This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Let's add a new field to this infobox named either "lyrical themes", "lyrics subjects" or something like that. It could be used for listing most resurring themes covered by an artist. Netrat_msk (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how any good could come of that. It would just be a depository for original research and a constant source of meaningless disputes and revert wars. This is the kind of topic that needs a body paragraph within the article itself, definitely with references to third-party sources. It's not appropriate to an infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's just a POV field and a magnet waiting for whatever unreferenced opinion comes along. Libs (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This does not have to be POV or OR field! In most of the cases the theme of the lyrics is pretty obvious as long as you understand the language. For artists with abstract or unclear lyrics, just don't fill this field in.

Please take a look at [1], which is a featured article in Russian Wikipedia. It does have lyrics themes in the infobox (death, murder, genocide etc.) and it caused absolutely no discussion or disagreement.

Artist infobox at All Music Guide does have lyrics themes, I don't see why we shouldn' have the same field, given AMG is one of the most reliable music encyclopedias and infoboxes are one of its fre POV-free contents. Netrat_msk (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Different Wikimedia projects have different rules and practices, and what works on the Russian Wikipedia won't necessarily work well on the English Wikipedia. Go to any highly-trafficed English Wikipedia article on a musical artist, check the talk page, and 3 times out of 5 you're likely to find a debate or revert war about what genre the artist is. Most of these arguments cite no sources even though there are plenty of reliable sources out there that could possibly be used (ie. AMG). They're all basically POV arguments. "Lyrical themes" is even more subjective and would cause way more problems than it's worth. If a field exists in an infobox, most editors try to fill it. That's why we have to mark so many of the fields in this infobox as "this field is only relevant for individuals" or "this field is only relevant for groups". You'd think with fields like "birth date" it would be obvious that it only applies to individuals, but obviously there were enough problems with it that we had to start adding disclaimers. I hate to be a pessimist, but experience has shown that people won't simply leave the field blank, they'll fill it with their own opinions and original research. Also, saying that "the theme of the lyrics is pretty obvious as long as you understand the language" is an open invitation to original research. See WP:NOR...basing article information purely on your own understanding of a primary source is the definition of original research, even if you feel the information is "pretty obvious". Plus, show me where on the All Music Guide there is a field for lyrical themes. I've never seen such a thing. There's a field for "Moods" but that's hardly the same thing and hardly relevant to an encyclopedia article. Infoboxes are supposed to be simple, at-a-glance article summaries, and we should avoid adding fields that are likely to contain POV or topics that require in-depth explanations. Simple stuff like where an artist is from, what label they're on, etc. are in almost all cases uncontroversial and easily verifiable. More subjective stuff like genres, lyrical content, etc. isn't simple and leads to problems more often than not. IMHO we'd avoid a lot of headaches by cutting the "genre" field too, but that's a whole other can of worms. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess I have to agree. Netrat_msk (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But I'm sure AMG did have a field for lyrical themes at least for some artists (definitely not all of them) at some point after the major redesign. Themes like "Girls night out", "Guys night out", "Friendship", "Social commentary" were common. Maybe I just need to look harder. Netrat_msk (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just did searches on AMG for Metallica, The Rolling Stones, Queen, The Beatles, and Mariah Carey, and came up with zilch for lyrical themes. Perhaps they were there in the past, but they clearly aren't anymore and I still think it's way too subjective a topic for the infobox. Just because AMG presents certain information in a bullet-point list doesn't mean we should too. After all, AMG is not an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is. In fact, even if AMG did have a list of lyrical themes for each artist, I proibably wouldn't support using it as a source for that info because that's all it would be: a bullet-point list with no explanation or context. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have found what I was talking about. Here is an article on Slayer and here is an article on their album. There are "Moods" (Visceral, Nihilistic, Tense/Anxious, Hostile etc.) and "Themes" (Scary Music, Halloween). However, they do not look very encyclopedic and I would agree they won't be appropriate here. Netrat (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people come onto Wikipedia just to check how much albums a certain Artist or Band has sold. I've noticed that a lot of articles don't emphasize Album Sales, they just simply put it in the first paragraph among the rest of the text, making it nearly invisible. To make Wikipedia more successful, I belive that we should make album sales part of the Infobox. I originally posted this on the main "Musicians" page, but I was redirected here.-Xaremathras (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the obstacles to this, that I've read on various other talk pages, is that there doesn't seem to be any organization that tracks worldwide album sales. So what we'd be looking at probably is a long list of sales numbers from individual countries, each of which would require a separate citation. Personally I think that's a lot of detail to squeeze into the infobox, and probably not something that's easy to verify for many musical acts. I also kind of disagree with your fir-st 2 statements. First, you're assuming that a lot of people come to Wikipedia just to check album sales. What's your basis for that assumption? I don't agree that that's the primary reason most people come to Wikipedia, although it certainly may be one thing they they could be looking for. Second, you think that having the album sales mentioned in the lead paragraph makes it "nearly invisible"? How much more prominent could it be than in the lead section? That's the first thing most people read (at least that's what it's meant to be). The lead section, or some other part of the article body, is the perfect place for this kind of information and accompanying discussion. Honestly, if you're not even willing to read the lead paragraph, how are you expecting to learn anything from an article? These are just my viewpoints, though. Anyone else have thoughts on this? --IllaZilla (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this, especially if reliable sales data is available. I've never really looked for it myself so I don't know for sure. I imagine the RIAA and BPI at least make some of this data available online with their databases of gold records, etc. I think you could explain all the available data in the main body with citations and then add it up for a rough number in the infobox. I'm just brainstorming here.

