Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kleinzach (talk | contribs) at 04:17, 21 October 2009 (→Classical artists (continued): And now some facts . . .). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Biography: Musicians Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 June 22. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep".

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Genre order

How should genres be ordered in the infobox? In my experience it seems that alphabetical is the most common and also the most fair. Is that correct?-5- (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My experience seems to indicate the opposite. For example, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd have its genres ordered by prominence, not alphabetical order. In the case of Soundgarden, in my opinion, it makes sense to start with "alternative rock", since it is much more generic than the other two genres, and a widely-held Misplaced Pages guideline seems to be "aim for generality". What do other people think? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I say that it is more fair is because, for example, one person may come along and say that a group is predominantly more hard rock, while another may say that the group is alternative rock. Having a standard that goes by alphabetical order prevents that argument from ever having to take place.-5- (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

the very best idea is to remove the genre field altogether - but meanwhile musical careers are just too varied for a "one size fits all" approach to questions like this. you can use the talk page of the given article to reach consensus among the editors involved with it and then maintain that style on that page; and let other editors do the same on other articles. Sssoul (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"the very best idea is to remove the genre field altogether" - not this stuff again. Please. Netrat (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is country music the only genre that isn't prone to edit warring over what subgenre it falls under? I've never seen anyone edit war over what subgenre a country act is. Then again, nobody ever touches the country music articles anyway, so… Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

/me snickers loudly. Alf 19:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a rather unsubtle hint, Alf. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing the field would solve many problems but deletion may not be the best approach to problem solving. Personally, I think that there should be one genre that is fairly broad, and as close to universally acceptable as possible in the infobox and then expanded upon in the body of the article. I do realize though that I am in the minority of that opinion. I very much agree with Sssoul in that editors of different bands' pages should reach their own conclusions and consensus but a good compromise is that the first entry is the broad genre then an alphabetic list of the others. J04n(talk page) 11:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"influenced by" & "influenced" labels?

I'd love to see these ones added (the Comedian Infobox has them). They'd be particularly useful for bands, I think, but also for other types. Thanks. --Tyranny Sue (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That can end up being a opinion field and craves citations in order to support the content. There is already too amny field like that in the box. "Influences" content can usually be found (with refs hopefuly) in the main body of the article. And that's where that sort of information should stay. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

100% agreement w/ Libs. That type of info needs to be in the article body, where it can be ref'd & contextualized. Totally inappropriate to an infobox. Remember, an infobox is merely a summary of basic details. It isn't the entire article in bullet-point form. In fact this was discussed last year (see archive 4). IMO it ought to be removed from the comedian box as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hate to pile on but agree with the dissenting comments, would make the infoboxes unmanageable. Genre wars would pale in comparison. J04n(talk page) 19:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, like the idea of having an influenced/influences section--Feeling free (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I might like to know my favorite artists' stance on organized religion, but there's still no way that's appropriate information for an infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I can live without it. (Didn't realise so many people hate the idea!)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah c'mon ya dry fuckers please it'll be great. We could have rules like a minimum of ten acts in both labels. Can't we just at least try it for a while? --Feeling free (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No fracking way. And please try to stay civil. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

did not mean "Dry fuckers" in an offensive way. --Feeling free (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Years active

What's the correct way of writing the date range when it's a range that comes up to the present? The Template:Infobox Musical Artist page says i.e. 2005–present, but Misplaced Pages:DATE#Other_date_ranges says "The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes." Can someone help clarify this?-5- (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone?-5- (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there are conflicting guidelines I would say that consensus on the talk page for an individual article should suffice. J04n(talk page) 21:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm now seeing this pop up in a few articles - I think we should just stick with the 2000-present style. Keep it consistent. Mainly for the reason that if you're writing "Since 2000", what if the band takes a notable hiatus? "Since 2000, except 2003-2006, but they're back now", okay that's exagerrated, but I just think it should be kept as simple as possible. Also, chronologically, 2000 should technically be listed first, since that's the beginning. Writing "Since" would also become confusing when a band folds, what do you write then? 2000-2009? Same as the 2000-present format! :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some more opinions on this, i see it as pointless for people to be going around changing it to "Since 2000", and then being reverted. We need something concrete. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping it in the "2000–present" format. As Kiac pointed above, we'd run into trouble when an act takes hiatuses (how would we even format that? "2000–2005, and then since 2007"?). It's best to keep it as it is. — Σxplicit 05:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the status quo when it comes to this, and it doesn't seem like anyone else does either. I think we can ignore WP:DATE on this one. As long as our example template says "xxxx–present", I think that's what people are going to follow. I've never run into any issues with it. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I like 1996–present format better. Netrat (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

More parameters

Any particular reason why this template doesn't include parameters that are included in Template:Infobox Person? I think the following parameters would be appropriate:

|birth_place   =
|death_place   =
|death_cause   = 
|nationality   = 
|ethnicity     = 
|citizenship   = 
|other_names   = 
|known_for     = 
|education     = 
|alma_mater    = 
|religion      = 
|spouse        = 
|partner       = 
|children      = 
|parents       = 

