| Revision as of 23:13, 10 July 2007 editSteve3849 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,415 edits →Arbitrary section break← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:19, 3 January 2025 edit undoPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,298 edits →background: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=NA}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Infoboxes}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{permprot}} | {{permprot}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{templatetalkheader}} | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| {{WPBiography|class=Template|musician-work-group=yes|priority=NA}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 130K | |||
| {{tfdend|date=2006 June 22|result=speedy keep}} | |||
| |counter = 17 | |||
| {{Archive box| | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| # ] | |||
| |archive = Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| # ] | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Suggestion for new parameter: signature == | |||
| == Why doesn't it include the nation in which they currently live? == | |||
| Someone just added a Soviet flag to the ] infobox, making it appear as if she is Soviet, whereas she now has U.S. citizenship. Why doesn't the infobox include the nation where the individual currently lives and/or holds citizenship? ] 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You can use the Origin field for where she started her musical career. –] 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| can we '''pleeeeese''' get a firm consensus on when, why, and how to use those bloody '''infobox flagicons'''? i see them used for place of birth, for nationality, for place of death, nationality at time of death, for place of interment..... either set something in stone—or in the case of wikipaedia, ''moist clay''—or '''banninate''' the use of flags altogether.--] | ] 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Live members== | |||
| Perhaps the inclusion of another section for live members (in between the ones for the current and former members) in order to include any additional personnel performing only in a live capacity, but not as full time members? ] 12:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == flagicons == | |||
| can we '''pleeeeese''' get a firm consensus on when, why, and how to use those bloody '''infobox flagicons'''? i see them used for place of birth, for nationality, for place of death, nationality at time of death, for place of interment..... either set something in stone—or in the case of wikipaedia, ''moist clay''—or '''banninate''' the use of flags altogether.--] | ] 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>Looking at all the relevant discussion, as well as the latest version of ], it seems that there is really no compelling support for using flag icons here. I'm putting in explcit clauses against usage for all three relevant fields in the documentation.</s> –] 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, despite all that, it is a change that would affect many articles. I've self-reverted for the time being. –] 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| i don't see what the harm is in including the flags. the only thing that comes to mind is that if the city/state/country of an artists takes up just under one line of text, then the flag would bump it over to 2 lines of text. granted, this can be annoying, but it's just a tiny image. as –] says, there are already so many articles that incorporate flag-use; might as well just incorporate it into the boxes. another point is that popular music is very country-specific. articles such as ] go to demonstrate this. having a flag, in my opinion, not only serves a purpose of identifing the origin of the artist, but also, placing the artist into a geographical-sub-genre of music. –] 02:45, 09 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :At this point, we're neither endorsing nor opposing flagicons. There are lots of articles with flags and lots without. It's a matter of editorial discretion, as the saying goes. Personally, I'm dubious about the proposition that music is generally as country-specific as you suggest. Sometimes, yes, but often not. (British rock is a particularly bad example, IMO, given the huge number of British rockers that have been sued for plagiarism by older Black American musicians.) Anyway, the country should clearly be listed in the origin field, which serves the purpose of identifying the geographical origin and influences just fine. The flag is totally redundant—it adds no extra information whatsoever. But it's harmless. My policy is not to add ''or'' remove it from existing infoboxes, and only to add it to new infoboxes when I think it looks right. ] <sub>]</sub> 10:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I support ]'s original statement banning flags, per ]. The fact that this would affect many articles is no reason not to do this, IMO. Either way, I think it would be better to have a guideline on this than not having one. --] 10:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Legal name == | |||
| I'm trying to fix up the ] page, and wanted to list her legal name (her current legal name) and birth name (with maiden family name) separately, but see that this is currently unavailable in the template. Why don't we add a legal name item? ] 06:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That sort of thing standardly goes in the Alias field. Details (such as that one is a legal name or maiden name) are better in the body of the article. ] <sub>]</sub> 22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Management field == | |||
| Why dont we add a "management field" to the infobox. e.g. ]'s would be ] | |||
| --] 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that level of detail is really necessary or appropriate for the infobox, though I don't feel strongly about the matter one way or the other ] <sub>]</sub> 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Background colour help == | |||