On the other hand maybe it would be easier to make a table to list gold (platinum, silver) records sort of like the Template:MedalTable or tables that result from the Template:MedalTableTop family for sports. I kind of like this idea better since it wouldn't require additions to this infobox and could be put next to the relevant section of the prose. What do you think? Zytsef (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually kind of like that idea a lot more. I think a table would satisfy the desire to provide an at-a-glance summation of album sales, without further expanding this infobox, and would complement a relevant section of prose or even a discography article. I'm not sure how one verifies album sales, though. I've seen a few revert wars citing competing sources and I don't know which is the most reliable. I assume the RIAA would be the most obvious source for American sales, but it seems to get trickier when you try to compile sales worldwide from many countries. It would be nigh-impossible to gather sales statistics for every region in which an album was sold (especially if you count digital purchases ie. Amazon or iTunes...do those even count? I have no idea). I suppose you could discuss whatever sales data you could find in a prose section, then summarize it in a table alongside. That seems perfectly reasonable. Of course, if you tried to add it up and claim that the artist has sold xxx albums worldwide, that might amount to original research as we really have no way of knowing how many were sold in every country around the world. So I guess what I'm saying is I like the idea of a prose section with references, summarized in an accompanying table, with data from as many countries as one can find sources for, without attempting to make summarizing claims that may not be fully supported by the refs. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing a quick check at the RIAA's gold/platium record database for the most popular group I can think of off the top of my head (Rolling Stones) shows that this table would have to be nothing more than a running tally of sales awards from each organization. The Stones have over 40 gold records, 5 gold singles, over 25 platium records, a smattering of multiplatium records of various multipliers, and some gold and platium videos (I wasn't even aware that they gave sales awards for videos). Naturally this includes a few of the same records counted multiple times in different categories. It's obvious that we can't list each award individually. I think how stuff is going to get counted should be hashed out before any potential table is implimented. Zytsef (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, listing sales certification awards (ie. Gold/Platinum) is often already a practice in the tables of discography articles. See U2 discography for example. Perhaps this would be something best suited as an addition to the discography section, or discography article if there is one. Discography articles & sections don't seem to have consistent formats yet but I really like the way the U2 one incorporates the sales certifications into its tables.