And perhaps a few more. However whatever (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of those are cruft parameters that add nothing useful to a concise summation of "who is this person and why are they notable", particlarly with regard to a musical artist. If the person is primarily notable as a musician, then the infobox should focus on details pertinent to their career as a musician. Alma matter, religion, etc. have little to nothing to do with this. Please browse through this page and its archives for numerous discussions regarding suggestions to add some of these fields; all have been roundly rejected. {{Infobox person}} is meant to apply to any person, hence it includes a wide variety of fields that might be useful for summarizing that person's notability. This template is specialized for musical artists, hence it ignores fields that are not pertinent to a person's career as a musical artist. Not every template needs the same fields. If they did, then we might as well delete all specialized templates and all work off of {{Infobox person}}. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

…we might as well delete all specialized templates and all work off of Infobox person - Not quite, though a large number of templates do need merging into that parent. However, the above are not "cruft". Jim Morrison's resting place is notable, as are Baaba Maal's ethnicity (currently shoe-horned into 'origin'), Cliff Richard's religion and Robert Fripp's spouse. Generic parameters such as the above should be included in most, if not all, biographical infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with IllaZilla. The examples provided by Pigsonthewing are exceptions not the rule and should be included in the text not the infobox. We should be discussing removing fields not adding. J04n(talk page) 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hurray!!!! an adding more fields debate. Can we add favourite candy and favourite constellation too? How 'bout shoe size, hair colour and height? Weee all stuff that has doesn't relate to music and all stuff that should be detailed, with references, in the article main body. Yet again, the urge to turn the musician template into a Tiger Beat bio-box boggles the mind. 22:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki libs (talk • contribs)

However & Andy, please keep in mind that an infobox is meant to be a concise introduction to an article's subject. It serves as a brief list of basic details. It is not the entire article crammed into a box in bullet-point form. Think of it like a baseball card: baseball cards are a summation of a baseball player's details, but only as they relate to baseball. A baseball card wouldn't tell you a person's religion, spouse, etc. because for 99% of players those facts have nothing to do with their baseball career. So it is with specialized biographical infoboxes. This is the Musical Artist infobox, so it sticks only to facts that relate to the person's career as a musical artist. If we added every possible field that some editors think should be included then we'd have an infobox that runs the entire length of the article. Remember, just because a fact is in the article doesn't mean that it needs to be in the infobox, nor is the omission of these fields in any way suggesting that the information isn't relevant; it is, and it can easily be explained in the article body. In fact, a good chunk of the stuff you're wanting to add (nationality, ethnicity, citizenship, other names, known for) ought to be right there in the opening sentence. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm already aware that "an infobox is meant to be a concise introduction to an article's subject" and my comments here and elsewhere neither suggest otherwise nor propose "we added every possible field that some editors think should be included", so please avoid straw man arguments. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy, if your contention is that these fields aren't cruft I don't believe that you made a convincing argument. As I brought up previously, the examples that you provided are exceptions and not the rule and they still don't contribute to the notability of the artists. Does that fact that she is married to Ritchie Blackmore make Candice Night notable? Probably. But Cher is notable with or without having relationships with Greg Allman, Richie Sambora and Gene Simmons but if these fields are added they will all be in her infobox. If there is a field, folks are going to want to populate it (see the discussion above on voice type) and extraneous info, in my opinion, makes Misplaced Pages less of an encyclopedia and more of a fansite. J04n(talk page) 18:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when did everything in an infobox have to contribute to the notability of the subject? Problems such as those you hypothesise should be dealt with by writing clear guidance and working towards consensus, not by limiting technical functionality. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

From Template:Infobox Biography#Parameters: "Only use those parameters that describe why the person is notable". Plus "If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all" from the infobox Manual of Style. Taking these two statements together, in my opinion, supports not including a field in an infobox that does not contribute to the notability of the artist. J04n(talk page) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim Morrison's resting place is a very good bad example. Let's ignore the controversies whether he is actually dead or buried somewhere else — and that he is not famous for his resting place but vice versa. The fact that he and maybe a few dozens of musicians have a "notable" grave means that 99.99...% of musicians don't. Having it in the infobox just means people would add it to other musicians just for completeness. Lars T. (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A near-perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude, but it seems you're dismissing every argument that doesn't fit your criteria. Consensus has shown that these additional fields are not needed nor desired. If you have any actual arguments to adding these fields besides the casual exception, we'd like your see your reasoning. — Σxplicit 00:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for not meaning to sound rude. I could, of course, point out that you and others are dismissing every argument which does not fit your criteria, however, I can see that there is currently no consensus either way (not consensus for the status quo, as you claim), so I'll drop the matter for now, and trust that, in time, the advantages of standardising biographical infoboxes, and of these parameters in particular, becomes more widely appreciated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with IllaZilla, these are cruft parameters and not necessary or wanted in this template. Even in Template:Infobox Person I think some if not all of those should be removed. Garion96 (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

'Backgound' problems and possible slution

I have recently come across a number of instances of this template, where the background parameter was either missing, or set to an inappropriate value, such as "jazz trumpeter".