| What background colour would a ] be.--] 13:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Non performing personnel would be the best fit.--] 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Microformat== | |||
| I recently marked up this template with ] ] classes, but I'm not very happy with the results, because its; not easily possible to determine whether the template is being used for person or a group. In the former case, the name should be wrapped with HTML class="fn" (as happens now), but in the case of a group, the wrapper should use classes "fn org". Any suggestions as to how this might be achieved? ] 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{tl|editprotected}} | |||
| Please replace <br/> | |||
| <code> | |||
| <nowiki><big class="fn">{{{Name}}}</big></nowiki> | |||
| </code><br/>with<br/> | |||
| <code> | |||
| <nowiki><big class="{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>|{{{Background|}}} }}">{{{Name}}}</big></nowiki> | |||
| </code><br/> | |||
| as kindly suggested on my talk page, by ]. | |||
| : ] | |||
| ::{{tick}} '''Done'''. Note that it may take some time for existing transclusions to be updated. --] 08:20, 26 April 2007 (]]]) | |||
| :::Thank you. It seems to be working for both solo artists and groups. ] 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Genres == | |||
| Should genres be separated by commas or by a line break? I think it would be he helpful to have it added to the template. For example, labels are "The record label or labels to which the act has been signed, as a comma-separated list." No such sugestion exists for genre and I've seen it done both ways. ] 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Composers== | |||
| This infobox has been added to many "classical" composers' pages. I just wanted people here to know that there has been a consensus at ] that infoboxes are not a net-positive for these articles, and so they should not be considered a standard part of these articles. Just wanted to let you guys know so no one gets bitten while trying to add infoboxes! :) Thanks, ] <font color="green">]</font> 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I see no such consensus on that project's talk page; only on-going debate. AIUI, there's a wider biography-project consensus that infoboxes should be used. As I said in that debate, what is need is not the removal of infoboxes, but changing the existing infobox to make it more suitable - or, if that's not possible, and new, "composers" infobox. ] 08:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A consensus was reached on April 12/13 in which all the regular ] editors participated. --] 14:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Those editors ] the articles concerned. Debate is continuing; ergo no consensus has been reached. ] 16:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure why this infobox was deemed appropriate for ''composers'' to begin with; the fields needed for popular musicians are clearly at cross purposes with those needed for composers. Also, the background colour documentation clearly only covers "non-classical composers". –] 16:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Read the discussion fully and I think you'll find a reasonable consensus. This is not a policy matter. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Opera== | |||
| Further to the note above from the Composers Project, there is also a consensus at ] that these boxes are not being used on opera articles. Thank you for your cooperation. --] 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I again see no consensus there; just a ''draft'' statement from you, posted ''after'' the above comment, with which one other editor has agreed. ] 16:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you look again at the various discussions on both the Composers and Opera Projects talk pages you will see that members of the Opera Project have been unanimous in deploring the use of biographical infoboxes. --] 00:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yep. Only Linishu has offered halfhearted support for them. --] 10:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Accounting for ''px'' at the end of Img_size's value == | |||
| Please change line 6 from | |||
| <code><nowiki> |<tr style="text-align: center;"><td colspan="3">]</nowiki></code> | |||
| to | |||
| <code><nowiki>|<tr style="text-align: center;"><td colspan="3">]</nowiki></code> | |||
| This solves the problem discussed at that setting <code>Img_size = 150px</code> with that "px" at the end causes the image to be linked instead of shown. –] 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This looks like it will badly break things if the Landscape option is used, and will allow overriding the standard maximum sizes by the simple expedient of adding "px" to the end of the size, which is highly undesirable! ] <sub>]</sub> 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The landscape option doesn't break because it remains the same as before. I agree though about increasing the size being undesirable, so I've withdrawn the edit request. But we still need to fix all the "px" uses. If someone wants to do it with AWB or something, that'd be great. A way to do it manually is to add a dummy category ] when the length of <code>Img_size</code> is greater than 3. The latter method would require an edit to the template. –] 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I changed the template so that it checks if {{{Img_size}}} is a number; if not (such as if it ends with px) it is replaced by 300.--] 07:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not quite right either, as it should ''only'' be 300 if the landscape option is set; otherwise it should be 220. But aside from that detail, this sounds like a good approach. ] <sub>]</sub> 08:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is changed to 300 before applying min, so it becomes 220 anyway.--] 09:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh, ok, cool. I didn't look closely enough, sorry. ] <sub>]</sub> 10:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == French interwiki link == | |||
