WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon
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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
 
WikiProject Infoboxes  
WikiProject icon
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.
 

Associated acts confusion

Every time I've used this template or edited an article that had it, the one parameter that I always run into trouble with is "associated acts". Recently, I've been going through artists' articles and adding or removing associated acts so that they meet the requirements laid out in the parameter's description. However, across all of these articles, there seems to be a disagreement about what qualifies an artist or group to be worthy of being included as an associated act for another act.

On the article for Nicki Minaj, it seems as though there's an unspoken agreement among editors that only acts who have had at least three collaborations with Minaj should be included in her infobox. Every time it's been suggested that this is the case (such as here and here) it's never been contested. I didn't really understand why until I edited Trippie Redd's infobox and realized just how cluttered it became after I added each and every one of his two-time collaborators. Meanwhile, certain acts, such as Drake and Björk, have producers listed as associated acts when they've produced one or more of their albums in its entirety. Jazmine Sullivan is listed as an associated act for Frank Ocean because she contributed additional vocals to four songs from Endless and to "Solo", but on none of those songs is she credited as a featured artist.

I've also noticed that, while the description cautions against adding the solo careers of the members of a group as associated acts for that group and adding groups with one member in common, it says nothing about adding the individual members of a group to each other's associated acts. I've run into this a number of times, including on Caroline Polachek and Riki Lindhome's pages. Speaking of Caroline Polachek, her infobox currently has A.G. Cook and Danny L Harle, but both of them only qualify if you include remixes as collaborations. The template also states that the musicians or bands listed as associated acts for any other act must be notable and significant to an act's career, but does this mean that they have to meet GNG requirements? On Glaive's page, I added four acts with whom he has collaborated multiple times, one of whom (Ericdoa) he made a collaborative EP with, but none of them have pages of their own, and I'm doubtful that some of them would pass GNG. Also, many of the (seemingly fruitless) discussions about associated acts on Ariana Grande's talk page (such as here, here, here, and here) revolve around whether or not two acts having multiple collaborations is enough for them to be considered significant for each other's careers, which made me wonder if editors should be allowed to contest the inclusion or exclusion of an associated act, even if it meets one or more of the criteria. When I added City Girls to Megan Thee Stallion's infobox last year, it was reverted on the basis that, on one of the two songs they appeared on together, they were both featured artists.

This has left me with an endless number of questions, so I wanted to open this up to editors:

  1. Should the number of collaborations necessary for an act to be considered associated be bumped up to three or more?
  2. Should producers be included as associated acts when they were an executive producer or produced the majority/entirety of an album for another artist?
  3. If not, should they be included if they were the executive producer or produced the majority/entirety of multiple albums for another artist?
  4. Does an artist have to be explicitly credited as a featured or lead artist on another artist's song or project for it to be considered a collaboration?
  5. Can individual members of a group be included as associated acts in each other's infoboxes?
  6. Should remixes be considered collaborations?
  7. Do acts have to meet WP:GNG to be included as associated acts?
  8. Should editors be allowed to dispute the inclusion or exclusion of an associated act if that inclusion or exclusion is based on the parameter's criteria?
  9. Can acts be considered associated if they've appeared on multiple songs together, but only as featured artists?

Even if some of these may seem like obvious "yes" or "no" answers, I mainly want to reach a consensus on these things so that they can be included in the template's documentation and hopefully make things easier for editors like myself and others who have had trouble determining which artists can or cannot be included as associated acts. Thanks! benǝʇᴉɯ 04:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove associated acts?

Should the associated acts parameter be removed from this infobox? Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'm in favor of the "member_of" parameter for individuals, and I think the other bulletpoints (aside from the one about multiple collaborations, as that seems to be the variable that trips everyone up) could also have their own parameters, such as "spinoff_groups" and "spinoff_of". My only concern about these is that editors might complain that saying John Lennon is a member of The Beatles is an obvious misnomer considering he's dead, and people also might bicker about the true definition of a spinoff group (Tom Tom Club is only identified by its article as a "side project" from Talking Heads, while the Foo Fighters is essentially only a spinoff of Nirvana because Grohl happened to be in both) but I think that can be fleshed out in the documentation and discussed further. benǝʇᴉɯ 06:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template already has the parameters current_members and past_members for use in articles about groups. So in analogy to that, a straightforward modification of FMSky's/Binksternet's idea would be to create two separate parameters current_member_of and past_member_of for use in articles about indviduals, which should help address such concerns. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Honestly this field doesn't seem to list "acts that were really influential to the artist or band's career", but rather guest vocalists that sang more than three times with them.

FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 12:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: I see an overwhelming consensus to remove |associated_acts=, strong support for |past_member_of=, |current_member_of=, and |spinoffs=, and weak support for |spinoff_of=. As far as I understand, the strongest counterargument for retaining |associated_acts= is "We can't remove it without a proper substitute." We've already conceived good substitutes. ili (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: 10 years later – can we add spouse/partner parameters yet?

Since it seems likely that |associated_acts= will soon be removed from this template (see here), is it finally time to add |spouse= and |partner=? Upon a cursory search of the archives, it seems that we last had an RfC about this matter exactly 10 years ago, by which time the parameters had been requested over 23 times. The requests have not stopped since then, and I've failed to uncover any new extended discussion regarding the matter.

There's many famous examples of musical acts with notable marriages/relationships to other notable individuals. In many of those examples, both individuals are often collaborators of each other. Just to name a few:

Bold denotes that the article currently combines ((Infobox musical artist)) with ((Infobox person)) to forcibly apply the parameters in question. Some of the other articles do this as well, but either to add |children=, or because the individual is also notable for non-musical pursuits. ili (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • What is the logic for "when they posses independent notability", exactly? As I said above, for normal Template:Infobox person a spouse/ partner need not be notable to be named. Is the spouse or partner of a musician somewhat inherently less notable than for normal people? And there are plenty of goss-mag slebs who are not musicians? We seem to be able to cope with all of them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I probably don't have a vote, but I want to point out that Martin's argument is striking enough to repeat it: Why are persons allowed to have a spouse but musicians aren't? --84.132.144.110 (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one has a vote, but everyone has a !vote, so offer your opinion. To answer your question, read my response above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote? Whatever.....
Not sure what module you are talking about. Is there a way to display spouse already, by including some other template? How? If not, why do you vote no, if you really mean that it should be implemented?
Also, your argument about bands implies that every field is always meant to be applicable in every instance of this and every similar infobox. That's hardly the case. --84.132.144.110 (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I figured out the module thing. Useful, though a bit clumsy. Thanks for the pointer!
It raises a question though: Why is any field doubled from ((Infobox person))? Do bands have a birthplace, or an occupation? --84.132.144.110 (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Template talk:Infobox person. Graham (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think that's a false equivalence – ((Infobox musical artist)) or ((Infobox sportsperson)) are about the person's career, not the person's general life, as ((Infobox person)) is. And yes, personally I would be in favour of excluding this parameter from all infoboxes, as it is almost never relevant to the person themselves or their career: to me it's just infobox clutter and invites the addition of unsourced cruft and celebrity gossip. But I accept that I would heavily lose this argument, as you say above. Richard3120 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the fact I disagree that |spouse= or |children= should be considered a "core" standard field, because I don't believe that it's basic information that is relevant to the person's career (usually), there's a bigger issue here – other biography infoboxes may relate to a single person, but ((Infobox musical artist)) can include bands or groups. So even birth and death dates would be irrelevant as a standard field in these cases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article is not about a person's career, it is about a person. A biography typically doesn't start covering a person at the age they become notable and only talk about their career. From our own article, it is "a detailed description of a person's life." and spouse and children are part of that. As far as not applying to bands or groups, so what, just don't use them for bands or groups, obviously. I am not aware of a single infobox where every field is used in every transclusion, certainly not any biographical infobox. MB 22:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the article is about a person, I'm just not convinced the spouse/partner/children is such a vital component of this that it needs to go into the infobox. And yes, you wouldn't use birth or death dates for bands, so I'm saying there are no standard fields then. Richard3120 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're both a bit wrong. Let me clarify. An article is about a notable subject. The source of that notability is what should be discussed in the article. If the subject is a person, their notability may have absolutely nothing to do with their partner or spouse. Since the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", if the subject's partner or spouse is notable, then that will be discussed in the article and a module can be added to the infobox list it. The problem is that many editors simply add material—usually unsourced—to the infbox, thereby supplanting the key facts that appear in the article. By making that available to this—or any infobox—we make it easier for the editors most likely to ignore INFOBOXPURPOSE. We have all seen spuriously added associated acts, genres (see WP:GWAR for more detail on that problem), years active, and pretty much every parameter that the infobox supports. It would be irresponsible to add yet another such field. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is not about when it is appropriate to use these parameters, but whether they should exist in the infobox template. I completely agree that many of these parameters are often utilized when they shouldn't be. I am constantly removing the names of non-notable children, parents, etc (from bios in general, not talking about just musicians). But maintenance should not dictate the fields in an infobox. A large proportion of all edits involve the addition of unsourced content, but we still allow articles to be edited - we just deal with it. MB 15:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move capitalized AKAs to deprecated parameters