Perhaps someone with more template coding skills than I, would like to add logic which either causes, in such cases, a prominent warning on the page (such as found when using {{Prod}} without substing), or that adds a hidden maintenance category, such as, say "Artist infoboxes needing background parameter fixes", which could be regularly patrolled? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The sub-template {{Infobox Musical artist/color}} would be the place to handle that logic. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone help, please? The coding is beyond me. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Date range style in infoboxes

(Copied over from Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Date range style in infoboxes on advice there) Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Other date ranges specifically states that "The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes.", although earlier in the same paragraph it is stated that "the form 1996– (with no date after the en-dash)... is preferred in infoboxes". In addition to this, Template:Infobox Musical artist#Years_active uses the example of "1993–2004, 2005–present", strongly suggesting that the "–present" form should be used (as indeed it is in most if not all musical artist articles I have seen). So which is correct, and should these project pages not be made clearer in order to avoid this confusion? U-Mos (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer since 1996 in almost all cases, but I could see making an exception for infoboxes, or lists where there is a desire to "dash-align" a sequence of date ranges. Plastikspork (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue was actually discussed above and it seems that people are in favor of the "xxxx–present" format. — Σxplicit 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, apologies for not checking above. So would it be worthwhile highlighting the contradiction at the talk page for the MOS page and hopefully getting it altered there? U-Mos (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Years Active

I know this is going to cause a lot of problems, but the way it is presented in documentation, years active should be presented as "2005–present". This needs to be changed per WP:OTHERDATE as "the form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes". BOVINEBOY2008 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see directly above. Plastikspork (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know it has been discussed before, but I disagree. The reasoning brought before have been for status quo and for aesthetic reason. That is ridiculous. Why should this infobox be exempt from a Wiki-wide policy. It has been asked to contest it there, but what would be easier, changing the policy and changing possibly hundreds of thousands of articles, or changing it here and changing a few. I will argue this unless there is a good reason brought up, that is not because "it looks better" or "because it always has been". BOVINEBOY2008 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERDATE is not policy, it's part of the manual of style. And as it says right at the top of the page, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." In the hundreds of musical artist article's I've read on Misplaced Pages, I've never seen one that uses the form "since xxxx". Not once. Given the discussions we've already had, I think we have a clear case where this particular provision of the MoS does not work well in this area of Misplaced Pages. Therefore we have good reason to ignore it. The status quo simply illustrates that "xxxx–present" is the standard way of formatting this info in the world of music. (Also, changing the documentation for this template would affect way more than "a few" articles. There are over 53,000 articles tagged by WP:MUSICIANS.) --IllaZilla (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't IAR, it isn't improving or maintaining. And these aren't good reasons. Shouldn't we be consistent through wikipedia when it comes to style? This isn't the music industry. We should be consistent with all the articles already existent. Just because you have "never" seen it being used doesn't mean it isn't better. I think it is explained pretty well in the manual of style why xxxx-present shouldn't be used and no points have been brought up that contest the reasoning. I realize a MoS isn't truly a policy, but when it can be followed it should. (And how many articles have date ranges extending to now? 53,000 plus so many more.) BOVINEBOY2008 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now we have three sections on the same subject, on this page. The other two discuss the fact that MOS gives two contradictory instructions, and points out that while our WikiProject has selected and adopted one of the two, that may not be the ideal solution. (This is assuming that we agree "2000-" and "2000-present" are the same thing; I don't believe that has been challenged.) This particular section, so far, has just quoted one instruction and ignored the other, as though it weren't there. Since MOS contradicts itself, it seems futile to complain that we aren't following MOS. We would be equally following / not following it if we were to take its other recommendation. By the way, count me in among those preferring the "2000-present" format. Despite what MOS identifies as "the problem", all forms of the date range imply the same thing. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I totally over read that. *As I look away embarrassed* Something should be done about this at the MoS. I never preferred the "since xxxx" style, but I always went by the definitive statement at the end of the section. Something should be done about this at MoS. I think I will start up something there. BOVINEBOY2008 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people think this particular WikiProject is resistant to change (and it is, but with good reason, as just about any proposal one could come up with has been discussed extensively in the past); I think you will find getting something changed at MOS will be twice as hard, and for the same reason. But it may get you somewhere to point out that the current wording is contractictory, and you could also point them to the fact that the "2000-present" format is pretty much universal in music article infoboxes. Best of luck! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline has just been changed. The guideline now says "The form "since 1996" should be used in article text while the form "1996–present" is preferred in infoboxes." Just for your info! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Guess that solves the issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Spouse(s)