| Could someone add an interwiki link to the French template (]), please? Thanks. ] 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The interwiki links go on the documentation page, which isn't protected, so you don't need an admin (or even an account) for this. Done. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Awards== | |||
| How about adding Grammy awards just as actors have Academy Awards in their infobox? ] 07:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Voice type parameter == | |||
| I added a "voice type" parameter to use for singers because it's a little bit unwieldy to use the "instrument" parameter, and it seems far more logical when the box already says someone is a singer to simply speak about their voice type. The parameter links to ] which looks to be a pretty useful list. --] (]) 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know if that is such a good idea. I can think of a million ways on how that parameter ''will'' be ''misused''. It's supposed to be used to classify opera or classical singers, but sooner or later people are going to start using that parameter to classify singers as: | |||
| :], ], ], ], or ]. | |||
| :I know for a fact that your intention was for the parameter to be used for opera and classical singers since you linked the parameter to ], which only talks about opera and classical singers. So something in the template is going to have to be changed to either accomodate those singing styles I mentioned or to exclude them all together. Please discuss. --] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Suggestion: The ] parameter is useful for both Classical musicians and Producers needing a certain note spread for a song track. Recommend repositioning this parameter immediately before the ] parameter in the Template code, since ]-] are quite common in popular music. Taking an example from ] (courtesy ]), former lead vocalist ] is a ] (no Instruments) and current member ] a ] who simultaneously plays ]. - ] 15:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note spread refers to ], not classical or operatic ]. Giving their SATB voice part is fine (i.e. Occupation = Singer (soprano)), but the ] terminology refers specifically to operatic voices, as noted above. | |||
| :::Since the opera and classical projects are not using these boxes, I'd recommend this field be removed, because it'll just lead to a lot of original research. -- ]<sup>(])</sup> 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == New Field Proposal == | |||
| Upon reading the feedback from discussions with ], I propose, as a fallback from an experimental Infobox I have in '''alpha,''' the addition of an Audio_sample field in its own sub-box (as is currently done with Notable instrument(s), Current Members (band or group) and Former Members (band or group)). An audio sample datum is provided for in ] and would be a useful addition to '''Template:Infobox musical artist'''. I am developing the '''alpha''' Infobox to study whether the data currently in '''Template:Infobox musical artist''' will still be readable at a reduced scale consistent with ]. - ] 05:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I oppose the idea. I opposed adding it to the guitarist infobox, and I opposed adding it to this one, even though I was basically leading the effort to keep the infoboxes in sync at the time, and I still oppose it. We have much better way of presenting audio samples; putting one in the infobox is simply a bad idea. ] <sub>]</sub> 08:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Noted. What Templates are currently designed for calling up audio samples at this time? (I am relatively new to this datum class.)- ] 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Corrections == | |||
| {{tl|editprotected}} | |||
| add if expr. for pages without images eg. ] <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:07:11, May 24, 2007| 07:11, May 24, 2007|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :It is already, just you have to make sure there is no spaces or anything after the = sign. In the Will Champion example, I removed the space and the field disappeared. ]<sup>'']]''</sup> 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've disabled the editprotected request. The issue seems to be resolved. Cheers. --] 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Defunct musical groups == | |||
| There is a continuous debate about the infobox for ]. The infobox shown here at this writing is the current consensus: | |||
| {{Infobox musical artist | |||
| | Name = The Beatles | |||
| | Img = Beatles_retouched.jpg | |||
| | Img_capt = ], ], ], ] (front, left to right) in 1964. | |||
| | Img_size = | |||
| | Background = group_or_band | |||
| | Alias = | |||
| | Origin = ], ] | |||
| | Genre = ]/]<ref>The Beatles touched upon and helped popularise ''many'' subgenres of rock and pop. They are too numerous to list here.</ref> | |||
| | Years_active = ] – ] | |||
| | Label = ]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>] | |||
| | Associated_acts = ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| | URL = | |||
| | Current_members = ] (1960-1970)<br/>] (1960-1970)<br/>] (1960-1970)<br/>] (1962-1970) | |||
| | Past_members = ] (1960-1961)<br/>] (1960-1962) | |||
| }} | |||