However, I don't think that's what Xaremathras was getting at with his original suggestion. I think he wants actual numbers for worldwide sales, and wants them to be displayed prominently (see these diffs: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). That being the case, I find the suggestion problematic. Each of those articles uses a different third-party source to cite its worldwide sales figures, which strengthens my belief that there probably isn't a centralized source to go to for those numbers (not like the centralized RIAA certification search engine, anyway). Where are those sources getting their numbers? The RIAA seems to have some listing for top sellers, but it's certainly not all-inclusive. Red Hot Chili Peppers discography incorporates both the sales figures and certifications, but again the sales numbers are all coming from different sources. Not that I have any reason to question the sources, but it sure would be helpful if there was one central source with a searchable database of worldwide sales figures. Unfortunately such a source doesn't seem to exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's raising great points. After further seeing the complexities of this issue, I'm even more opposed to the idea of including record sales in the infobox. Most of what's in infoboxes is cold, hard fact. No greater understanding is needed to comprehend that guitarist John Doe was born on January 1, 1965 or is signed to ABC Record Company. Conversely, background knowledge IS needed to understand what a soundbyte record sales number or platnium album sales designation means, espeically given the interntaional nature of both Wikipedia's userbase and subject matter. Simply put, as an infobox soundbtye, it's ambiguous and complex, and as such isn't NPOV. It belongs in the article's body and/or detailed disography.  :) --Hamuhamu (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While I understand what you're getting at and appreciate the potential usefulness of easy-to-grab, soundbyte-style info to some Wikipedia users, I feel that this isn't very widely applicable or important, and such info isn't all that easily available. I have always found soundbyte statements that "such-and-such has sold X number of albums/singles/whatever" to be somewhat propaganda-ish, used to illustrate or justify an artist's success (or lack thereof). As the reader, I don't really know what that number represents. Is it just for the US? Does it include compilations and/or remix albums? Does it include what the US calls EPs? Does it include legal digital downloads? Is it based on real sales or estimates? Is it based all or partially on radio airplay? Etc. Thus, to a critical reader, it's not a very useful soundbyte statement, without the background information to flesh it out. Additionally, many/most(?) artists that operate primarily (or solely) outside the US aren't going to have this information. In fact, the definition of "album" varies outside the US. Lastly, sales of individual releases are often reported in discography tables, like in Ayumi Hamasaki or Utada Hikaru. I find these tables useful because they allow the reader to decide how they want to weigh the different types of sales the artist has attained, which I feel is more in line with the nature of an encyclopedic source :) - Hamuhamu (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that most artists don't have album sales, and a lot of the time they're not "perfectly" reliable. I was thinking something more along the lines of what's been done on the Eminem discography: Native Country (or dominant country) sales, and and Worldwide sales. I did mean in the form of a number, rather than RIAA certifications. Also, even though most artists don't have numbers, that area can be left blank until information is available. -Xaremathras (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What's on the Eminem discography is entirely different than what you initially said. I don't see an infobox at all. I LIKE what's on the Eminem discography.  :) Back to the infobox, my objections still stand. Another reason I thought of is that it will encourage original research, with editors trying to create unavailable date to fill that blank (such as adding up numbers themselves to try to create totals). When you create a blank, people naturally try to fill it. --Hamuhamu (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

can someone create an infobox for mixtape albums?-SCB '92 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this part supposed to be on influences on the artist or on artists influenced by the artist? Lars T. (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC) ((editprotected))