I think Spouse(s) should be added to the musical artist template. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed now that others have mentioned this before. I think it makes sense to have it because in regular (non-musicians) infoboxes they have spouse(s) so I don't see what the difference is. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you've seen it mentioned before, then you've also seen compelling arguments for not having it. In the very few cases where the spouse is really important to the artist's career (Sonny and Cher to Cher, for example), it can be in the body of the article. Creation of an infobox field is only appropriate where it could be correctly used in a significant percentage of articles that use the template. This field would be misused if created. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

... the Playmate infobox includes measurements. Sssoul (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning for being against this can be found above under 'More parameters' J04n(talk page) 18:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hurray!!!! an adding more fields debate. Can we add favourite candy and favourite constellation too? How 'bout shoe size, hair colour and height? Weee all stuff that has doesn't relate to music and all stuff that should be detailed, with references, in the article main body. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well in the case of Courtney Love and Kurt Cobain I feel like having spouse in the infobox is relevant. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed & shot down before. Spouse is only relevant to a given artist's career as a musician in probably 1-2% of all cases, hence it doesn't need to be added to the infobox. Since this is an infobox for musical artists, we stick to parameters that are immediately relevant to their career as a musical artist. In the rare case where their spouse is relevant to their career (ie. Sonny & Cher, John & Yoko, Kurt & Courtney, Thurston Moore & Kim Gordon), it can quite easily be mentioned in the lead. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the Spouse parameter to the template not realising that there was discussion here. It has been reverted. I am not too bothered, an IP requested it for Jay-Z which is probably one of the 1-2% of all cases where it is relevant - as he has made music with his wife Beyonce. I think the Spouse field should be there, but if it is not relevant not included for an artist on a case-by-case basis, with some documentation on the template page explaining that. The best of both worlds. Incidentally, I always forget Hugh Jackman's wife's name (she is in the press a little bit where I live) and it is handy to have it in the Infobox.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus before adding anything. The infobox is bloated already. Tony (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

as noted above, in the rare cases where the spouse's name is relevant, it can/should be in the lead. having an optional "spouse" field in the infobox would mean drive-by editors would be adding it willy-nilly all over the place regardless of how much documentation there is saying not to do that. Sssoul (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's very rarely relevant. Plastikspork _―Œ 19:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

New York City boroughs

I have a question regarding musical artists (especially rappers) from New York City. Should boroughs be excluded from the infobox born/origin/died fields? I feel that strictly following the "City, State, Country" format is enough; we can explain the borough in the body. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. City & state are enough for the infobox. Borough is best left to the main text. Just like most major cities have various incorporated suburbs that aren't separate cities. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

img_capt bug

if img_capt ends with a "]", a loose "]" is shown on the right of the image —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patiferoolz (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Use for Orchestras

See, for instance, Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra, where this template is used. The instructions for this template say that "Current members" should be unannotated, but a full list of "current members" is both undesirable and unfeasible for large ensembles. Should we just leave it out for such ensembles, or is it acceptable to list only certain members and explain what their role is? If the former, should we add a new field for "leadership" or some such? Powers 18:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the template is rarely used for listing all members of a large orchestra, therefore we should be careful about changing the template to accomodate this concern, if it impacts the more common usage. For example, adding a "leadership" field would probably lead to disputes as to who is to be declared the leader of a rock group. Perhaps a field called "conductor" or "director" would not be abused, but you can also add this person and his role in the existing members field, as is currently done in the article you mentioned. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be possible to arrange that a "leader" or "conductor" field only displays if background is set to "classical_ensemble" (and perhaps"temporary"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution should be a new infobox? I'm not an expert in classical music by any means, but how does this look? J04n(talk page) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 {{Infobox classical ensemble 
 | Name                = 
 | Img                 = 
 | Img_alt             = 
 | Img_capt            = 
 | Img_size            = 
 | Landscape           = 
 | Background          = probably would only need one background
 | City                = 
 | Primary venue       =
 | Years_active        = 
 | URL                 = 
 | Conductor           = 
 | First violin        =
 | Principal trombone  =
 | Principal trumpet   =
 | Principal oboe      =
 | Notable past members= 
 }}

← I think it far better to add conditional functionality to this template, than to split off another, thereby increasing the overall maintenance overhead. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need to update examples to reflect modern linking guidelines

I'm sure it's no secret that popular music articles, many of which contain references to guitars, are badly overlinked. Common term and generalised linking is now not the normal practice, and need specific rationale. This includes the linking of the general common terms such as "guitar", "singer", "songwriter", "author", "poet", "activist", whether in main text or infobox.

A variety of reasons has been given for the retention of links in infoboxes, such as:

• "that's the way it's done everywhere" (I note that bad grammar can be found everywhere);
• "saves linking in the main text if it's linked in the infobox" (if it's not good link in the main text, why in the infobox?); and
• "we don't want to have to change hundreds of thousand of articles" (so nothing can ever change on a wiki, even through gradualist gnoming?)