| Even though the group disbanded in 1970, it is OK to list the familiar group lineup from 1962-1970 because it's publicly listed as 'members' even though the template reads 'current members'. The years that each member was a Beatle is next to their names, even though Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were members during the group's entire existence to avoid confusion. The 'former members', Sutcliffe and Best, left before the group became world famous. Is this good enough or should the infobox template be modified further to deal with defunct groups? ] 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This has been discussed before at some length. For defunct bands, it's generally considered acceptable to list the members at the time of dissolution as "members", which is what's been done in the case of The Beatles. It's also considered acceptable to list ''all'' members as "former members". The choice is a matter of editorial discretion. Listing only the most ''famous'' lineup as "members" is more controversial, but fortunately, that's ''not'' what's been done with The Beatles (even if it might appear that way). The idea of adding extra fields has been tabled until we find cases where they're actually needed and justified. ] <sub>]</sub> 08:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::My reading of ] is that years should not be included for Current_members or Past_members. Is that not a rule that needs to be followed? --] 09:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The template text should be altered to reflect this allowance. I've had several editors wander through articles and move all of the members of the band to "past members" under the belief that the wording of the template is law. My suggestion: | |||
| ::Current_members: Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. Optionally, editors may use this field to list a defunct band's notable lineup should there be consensus to do so (e.g., ] listing ], ], ], and ]). | |||
| :Past_members can be the same, just removing the second sentence. -- ] 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I assume I'm one of those several editors considering you reverted my edit to ] and ]. The template text currently says:<br /> | |||
| ::If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current members" field<br /> | |||
| ::Sorry if I took that as law, but it sounds pretty official to me. We really do need to change that text if it's not what is accepted anymore. I'm not sure what the right answer is. For something like The Beatles, where there was one notable lineup, that seems easy. But for other bands that had multiple notable lineups (ex. ] - Tommy or Marky? The first or the longest?) it will be harder to find a consensus. I can understand doing the last lineup a little better, but that's still not perfect as key members could be left out. -] 12:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think we want to stay away from ]. Specifying the order of the names would be instruction creep, IMO. And yes, I think we should clarify the docs, as it clearly does not reflect consensus (see ]). I agree that last lineup may not be perfect, but I think it's better than first, longest (not always clear), or best-known (often POV) because (among other reasons), it means that you don't necessarily have to edit the infobox the moment the band disbands. And in cases where there is controversy, we still have the option of listing ''everyone'' as past-members. In fact, it might be good to say that any controversies should be solved by moving everyone to the past-members section. ] <sub>]</sub> 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How about something like this: | |||
| :::::Current_members: Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. With defunct bands, editors may use this field for other purposes (e.g., to list a particular notable lineup) should there be consensus to do so. Otherwise, all members of a defunct band should be moved to "Past_members". | |||
| ::::-- ] 03:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Yesterday I noticed there is a special infobox for guitarists. I'm not sure if here is the place to address this consistency problem, but I'd like to see if there are more people here that have the same thoughts on this issue. In the ] and ] articles f.e. the ] is used. This infobox seems redundant to me and I think it makes artist articles look inconsistent because (all?) other instrumentalist articles should feature the genuine artist infobox. There is no use for a special guitarist template, just like there is no use for a special band template which has been ]. | |||
| It survived a AfD in September 2006, maybe it's time for another one? Any thoughts on this? | |||
| Cheers '''Emmaneul''' <sup>(])</sup> 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed, at the time of the last AfD, ''this'' infobox was fairly new and still controversial. I believe that it has much broader acceptance now (especially after various tweaks to the colors and whatnot). Nevertheless, I don't think an automatic conversion is possible (since a bot cannot distinguish non-vocal guitarists from singer-guitarists), so I think the best approach would be an RfC to mark the guitarist infobox as deprecated, and then we can start cleaning up the articles that use it, just as we are doing with {{tl|Infobox Band}}. I believe the proper place for this discussion is at ]. However, the discussion ''does'' seem to be heating up on several fronts, so I'll probably go ahead and file an RfC in the next few days, and advertise it at various places where interested parties may reside. ] <sub>]</sub> 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Concur with the deprecation process to date. I currently have, until the end of June, an ] for review, combining elements of both the existing ] and ], as a readability study, in order to find the best practical scale and width for Infoboxes related to Music (as there is currently no consensus thereon to my knowledge). Post any suggestions on scale and colors to ], which I've opened for the purpose; I'll pass any recommendations on to ] ] and ]. - ] 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It has been a week since I posted my concerns. I see no objections to file an RfC (or has it already been done?). '''Emmaneul''' <sup>(])</sup> 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I was persuaded that an RfC would be overkill, but I notified several potentially-affected Wikiprojects on 1 June. The current plan is to make a final decision after 7 June. ] <sub>]</sub> 13:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, I'll wait till then '''Emmaneul''' <sup>(])</sup> 13:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The guitarist infobox is now officially deprecated. The decision was unanimous. ] <sub>]</sub> 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are there plans to request a bot to convert the existing instances of the guitarist infobox? {{unsigned|Pigsonthewing|10:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::::As I said above, "I don't think an automatic conversion is possible (since a bot cannot distinguish non-vocal guitarists from singer-guitarists)". It might be possible to adapt an editing-assistance tool like AWB to ''help'' with the conversion, but a human would still need to be involved. Unfortunately. ] <sub>]</sub> 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Labels == | |||
