This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
A group has members A, B and C. The group breaks up. Later, B and C form a new, different group. Is that a spinoff? I would think it would be past_member_of, but that doesn't seem to apply well to groups over individual artists. For reference, this has come up at Daft Punk. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template documentation doesn't provide any real guidance: "Groups which have spun off from this group. For example, sub-units". This appears no better than the |associated acts= it replaced (and added with almost no discussion). Plastic Ono Band is a spinoff of the Beatles, Audioslave is a spinoff of Soundgarden? Both have only one member is common – at least associated acts required two or more. It seems that the bar should be higher, such as requiring a reliable source that specifically makes this point. Otherwise, it's just personal opinion/original research. This doesn't help with your immediate problem, but the continuing confusion over how these are applied should be addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed; with the amount of unresolved discussion around this, both on this page and in the archives, it seems that there are still refinements to make. I understand that the previous change had some drama so I can understand why editors may not want to re-litigate this. I also see that spinoff_of is not used on one of the most prominent examples of an actual uncontroversially-defined spinoff in pop music, that of Hot Tuna from Jefferson Airplane (which I intend to address right after this), so there seems to be a real issue here. Yet I don't have a great solution myself, other than to maybe bring associated_acts back with stricter documentation. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Jefferson Airplane/Hot Tuna example is one of the best for the spinoff/sub-unit idea. But it doesn't seem that there are that many more more genuine cases out there. Infobox details should be limited to key facts as presented in the article. If important, predecessor/successor/associated bands should be discussed in the main body, where they can be presented with more context. Infobox parameters like these just invite unsourced cruft and I favor removing them all together, which was the consensus last time. As you mentioned, it may be too soon to get others interested in redoing it. Meanwhile, articles that don't have referenced material that actually discuss something arguably close to spinoff, etc., are fair game for removing them from infoboxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a reason why birth name has its own row in this infobox when displayed rather than being included in the born section like most other infoboxes for people? Miklogfeather (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all - I was thinking that it might be useful to include a Discography parameter in this infobox, which would be used to link to an artist's standalone discography article if it exists. I took a look at past discussions, and while the idea appears to have been rejected when it was previously raised, the discussion was a lightly attended one that occurred more than a decade ago. I think it's now worth discussing the idea again. For other figures in the arts - directors (e.g. Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick), composers (e.g. Bach, Beethoven), occasionally actors (e.g. Marlon Brando, Robert Downey Jr.) - it's not uncommon for their infoboxes to link directly to standalone articles about the person's body of work, and I personally find it to be a convenient navigational tool. I think it'd be beneficial if we could do the same for musicians. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the idea, MDT! Anyways, @HPSR asked on my talk page if it only applies to bands or solo artists. I'm also wondering what we should do if an artist has multiple pages regarding their discography, such as with the Beatles and Radiohead, or even an unreleased songs/bootlegged records page, such as with the Beach Boys and Nirvana. What if the discography is too small to warrent another page at all? Should the parameter still redirect to the section? Carlinal (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! My current thinking on the matter is as follows:
The field applies to both bands and solo artists. However, for solo artists who have previously had their discography linked in a "Works" or "Notable work" section (e.g. Beyoncé or Eminem), I've opted to leave that in place instead of replacing it with the new parameter.
When an artist has multiple pages for their discography, the practice I've been following thus far has been to link to each discography in the section, with line breaks separating them ordered in an hlist (the infobox on Kanye West has one example of how I've implemented it).
(Edit: After filling in more examples, I've actually ended up changing my mind on this point, and find myself preferring hlist formatting now.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't been linking to pages about unreleased songs or bootlegs (or "List of songs recorded by X" pages, which I've seen on some older artists), but I don't have a strong opinion on this point.
Personally, I think it's best to only link to discographies that have a dedicated page.
These are all just my own opinions and instincts, so I'm happy to continue workshopping them if you have any feedback or thoughts. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tkbrett hello there! I've noticed your reverts on these edits so I thought I'd ping you here so you can know what's going on. I'll be happy to hear your opinion. Carlinal (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Carlinal. I am generally opposed to anything which further bloats infoboxes, which I think applies here. A link to the main discography article is already normally located at the top of the discography section of an artist. Tkbrett (✉) 18:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an interesting idea. If it helps to find discographies more easily, I'm all for having a discography section in the infobox. Honestly, I don't think it's truly necessary as it's a little repetitive and the discography can already be found at the bottom of the page where it lists all studio albums as well as works of the bands and artists. Just doesn't look right. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think of the current location of the link? I think the middle of the infobox is a bit out-of-place. In my opinion it would be neater if the list of works would be after the main characteristics of the person/group, i.e. right above the section of members (maybe even separated by a dividing line) or even the most bottom of the infobox, as this is additional information and a list, not a direct characteristic of the musician. That is, what we normally put in the most bottom Related/Module/Notable work parameters. Solidest (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This parameter feels very redundant to add on its own, I think it would be interesting to replace it with "Works", like in Infobox person. This way, groups that have videography and live performances pages can have such content added at the beginning of the page. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retitling to "Works" would be fine with me! When I initially proposed "Discography", my thinking was that the more specific title would be useful for making the parameter's scope unambiguous; however, if that isn't covering all of the applicable use cases, I'd certainly support adjusting the parameter to have a more universally useful name.To also reply to the point that Solidest raised in the other section: personally, I find myself preferring that the Discography/Works parameter be placed relatively high in the infobox. If a person or group is notable for their work in music, my feeling is that it makes sense to give a prominent placement to the music that their notability is built upon. However, I can definitely see the merit in your suggested approach as well, so I've got no strong objections if that's what people generally prefer. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 00:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this. Maybe awards could also use a parameter, Britannica articles include Awards And Honors and Notable Works in the sidebar for bands Miklogfeather (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]