There is also a sense that infoboxes should be carpeted blue for aesthetic reasons: the last is clearly an abuse of wikilinking, which loses its effect if every word is blue. Infoboxes are, in any case, a mixture of black and blue, and always will be. The question becomes to what extent the useful links should stand out rather than being swamped.

A related issue is the style-guide rule discouraging adjacent links, and encouraging specific linking. "Guitar", for example, would be much better unlinked at the top, and if the artist played a certain type of guitar, Guitar#Types of guitars is the better target, in the appropriate section. This is what would help the readers, not a formulaic carpet-bombing of infoboxes with double square brackets. Times have changed.

Apart from going against WP:LINK, this practice is diluting the many important, valuable links in popular culture articles. Among these are, of course, the titles of songs, albums and other artists. These should not be diluted by links that are not useful to an understanding of the topic, and that all English-speakers should know the definition of. (I have unlinked "roses", "divorce", "suicide", and many other dictionary words, as well as the seemingly formulaic "singer", "musician", "artist", "activist", etc.).

I ask two things:

1. that editors take the opportunity to support the cleaning up of the "sea of blue" problem to make wikilinking in popular-culture articles work a lot better for our readers;
2. that the examples be updated to comply with WP:LINKING: the principle is to minimise linking so that useful links stand out rather than being swamped by surrounding blue. Tony (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a trivial issue. The infobox looks fine as is. The formatting is OK. There are probably some people who actually find the links useful. It isn't up to us to decide. It can't be a a new rule for just one field. If we are going to do this then we will have to remove the links from every single word inside the infobox. Otherwise no two infoboxes will look alike because no two editors will clean them up the same way. Is anyone here in favour of removing every single linked word from the box? And, if so, is anyone where willing to go through and clean up every single blue link in every single infobox? It is a petty issue. The Real Libs-speak politely 04:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have raised it if it were trivial, and my posts have pointed out the issues and the violation of WP:LINKING. At the very least, a note will be necessary adjacent to the examples overleaf pointing out the guideline that common terms are not usually linked. And let us remember that the examples are only examples: they do not dictate. Tony (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument "somebody will find it useful" isn't quite to the point. The question is more complex than that, it helps to have webmaster experience with large knowledgebases to realize the pragmatics — the problems overlinking causes. The basic issues are: 1) Many links aren't used at all, 2) All links require editorial maintenance, and 3) Any links get in the way of readers who don't need them — which is nearly everyone. We're going for the greatest good for the greatest number of readers. That means selecting only a handful of links that most have something really exceptional and substantial to contribute to the topic. In some cases, that may mean no links at all! Tony mentions below a link to a comment I made specifically about duplicate links, but here's a more general discussion How links don't work. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Draw ups some definitions (like, "unlink guitar" "link stratocaster" etc and we can automate easily enough. Rich Farmbrough, 11:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC).

I look at WP:LINKING as a guideline for main article content, rather than the infobox. I agree with Real Libs when he says most links may be useful to someone, and I've often looked at the infobox as a collection of links, and don't find it a problem, or contrary to the attempts to control overlinking in the article's main body. I do agree some terms like "album" don't need to be highlighted (as they often are), and I've often seen instrument lists going through unlinking and relinking (not only in the infobox, but in a "personnel" section), and it's clear both sides believe they are following guidelines. (And perhaps they are; we may have contradictory instructions.) Rich's suggestion about drawing up a guide of what to link regarding instruments, would be a big help, and I would like to see it applied to personnel lists too. When I've made personnel lists, I avoid linking the word "vocals" because I find that redundant, but others have disagreed (and also debated where the link should point to), so maybe we could have a decision about that too. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Knight, I thought infoboxes were meant to be part of the articles they serve—either entrees to set the big picture for a reader, or (in what is probably a very small proportion of cases) quick reference points for fly-by readers. I don't think a lot of other editors have seen a fence drawn around infoboxes to exempt them from the project's linking guidelines and practices. I see, for example, that the dates in the example were unlinked after date-autoformatting was deprecated; why this should have been the case, while simple words such as "piano", "guitar", "musician", "singer" et al. remain linked, is beyond me. Linking is not for providing detached, out of the context wormholes; nor is it for providing blue doorbells to press on every occasion a term pops up, just in case a reader has arrived half-way through or failed to use a link on the term's first appearance, or has forgotten where it was. The editorial decisions behind wikilinking are often subtle and require good judgment to balance the dilutionary effect of overlinking with the utility that links can bring when used judiciously.

We need to lose this carpet-bombing approach to linking. Infoboxes for popular-culture articles are now looking decidedly old-fashioned in this respect, when the rest of the project (at least in the English WP, sadly not some of the others) has accepted the rationing of blue as a way of strengthening wikilinking. Underneath, bubbling away, is our suspicion that readers rarely click links anyway—certainly not as much as WP editors think they might—and robust research findings that too much choice turns off the consumer.