| Should distributing label be included in labels line? I mean, ] is signed to ] and ], and their distributing label is ], so should Interscope be included in the list of labels? Thanks! ] 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Given the nature of international distribution, especially in earlier years, I would tend to say no. I'm not sure, but I suspect that including distributing labels would easily triple the number of labels listed for, e.g. ] or ], once you factor in European and Asian labels and such. But I'm also not an expert on how labels work, so I may be completely off-base or missing some obvious counterargument, so I'll just say: use your best judgment. ] <sub>]</sub> 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Background colors == | |||
| As I've been setting up info boxes there have been several musicians who are vocalists, yet they are primarily instrumentalists (NOT non-vocalist). No color for this. Maybe its not a big deal. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 'Background information' heading == | |||
| This template's "Background information" heading is redundant, shall we remove it? ] 08:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Having a color strip there is aesthetically pleasing. Maybe that heading could could be changed to something new... "Artist profile" etc, or left blank with the bar of color intact. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == URL == | |||
| How should URL's be formated? Some articles have <nowiki></nowiki>, others <nowiki></nowiki>, and others <nowiki></nowiki> | |||
| Is there a right format? --'''Emmaneul''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I tend to think that <nowiki></nowiki> is what is meant to be used, as that is what the example at ] uses. I also think it is most appropriate choice, because Xxxyyy.com misrepresents the URL (as www.example.com and example.com are different URLs) and "Official website" is redundant and means less useful information is shown (consider a printed copy of an article for example). --] 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is that some URLs fit into the box better than others. I like to stay flexible. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Backgrounds seem awfully limited == | |||
| There are seven background options. Three deal with bands or ensembles, one is for temporary collaborations, one for non-performers. That leaves all individual performers as either "soloists" or "non-vocal instrumentalists". It seems obvious to me that no matter what genre one is working with, this does not cover it. There are instrumentalists who sing, there are singers who are not soloists. ] 11:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What exactly are you suggesting, more background colors or wider criteria the existing colors? --] 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Like ] <sup>]</sup> said on 15 June 2007, I think the addition of "vocal_instrumentalist" would be nice (f.e. for an artist who sings and plays guitar) because some singers are noted for their instrumental skills, not for their singing style (] comes to mind). "singers who are not soloists" are just singers, if you ask me. '''Emmaneul''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Said where? --] 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't really care about the colors, but I do think there need to be more categories. Right now we have "solo_singer" and "non-vocal_instrumentalist" - we should add "non-solo singer" (or just "singer") and "vocal instrumentalist". ] 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This is already used in ], of which many musician's pages use already. I suggest this because I am trying to add a signature to a musician's infobox now but was unable to. I don't have much knowledge on infoboxes, so if this is possible without a new parameter, please let me know. Thank you. ] (]) 03:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you don't want more colors, we don't need more categories, redefining the existing categories will do. There is no point to having more than one category render as the same color. --] 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I recently edited ], and as you can see from the infobox, you can add signature by embedding infobox person into infobox musician. This is done by using the <code>module</code> parameter. Below is the relevant part as guideline | |||
| :::Response to PEJL: My statement "Background color" is 4 posts up. Instrumentalist+Vocalist would be good, as many instrumentalists are not NON-vocalists... as a new category it would need its own color to carry on the coding system that is set up. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"> | |||
| :{{infobox musical artist | |||
| :|name=Toshiko Akiyoshi | |||
| :|module={{infobox person | |||
| :|embed=yes | |||
| :|signature=Toshiko Akiyoshi Signature.png}} | |||
| :}}</syntaxhighlight> | |||
| :Hope this helps. ] ] 05:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you! ] (]) 15:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I just ran into the same issue and this workaround is great - thanks much! ] (]) 04:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Glad it help! ] ] 15:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Sourcing genres == | |||
