to learning what I'd need to know. So if someone else wants to take it on in the meantime, have at it! I'm sure it's a simple change for someone well versed in wikitext. 66.68.23.185 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Any update on this request? GoingBatty (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's unnecessary to apply italics or quotes automatically; these should be applied by the editor. And: How does the proposer suggest such a change deals with existing usage where editor have applied italics or quotes already? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: - I would envision logic something like this:
If |label= exists (e.g. an editor has applied italics or quotes already)
Then display label
Else if |class=album
Then display page name in italics
Else if |class=song
Then display page name in quotation marks
Else display page name
Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no objection to that implementation. I only read the first two requests above which are not as clear as the third. My mistake – I'm sorry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Citing a full review page

Hi, I only recently noticed that a bot changed the Allmusic link here. The link is a T1, which I think used to be the full review. But I need to cite to the full review, so the new URL is being used in this article. Any way of keeping the bot from changing this in the future? Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Use the tab=review parameter. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I just saw that. I have an archive url of the page I need to add. Should I combine the {{allmusic}} with {{cite}} like it was before? If you want to look at the info, both of the Allmusic citations are at the very top of the References code. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the need to archive Allmusic pages, as they do not rot. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hm, well that doesn't really answer my question. Anyway, I've seen my share of reliable website pages disappear or become subscription-only to not trust any website. I archive everything. It's not a big deal, though. I'll keep the archive URL commented out next to the {{Allmusic}} template. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for avoiding the question. No, you can't combine the two templates, but as I said there is no need to archive the link. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually you can combine {{cite}} and {{allmusic}}. In {{cite}} you can insert |url={{allmusic|pure_url=yes|... }} which makes it just that, a parsed weblink. De728631 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! Fantastic. |url={{Allmusic|pure_url=yes|class=album|id=r1796665 |tab=review}} worked perfectly. Do you think the pure_url option could be expanded upon in the documentation. Part of my confusion was the fact that this wasn't really fully explained. With an example as above, the pure_url plus the integration into {{cite}}, I could've had this figured out without wasting people's time. Thanks so much for your help! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I've added your example to the documentation showing how to create a full citation. I think that should be descriptive enough. De728631 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Perfect! That is clear enough to follow easily. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Using this template in citations

I'm wondering why this template is used in citations when it produces "[author]. [page name] at Allmusic. Retrieved on [date]", which is inconsistent with the {{cite web}} template, which doesn't include the word "at". Lachlanusername (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This template's main purpose is to provide a stable link to the Allmusic database with the Allmusic website frequently changing their urls. So to use the Allmusic template inside {{cite web}}, you can use the pure_url option and fill in all other parameters in cite web as usual: {{cite web|url={{Allmusic |pure_url=yes |class=album |id=r1796665 |tab=review}} |title=<nowiki>Stone Temple Pilots [Deluxe Edition] |first=Stephen Thomas |last=Erlewine |work=[[Allmusic]] }} De728631 (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Site changes

Is this template up to date with Allmusic's recent change to their site? It looks as if those "review" tabs arent applicable anymore. Dan56 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that using |tab=awards doesn't work properly (e.g. {{Allmusic|class=album|id=r24273|tab=awards|label=For the Boys|accessdate=July 1, 2012}} generates "For the Boys at AllMusic. Retrieved July 1, 2012.", but the link doesn't go to the Awards tab.) GoingBatty (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems like Allmusic has changed the album IDs with old numbers redirecting only to the main album sites. E.g. {{Allmusic|class=album|id=mw0000676673 |tab=awards|label=For the Boys|accessdate=July 1, 2012}} generates "For the Boys at AllMusic. Retrieved July 1, 2012." which does display the awards tab. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
That works great - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
But it still leaves us with the problem that old IDs may no longer work in this template. Maybe we could have a bot crawl the Allmusic site and update the template parameters at the affected Wikipedia articles? De728631 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a good candidate for Wikipedia:Bot requests. GoingBatty (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There's another issue (or possibly one in the future) with album reviews. If you drill down from the album's main page (on allmusic.com) to one about an individual release (e.g. a re-issue), the "id" parameter won't work in {{allmusic}} unless you put "release/" in front of it. For example, the resulting URL from {{Allmusic | label=Tone Dialing | id=tone-dialing-mr0000359779 | class=album}} won't work, but {{Allmusic | label=Tone Dialing | id=release/tone-dialing-mr0000359779 | class=album}} will. (emphasis added) This is a workaround for now, but someone (or some bot) updating a usage of the template (or the template itself) might not recognize the additional formatting. (I hope this made sense) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Author parameter

Implement author parameter like this (example output shown below). benzband (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • |author=Author

Author. AllMusic/Archive 1 at AllMusic

  • |author=Last, First

Last, First. AllMusic/Archive 1 at AllMusic

  • |last=Last |first=First

Last, First. AllMusic/Archive 1 at AllMusic

What's the use case here? Are first and last not adequate by themselves? I'm wary of expanding this with everything {{cite}} handles without checking if the parameters are necessary first. Disabling for now pending discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK here's a different approach: build on existing parameters: {{{last|{{{author|}}}}}} and {{{label|{{{title|}}}}}}. It's for those (eg, me) who fill in the author parameter only to find they've got it wrong. [2] benzband (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Sandboxed here. benzband (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done, thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! benzband (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit: Bypassing redirect

Can someone please change [[Allmusic]] to [[AllMusic]], to bypass the redirect between the two? Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:AllMusic/Archive_1&oldid=1129511620"