For example, linking two adjacent geographical terms (Liverpool, England) is excessive: let's suppose a reader bothers to work out that they are two separate links (WP:LINKING says to try to avoid adjacent linking for this very reason); they click on Liverpool and will find England in context in the opening sentence (although "England", if you speak English—a prerequisite for consulting the English WP, is kind of a no-brainer, don't you think?). I put it to you that the first item is far more likely to be clicked on (although still not very likely) if it stands alone.

Who doesn't know where New York City is? Why it should be linked or be followed by that obscure entity, the United States. Are our readers idiots? Even the seven-year-old grade-school kid knows, or if not will learn pretty quickly. Judgment and moderation, please, folks, not a slavish formula. We owe it to our readers. Tony (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

PS An interesting webmaster's perspective was expressed here only a couple of weeks ago. Tony (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Be all that as it may, I still don't think that the overlink prevention guidelines were meant to apply to infoboxes. Blue links can be an eyesore in text that is meant to be read in paragraph form, but to me, they look okay in a box that indexes key words and phrases. That's just my opinion, but I've presumed it's how most people see it, and have never read objections to infobox links before. The "webmaster's perspective" appears to be about links in paragraphs as well; the editor said "it jars my reading experience". I'm not trying to argue about the pros and cons of what you're proposing, so much as to suggest links in boxes may not be perceived by others as being a big problem. Just wondering, what do you think about boxes of links to other articles at the bottom of some pages? Or disambiguation pages, or category pages? These are also large collections of blue links, and I don't think they are regarded as improper for Misplaced Pages, or in violation of guidelines about overlink. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This original note was already posted at wp:guitar and I have commented there but will short post here. I agree with Libs' original point that it is a minor issue and seems like a lot a work for one or two people to try and take on for themselves. But would not be against it if it wre something that could be automated. But I also agree that if we can't just unlink a few words based on a person's pov over what is "common" and what isn't. If we are to do it we need to do it for every single linked word inside the box. And that means removing the links from piped labels. My concern is that if we do this can an automated function understand a piped link and re-format it correctly? Fair Deal (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In 2009, we are still linking "musician", "singer", etc? This is beyond any grey area in terms of common items. One of the significant issues is that the linking of these items in so prominent a location as an infobox encourages editors to link them everywhere. And nowadays, we try to discourage the linking of geographical entities that are commonplace to all English-speakers but those in mental asylums: New York City, USA, Los Angeles, UK, etc. But it's worse than that: infoboxes with carpet-blue encourage the linking of adjacent terms, and discourage the linking of specific article sections or daughter articles (both are aspects of WP:LINKING).

By the way, the MoS says to avoid "USA" as distinctly old-fashioned. Many American writers would also expect it to be spelled out in that context: "United States". I usually change this when I see it. Tony (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Classical artists

Regarding the recent insertion and revert of the bolded word in the following: "Infobox musical artist is the standard infobox for non-classical musician articles...", I believe that in the past, the classical music WikiProject objected to our infobox being used for composers, which may be why this change was attempted, as a mis-remembering of earlier discussions. If there was a different reason for this change, it should be explained here. Just a comment from an uninvolved editor. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the potential drawbacks of infoboxes is that they can end up being used in a broader range of topics than they were designed for. Can you provide an example or two of the use of this infobox for a classical composer? Tony (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether the infobox is to be used for classical music muscicans, not composers. There are specific directives to not use it for composers and opera singers, and only a vague notice that it was (in someone's opinion) not designed for classical musicians. Actually, the fact that there is a "voice type" field suggests that some editors have tried to make the template more compatible with classical music, but since the template's use for opera singers is explicity discouraged, I'm not disagreeing with the field's removal. Aside from that, is there anything specific about the infobox that makes it unacceptable for classical musicians? Especially since there are many "crossover" musicians who play both pop and classical music. As explained in the various discussions below, there is no reason to declare a consensus for excluding the template for classical musicians, and I agree with the suggestion to remove the exclusion notice from the instructions. So I'm taking it out again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see this was just reverted back in. Unless there's some really pressing reason for this then it should be removed again, as our template documentation is not the correct place to document the classical music project's style guidelines. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A Knight Who Says Ni: "The question is whether the infobox is to be used for classical music muscicans, not composers. There are specific directives to not use it for composers and opera singers, and only a vague notice that it was (in someone's opinion) not designed for classical musicians." This is wrong. There are detail guidelines covering classical musicians as well as opera singers and composers, and for much the same reasons. --Kleinzach 00:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not helping your case by edit warring. Why, again, must this template now start carrying disclaimers every time some random WikiProject decides to opt out of using infoboxes? That's why your own MoS is for. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an accurate characterization of the phrase's purpose. The fact is that the infobox as it stands now is much more suited for popular musicians than for classical musicians. I see no problem with calling that out in the infobox's instructions. Powers 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach left a note on my user talk page with a link to where there the rule he refers to is stated: WP:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes. The other rule that I referred to (which advises against usage for opera composers and opera singers only) is at: WP:WikiProject Opera#Infoboxes. Note that these are links to other WikiProjects; this template properly belongs to WP:WikiProject Musicians, and clearly there is no concensus on this page for excluding classical musicians. The Musicians project is not just for pop musicians, it covers all types. If you look at the first link in this paragraph, it has links to other discussion pages where "proof of consensus" can be found. These pages are: Classical, Composers, and Opera Wikiprojects. Note the absence of the Musicians Wikiproject!