| ::::I think Steve3849 gets what I'm talking about. When I said I don't care about the colors, I did not mean to say that I don't think we need more colors. What I meant was it makes no difference to me how many colors we have, or which categories are assigned which colors - my comment was motivated by a desire for better categorization, not by aesthetic concerns over the appearance of the variety of colors. Of course, any additional categories would need new colors, but that's not the crux of my argument. ] 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| When filling out the genre field, should I use the genres that the artist claims or should I look for independent sources? ] (]) 23:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(Sorry, grepped for "15 June 2007" and didn't find ].) This sounds quite backwards to me. Basically the only purpose background categories serve is to generate the color in the infobox. The only reason we have different colors is to help users visually determine what type of artist it is, by recognizing patterns in colors between different artists. Users don't see the names or descriptions of the background categories, they just see the colors. We should instead be approaching the problem from whether there is a need for a new color, and if so create a new value for that color. --] 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Definitely what independent sources say, its not relevant what the artist thinks their genre is --] (]) 11:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Generally I agree, though if there's actual contention between what the artist claims and what others claim (contention that sources have discussed), then that could merit a mention. ] (]) 16:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit request 21 September 2024 == | |||
| ::::::14 June 2007... Damn too late... '''Emmaneul''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit template-protected|answered=yes}} | |||
| :::::::Okay, PEJL, so what do you suggest we do for singers who are not soloists, or instrumentalists who are not non-vocalists? What color should they be? If the colors are there to help distinguish between different types of artists, then does it not make sense to have enough different colors to accurately reflect the different types of artists? This isn't even a matter of lumping things together and failing to distinguish within a category (within a color) - it's a matter of a whole swath of artists not having an appropriate color to represent them. Imagine if they were colorcoded by nationality - blue for American artists, red for British artists, and yellow for Chinese artists, and then someone came along and said "but there's no color for French artists. What am I supposed to do?" Would you give the same answer, that you don't see the need for a new color because the readers don't know the meanings of the colors anyway? ] 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Description of suggested change:''' | |||
| Add "height" category for music artists | |||
| :] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit template-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ETp --> Height is usually not typically relevant to a musical artist's notability. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 00:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Firstly, I never said I didn't see a need for a new color. I just said that we need to decide whether a new color benefits users. But since you asked, my answer would be: "A color for every country of the world is unmanageable. Let's lump countries together by continent and have the same color for all countries in each continent." This case is far less extreme, but the same principle applies. There are two options here, create one (or more) new colors, or redefine the definitions of the existing colors to fit the uses mentioned (to the extent that they aren't already covered). For new colors to be useful, they need to be obvious to users who haven't seen their definition. To me, the line between "solo_singer" (as currently defined) and "vocal_instrumentalist" (as proposed) seems blurry, even when I've seen the definition. --] 23:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Counting reunions for years active == | |||
| :::::::::As I said before, I'd also like to see an extra color for vocal_instrumentalist. These kind of artists are now part of solo_singer which is OK most of the time but when I consider artists like ] (categorized as solo_singer) primarely known as guitarist, ] (non_vocal_instrumentalist) known by many for his singing style, ], ], etc I think an extra color (red or beige?) might be appropriate. | |||
| '''Emmaneul''' <sup>(])</sup> 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is the current standard inclusion ofany performance during a time when the band is officially broken? That seems... rather uninformative, and prone to bloat, as seen in ]. We should have some standard to differentiate one-off (or some other threshold) reunions from time during which the band can be considered to "actually" exist. ] (]) 08:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) I think you guys are reading ''way'' too much into what is really only an arbitrary text string never seen by readers. It could be "glerkzel" and "frobnitz" as easily as "solo_singer" and "non_vocal_instrumentalist". The intent here is really to separate singers from non-singers, and "solo" is more of a historical accident than a defining characteristic. That said, I'm not entirely opposed—in fact, I've argued for adding singer-instrumentalist before—and if we do decide to do this, I previously suggested using peachpuff for <span style="background:peachpuff; font-weight:bold;">singer-instrumentalist</span>, which is a nice shade in-between the colors used for singers and non-singers IMO. ] <sub>]</sub> 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I support ] suggestion; "peachpuff:" singer(vocalist)-instrumentalist. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Example can be viewed at my workbench, ]. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for posting examples. On my LCD screen the new color is harldy discernable from non-vocalist. The new color needs more yellow and/or non-voalist more red. It might be helpful to see them in the format that is on the template page as well - ] ] <sup>]</sup> 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why not "PapayaWhip"? See color example ] '''Emmaneul''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Template-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 == | |||