Currently, there are currently about 20 AKAs that duplicate existing parameters, except of the first uppercase letter. It would be useful to finally start getting rid of them by moving them to deprecated tracking into a new category to clear up [this mess], along with unknown parameters. Solidest (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, "Infobox musical artist/color" is not needed in the code as well, as "Background" currently only used to track hCard format as being discussed above. Solidest (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit template-protected)) template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defaulting genre parameter

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Template:Infobox album/genre/Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams. The code ((#ifexist:Template:Infobox musical artist/genre/((FULLPAGENAME))|((Infobox musical artist/genre/((FULLPAGENAME))))| should be removed from the template. The current version of the field was set by one user and has never been discussed or confirmed by consensus. One user placed this code into 3 infoboxes 3+ years ago, and it was removed from the code over time. The only one left is "Infobox musical artist". This way of filling genres is not currently used by any article, and it is likely that it has been ever used like this. Or do we need a consensus here again on what has been added without consensus? :) Solidest (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to delete in that discussion, and would do the same again here. It was added without consensus, and isn't used in any article, so I don't see why it's needed. Richard3120 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction of AKAs

I've tried above to make a request to move multiple AKAs to deprecated section in the code, with the creation of a category for further corrections, but as it turns out this requires consensus first. So let's discuss it.

Such a move has already been made for all the other major music infoboxes: album, song, composition, etc. Everywhere the parameter variants starting with a capital letter have been moved to deprecated and have been gradually corrected and then removed from the code. So here too, changes must be made to bring all redundant variations into a standardized form and bring them into order, to keep things tidy and ease the work with different tools + some more reasons. Most of the redundant AKAs, as it seems to me, should not be questioned except for the few alternate ones. The usefulness of which we can also discuss here, these are highlighted in orange in the third column. But for all the reasons listed above, I think we should just keep the green ones only.

Parameters + AKAs
main label nominee for depreciation

(capitalization)

deprecated as well?

(alt spelling)

background Background
name Name
image Img
image_size Img_size
image_upright Img_upright
landscape Landscape
alt Img_alt
caption Img_capt
birth_name Birth_name
alias Alias
origin Origin
genre Genre
occupation Occupation
occupations Occupations
instruments Instrument instrument
years_active Years_active yearsactive
label Label
associated_acts Associated_acts
website URL url
current_members Current_members
past_members Past_members
Former_members former_members

Solidest (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't imagine this being controversial, especially given that there is precedent. Thumbs up from me anyway. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is no need for alias parameters. They make the code harder to navigate and maintain. lowercase and underscore is the style that the guideline says to use WP:INFOBOXNAME. Also, there is no need for singular versions (occupation and occupations). Speifically in this code there is no visual change when used, but even if there were, Template:Detect singular is how it should be handled. Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest that |background= be changed to |type= as the value required is a type of artist (per Template:Infobox musical artist/hCard class's doc), while "background" makes it sound as if the value is a background color. Gonnym (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also suporting removal of singular duplicates if it would be possible to rework the template with mentioned module. Switched colors accordingly. Regarding "background": we have ongoing discussion on this field above. Imo, it would be best to rework this parameter into |is group= and make it logical — "yes" for groups and remove background field from solo persons, and then rework hCard class accordingly. Solidest (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

Per the recent survey: remove |associated_acts=; add |current_member_of=, |past_member_of=, |spinoff_of=, and |spinoffs=. ili (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]