If the restriction is removed from the rules for our template, as it should be, this admittedly creates a dilemma for editors working on a classical music article. The classical music Wikiproject would then advise against using an infobox, but the infobox template's instructions would not echo this, because the project that actually owns/controls the template does not agree. The editors of that article would then have to decide which project's rules are most appropriate for the it. And that's not really a problem; we have many examples of this kind of thing at Misplaced Pages. As someone else said, why should our project's or template's rules have to conform to other projects, when there is no consensus at our project/template? Given this situation, the restriction MUST be removed. There IS no consensus for the restriction in THIS Wikiproject. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this seeming like a pointless turf war? Shouldn't we all be working together? Powers 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about following Misplaced Pages procedures about project template instructions, consensus, reverts, and edit warring are not pointless. But I understand what you're saying. There are two issues here, and the other issue (which isn't being discussed as much) is reaching agreement on whether or not to include one little word in the documentation. I'll start a new section asking for comment on just that issue, and hopefully the other stuff will be left behind. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a turf war because those editors opposed to infoboxes within the domains in question are making it one. There has been no evidence presented yet that the disclaimer being warred over here is having a detrimental effect on the articles under said projects' purview; rather, someone appears to have noticed (a month after the fact) that this disclaimer was removed, and decided to war over it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Opera singers

I'm sorry... I'm having a doubt regarding the Infobox in case of opera singers. Shall it be used also for opera singers like tenors... sopranos... ecc?? And in this case, will Background have to be solo_singer ? Thanks. --Arancam (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles on classical music artists don't have infoboxes. See Misplaced Pages:OPERA#Infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice type revisited

Going back to this thread the usefulness of the 'voice type' field was questioned and consensus was that it was appropriate for classical singers, and rare instances when rock/pop vocalists had a 'type' backed by reliable sources. Now I see that WP:OPERA has come to the consensus that infoboxes shouldn't be used for opera singers here. Taking this into account I move to have the 'voice type' field removed from the infobox. For the rare case where there is a reliably sourced type it can be in the main article. J04n(talk page) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm baffled by those projects' consensus that because this template is not ideal for non-popular music artists, that they shouldn't have infoboxes at all. As such, I'm not really sure whether we should be revising this template to be even less relevant to those projects, or if we should try to create an actual comprehensive template that they could use. Powers 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of the field. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 02:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can well understand editors' distaste for infoboxes. Tony (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand them not wanting to use this infobox, if it doesn't work well for them, but I don't think a project should be able to declare a ban on all infoboxes in articles. Surely {{Infobox person}} can work, if nothing else. Blanket-banning all infoboxes in "their" articles is just plain inappropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Some people just can't see the point of infoboxes, and are sensitive to their disadvantages. That they might as a group decide on a no-infobox policy for an article, a group of articles or a whole wikiproject is completely understandable.
• Frankly, I think the examples provided overleaf and much copied by popular music articles are frozen in time, inflexible, and present several bad practices, among them those that breach style guidelines. But what happened when I complained? Resistance to change. Tony (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For many years it was understood that this infobox was not designed for classical musicians. The words non-classical were removed on 31 August by Pigsonthewing, see here. I think they shoud be restored to avoid further misunderstandings. I also support the removal of the vocal type field, per J04n. --Kleinzach 04:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree that there are bad practices in these infoboxes that could be improved (remember the brouhaha when we removed the genre field? I still think it should be removed, but I digress...), but I don't think that's reason enough to topic-ban infoboxes from articles, and I don't think a Wikiproject should have the authority to make or enforce such a declaration. But I'm not involved in editing within the field of classical music, and I'm not familiar with what their difficulties are, so I'll leave the heavy-handedness to them. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor can their use be mandated. Yet some editors do go around rather forcefully insisting on the inclusion of an infobox. When told that it's repetitive—the information is all in the lead and/or the body of the text—it never does any good: the insistence returns. In my view, infoboxes, with a few exceptions, are hamfisted MacDonald's information packaging. The result is often repetition and distortion, and the sacrifice of a leading position for a large image. Tony (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's just accept that pages on Mariah Carey and Maria Callas are going to be different! The M Carey editors should be allowed to get on with their work uninterrupted, likewise the M Callas people. If one group opts for infoboxes and another group doesn't, that's OK! --Kleinzach 07:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the correct place to discuss that should not be on some arbitrary grouping of articles, which is what makes this "opt-out" so ridiculous. Would that editors found other ways to explore their idiosyncracies than by taking over random WikiProjects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just remove the parameter. It is not used and it doesn't seem likely that this template will ever be used by classical artist articles. Which I actually like, I wish many other projects would decide the same. Garion96 (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  It'll be used eventually, as the editors responsible for this silliness move on. There's nothing which makes infoboxes inherently unsuitable for classical music articles; it's entirely a case of a group of users with the same quirks having found their way to the same part of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Classical artists (continued)