| ::::I can see how this category can seem like a good fit with the existing categories, but I'm not convinced it's a net gain for users. This category makes the distinction between categories both in terms of color and meaning less clear. Like I said above, I think the colors need to be very clear and very distinct to be useful to actual users who haven't seen what they represent. (Adding this option also makes the category choice less objective, which could lead to edit wars, similar to the current edit wars over genres.) --] 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Could you name artists where the difference between non_vocal_instrumentalist and solo_singer is not clear? '''Emmaneul''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox musical artist|answered=yes}} | |||
| ::::::No I can't, that's the point. The existing categories are quite clearly defined, both in terms of color and meaning. --] 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Add signature information:''' | |||
| :::::::Mmmm, sorry.. I meant the difference between vocal_instrumentalist and solo_singer. '''Emmaneul''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Syntaxhighlight|<nowiki>| header44 = {{#if:{{{signature|}}}|{{if empty|{{{signature_type|}}}|Signature}}}} | |||
| ::::::::I interpret vocal_instrumentalist as including all back-up vocalists who are primarily instrumentalists and all lead vocalists who usually play an instrument. Maybe what we need to do is loosen up the existing definitions instead of adding a color, such as something synonomous with "primarily vocalist" "primarily instrumentalist." ...also to list distinct examples of popular vocal_instrumantalist briefly, here are a few: Sting, Jimi Hendrix, John Mayer, Eric Clapton, ... ] <sup>]</sup> 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC PS There is an unsigned post above that lists a couple more.] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| | data45 = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{signature|}}}|size={{{signature_size|}}}|class=infobox-signature skin-invert|sizedefault=150px|alt={{{signature alt|{{{signature_alt|}}}}}}}} | |||
| </nowiki>}} | |||
| as in {{t|Infobox person}} for functionality of adding a singnature <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:<]></span> 12:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I know this has been referenced in ], but will help if integrated natively. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:<]></span> 12:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit template-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ETp --> Embedding another infobox is very easily done as shown in the documentation, so editors will need to know your reasoning behind why you think that this edit "will help if integrated natively". ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>00:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ==Suggest adding "Children"== | |||
| Some person infoboxes have sections like "| children =". This one doesn't. Seems like it should? (I don't want to touch something used on 125,000 pages, so if this is approved, I'd prefer someone more experienced with the infobox do it.)--] (]) 20:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Just speaking personally/anecdotally, there seems to be a trend away from having this parameter, mainly because it gets populated with (often unsourced) personal information (usually about minors). I could maybe see adding in a {{para|relatives}} parameter for ''notable'' relatives who are not a spouse/partner, though. ] (]) 12:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == background == | |||
| :::::::::(ec) Like I tried to explain, I don't think the important question is whether the editors involved in this discussion can understand the difference between the categories after having seen their definitions, but whether an average user can correctly conclude what the colors mean just by seeing the colors on a number of artist articles. Consider showing a number of artist articles with different background colors to someone not familiar with these types of articles, and then ask them to explain what colors they saw and what they think the different colors mean. I think they'd be less likely to correctly answer those questions with the addition of the proposed new color. --] 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There needs to be a tracking category for uses without {{para|background}}; and ideally that parameter should be mandatory. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::By current definition "solo_vocalist" then should be the catch all for musicicians who do any singing at all. "non-vocalist" being specifically that. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary section break=== | |||