The quesiton of whether or not the documentation should say "Infobox musical artist is the standard infobox for non-classical articles" (highlighted word in contention) has not been resolved, and clearly more discussion is being called for. I'm weakly in favour of the word's removal (my other objections had to do with procedure), and will recap some points for and against:

• Case for inclusion of wording: "non-classical":
  • Consistency with other WikiProjects whose authority overlaps with ours.
  • Some parameters that could be deemed necessary for certain genres, such as "voice type" for opera singers, would not be appropriate for a general musicians infobox. (This was the result of a recent agreement.) Some have said there are other reasons why our general musicians infobox is not appropriate for classical musicians. Maybe someone could state what those reasons are.
• Case for exclusion of wording: "non-classical":
  • Mainly, I don't see there being any great inherent difference between classical and non-classical musicians, that would justify not using this infobox for both.
  • The musical artist infobox belongs to WikiProject Musicians, not to other WikiProjects where decisions have been made. I have seen no evidence of an agreement at our project, and clear evidence of no consensus on this template's talk page. Our project and template should not be forced to abide by decisions made at other projects. I recommend we assert our autonomy! :)
  • There are many "crossover" musicians who are clssical sometimes, and work in other genres othertimes. A good example is David Bedford, who was a straight avant-garde classical composer (and not regarded as a musician at all) in the 1960s, until he joined a rock group in the 1970s. Since then, he has associated with musicians from many genres, and most of his albums of synthesizer music do not belong to either classical or rock genres. This is a musician who definitely needs an infobox, and should not have his removed just because he was only a composer, early in his career, or because he is regarded as a classical musician some of the time. I notice his article does not currently have an infobox, but it did in the past. I also notice who removed it. *ahem* :)
  • If there were agreement to exclude classical musicians from using this template, another template just for classical musicians could be proposed instead, which I don't think would be good. This move would likely lead to two out-of-sync sets of rules, and further confusion as to whether decisions made at one infobox should automatically apply to the other.
• Case for inclusion of wording: "exluding composers (who are not also notable as musicians)":
  • I would be in favour of this, as composers (of any kind) are not within the scope of the template's name. In this case, we should leave the word "classical" out of it.
• Case for continued inclusion of the musicians infobox altogether:
  • Well, someone brought it up! I can't see any support for depreciating the infobox. Infoboxes are a key elemnt of Misplaced Pages. Most users like them, and many are keen on maintaining them. The Manual of Style says nothing about their being inappropriate for some articles, and seems to support their use everywhere. Infoboxes are almost always found in "good" and "featured" articles. Really, I think this is a non-issue.

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused by the claim that this WikiProject "owns" the template. What does ownership mean in this context, and how is it established and/or transferred? Powers 17:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject main pages usually list templates and related pages which are under their jurisdiction. WP:WikiProject Musicians' main page includes links to the Musicial artist infobox (this page) and Musicians navbox, and as far as I know, these templates were created by the project. The other WikiProjects mentioned here, do not link to those templates, and since some of those projects have rejected the infobox, I wouldn't expect them to. If you want to say only decisions made on this page count, that's okay. I just felt that if this template could be said to "belong" to a project, it would not belong to one that doesn't want to use it. There have been suggestions that the decision to add the word "non-classical" was made primarily at other WikiProjects. Some have been pointing to those decisions when reverting. Really, I started this new section so we could review the pros and cons of available choices, and leave the "territory" issue behind. If we reach a decision here, those other decisions will not matter. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the perception that WikiProjects own the articles under their respective purviews is no more valid than any other ownership of articles; it just isn't challenged often enough. WikiProjects are simply task forces; they are not sovereign states. Would that more of them realised this - some are extremely cooperative when it comes to discussing "project issues" with the community as a whole, while I get the sense that others regard themselves almost as sovereign nations. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's establish some facts:

• 1. The words 'non-classical' were removed on 31 August by Pigsonthewing (aka Andy Mabbett), see here. Pigsonthewing has a extensive block record (see here), including inter alia a one year for infobox-related disruptions on the classical music projects (see here).
• 2. The Musicians Project, (formerly?) part of the Biography Project, is overwhelmingly concerned with popular musicians. It's true that it banners all 'classical' music biographers, but fails to do any assessments, leaving it to bots (e.g. Xenobot Mk V to copy them from other projects. Also note that the various classical music projects do not recognize WP:WikiProject Musicians as a parent. (The parent project is Music.)
• 3. Infoboxes are usually regarded as being within the scope of the Infoboxes project, rather than being owned by specific projects.

Thanks. --Kleinzach 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Template-Class biography pages
• Template-Class biography (musicians) pages
• NA-importance biography (musicians) pages
• Musicians work group articles