| On reflection, I find myself agreeing with PEJL. The only thing the reader sees is the color, so the question we need to ask is not: "will adding a new 'category'" help anyone, but, "will adding a new color help anyone? And I think the answer is no. Furthermore, adding singer-instrumentalist would only increase ambiguity. At the moment we have questions about people who sing so rarely that it's hardly a defining characteristic. Adding "singer-instrumentalist" would not resolve that question, but would add a new one about people who play an instrument so rarely that it's hardly a defining characteristic. ], for example, picks up a guitar once in a while, but even so, referring to him as an instrumentalist is a bit of a stretch. And there are others who's claim to being an instrumentalist is even more tenuous. In my youth, it was common for bands to hand a tambourine to a female vocalist, so that she'd have something to do during instrumental passages. (In fact, calling someone a "tambourine player" became a slangy way of implying that she was sleeping with someone in the band.) Is someone who sings and ''occasionally'' bangs a tambourine semi-rhythmically ''really'' a singer-instrumentalist? I think that's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, bottom line, I don't think a new ''color'' is really going to communicate much of anything useful. At least not a color for singer-instrumentalists. I'd rather discuss where we draw the line between our existing colors than add a new color with new vague boundaries. ] <sub>]</sub> 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In the articles to which I've added boxes there have been several musicians who are primarily instrumentalists, yet do occassionally sing. Is anyone willing to discuss altering the current definitions so that "instrumentalist" is not so strictly "non_vocal." The current guidelines are weighted towards vocals. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:19, 3 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox musical artist template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
 | Template:Infobox musical artist is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Suggestion for new parameter: signature
This is already used in Infobox person, of which many musician's pages use already. I suggest this because I am trying to add a signature to a musician's infobox now but was unable to. I don't have much knowledge on infoboxes, so if this is possible without a new parameter, please let me know. Thank you. 333fortheain (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- @333fortheain I recently edited Toshiko Akiyoshi, and as you can see from the infobox, you can add signature by embedding infobox person into infobox musician. This is done by using the
moduleparameter. Below is the relevant part as guideline :{{infobox musical artist :|name=Toshiko Akiyoshi :|module={{infobox person :|embed=yes :|signature=Toshiko Akiyoshi Signature.png}} :}}- Hope this helps. Lulusword (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! 333fortheain (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Lulusword I just ran into the same issue and this workaround is great - thanks much! WidgetKid (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Glad it help! Lulusword (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Sourcing genres
When filling out the genre field, should I use the genres that the artist claims or should I look for independent sources? Wojwesoly (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely what independent sources say, its not relevant what the artist thinks their genre is --FMSky (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Generally I agree, though if there's actual contention between what the artist claims and what others claim (contention that sources have discussed), then that could merit a mention. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit request 21 September 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change: Add "height" category for music artists
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}}template. Height is usually not typically relevant to a musical artist's notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Counting reunions for years active
Is the current standard inclusion ofany performance during a time when the band is officially broken? That seems... rather uninformative, and prone to bloat, as seen in Simon & Garfunkel. We should have some standard to differentiate one-off (or some other threshold) reunions from time during which the band can be considered to "actually" exist. 2803:4600:1116:4C4:48F4:AEB9:8FCB:12AC (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 14 November 2024
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add signature information:
| header44 = {{#if:{{{signature|}}}|{{if empty|{{{signature_type|}}}|Signature}}}}
| data45 = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{signature|}}}|size={{{signature_size|}}}|class=infobox-signature skin-invert|sizedefault=150px|alt={{{signature alt|{{{signature_alt|}}}}}}}}
as in {{Infobox person}} for functionality of adding a singnature ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I know this has been referenced in Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Suggestion_for_new_parameter:_signature, but will help if integrated natively. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}}template. Embedding another infobox is very easily done as shown in the documentation, so editors will need to know your reasoning behind why you think that this edit "will help if integrated natively". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 00:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Suggest adding "Children"
Some person infoboxes have sections like "| children =". This one doesn't. Seems like it should? (I don't want to touch something used on 125,000 pages, so if this is approved, I'd prefer someone more experienced with the infobox do it.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just speaking personally/anecdotally, there seems to be a trend away from having this parameter, mainly because it gets populated with (often unsourced) personal information (usually about minors). I could maybe see adding in a
|relatives=parameter for notable relatives who are not a spouse/partner, though. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
background
There needs to be a tracking category for uses without |background=; and ideally that parameter should be mandatory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)