Actually that field should be gotten rid of. There has been a clear consensus not to keep it (see the discussion in the archive), it just never got removed from the template. It was recently added back into the documentation because someone bother to look at the code. Thanks for bringing attention to it again. Zytsef (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kindly  Done by Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to come and say that myself, but the software £$&#€!%£ kindly notified me of an edit conflict. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, only few people practiced in that discussion. I disagree with opinion that "influences" field is not needed. We may add "Influenced by" and "Influenced" fields for more clarity. These fields may call for POV, but we DO have a reliable source on that subject: AMG. Netrat_msk (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See the numerous suggestions for additional fields proposed above and in the archives. Consensus seems to lean towards not adding fields to the infobox that would be POV/OR magnets, or that call for information that can't be summarized in just a few words. Explaining what an artist's influences are, and what other artists they've influenced, requires way too much information and explanation for an infobox (not to mention references). This is information best left in the article body where it can be explained, contextualized, and referenced. The infobox is an at-a-glance summary of what the article's subject is, giving quick information that is uncontroversial and easily verifiable. It's not a bullet-point summary of the entire article. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add "Influenced by", and "Influenced" fields instead of "Influences". It is a very good idea.
π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't support the idea of any kind of "influences" field in the Infobox, for all the good reasons stated by IllaZilla above. What's the point of repeating AMG? I would say such info need more explicit sources, like the band itself. And they would need to be referenced, hence it should go into the article itself – IbLeo (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with you. IllaZilla, as long as we request sources for every entry in "Influenced by" and "Influenced" fields, it will eliminated any POV/OR. The sources should be interviews with band members. Maybe citing AMG was not very good idea. But with artists interviews as references, there will be not POV or OR in these fields. Netrat (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative metal and Post-grunge should be decapitalized, shouldn't they? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as they don't start a sentence/infobox field/line, they should, yes. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 20:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anyway, the example infobox in question has been changed to line breaks again. :) ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 14:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely there should be more guidelines for this than "aim for generality"? How general is general? If a band lies entirely within a subgenre and never ventures outside, surely it should be labelled as that subgenre and not the larger genre? Pwrong (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Moreover, when a band does not belong to one particular sub-genre, I would prefer listing all sub-genres instead of a generic term. For example, there's an article for Jethro Tull (band). Genre field of the infox says "Rock, hard rock, progressive rock, folk rock". Replacing this with simple "Rock" would NOT improve the article. And check featured articles like Audioslave and AC/DC, they do list sub-genres in the infobox. That's OK. Netrat (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a section for the artist logo (if they/she/he have/has one); there are some artists who do, like CSS, Evanescence, bond (band), blink-182, Belanova and many others. This template on the French Wikipedia has it (fr:Modèle:Infobox Musique (artiste)) danBLOO (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You should read this discussion, where we hashed the hell out of the logo issue about 5 months ago. The gist of the consensus was this: At best, a logo doesn't belong in the infobox; its place is in the body of the article. At worst, a logo shouldn't be included at all unless there is specific critical commentary in the article body addressing its significance (for some examples of what I mean see Black Flag (band) or Ramones). As to your examples above: I'm going to take a look at the CSS one. The Evanescense one entailed a long and contentious discussion on the article's talk page until it was given some references as to its significance. The Blink-182 article has no logo in it, which is appropriate since Blink-182 never had a recurring logo in their entire career. The Bellanova article has no logo in it either. Any logos you come across in this infobox should either be moved into the article body or gotten rid of. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, as to the French infobox: The French Wikipedia may have different policies than the English one. Ours are intentionally more restrictive when it comes to non-free content than even U.S. law is. I highly doubt that the example in the French infobox would pass scrutiny here at en.wiki --IllaZilla (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Since our last discussion, I've done some more thinking. Firstly, when the "logo" is actually just made of text in a general typeface and simple geometric shapes, it is in the public domain in the US and can be tagged with ((PD-textlogo)) and used quite freely. However, this doesn't change the fact that most bands have no consistent logo, so it's inappropriate for an infobox field. Papa November (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That may depend on where it originates from. If you scan it from an album cover & vector it from there, does it still count as a derivative work? I'm not sure how that works. ((PD-textlogo)) should probably be applied on a case-by-case basis. I've seen it used on a lot of logos that seem to be quite a bit more complex than just simple text & shapes, and I've also seen it abused by people who use it to escape fair use scrutiny. What constitutes "general typeface and simple geometric shapes" vs. a more complex logo is often a subjective call. For example, the Dell logo seems pretty simple and even has a trademark symbol on it, but it's still tagged as copyrighted, whereas the Walt Disney Co. logo is marked as ((PD-textlogo)) even though I think it's clearly not a "general typeface". Anyway, I often see ((PD-textlogo)) used in the "not really a logo, just the band's name off the most recent album" situation. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's best to limit PD-textlogo to very simple logos (even simpler than Dell) such as Image:Microsoft wordmark.svg. I guess my point was that copyright status of a logo is a separate, and arguably less important issue than its notability. Papa November (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think the two are kind of tied-in, since if it's copyrighted then WP:NFCC applies and so its use has to be "encyclopedic" and essential to a reader's understanding of the topic, therefore the questions of significance and sourcing arise. For a non-copyrighted image that wouldn't really be a concern. But yeah, I think we're in agreement that it wouldn't be appropriate to add a logo field to the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if this has been asked before. If a member of a band/group died while they were members of the band/group, should they be listed in the Former members section?

Also, I've noticed that on some infoboxes of group/bands which have members/former members that have died, have "(deceased)" next to the name of the member. Should this be consistent on all infoboxes?--James Bond (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If the word deceased appears next to a person's name in the Infobox then it should be removed immediately. The Template rule for both current members and former members is that the field is a 'name only' field w. no other text allowed. No years, no instruments played and no mortality status. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your first question, yes a member who is dead should be listed under "former members", as they're obviously no longer in the group. As Anger22 says, it's a name-only field and we'd rather not have things like "(deceased)" next to the names. We're trying to avoid over-cluttering the infobox. That's why the template page explains the "former members" field as "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names." If you see "(deceased)" or anything else listed next to someone's name in a musical artist infobox, please feel free to remove it. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good policy. What's wrong with having years, instruments played or mortality status along with names? Netrat (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is twofold. Firstly, the overall goal is to keep the infobox simple and uncluttered. It is meant to be at at-a-glance summary/introduction to the article, not the entire article in bullet-point list form. That's why the field is simply titled "Members", not "Members/instruments played/years in the group/mortality status". Too much detail clutters up what is meant to be a simple list of names with links to their individual articles. Secondly, unless the person died while a member of the band, then their death has little to do with the group as a whole, which is the subject of the article. So, should we only add "(deceased)" next to members who died while they were in the group? Maybe only if their death was significant to the career of the band? Or should we just put it next to every deceased person? That would surely be extraneous, as most deceased musicians died long after their careers had ended. Better to just leave disclaimers and notations out altogether and simply list the names. The body of the article, and surely the separate article about the member if there is one, will give the details about their mortality status, what instruments they played, and their tenure in the group. This is simply too much detail to cram into the infobox, especially when the purpose of the box to begin with is to be a concise introduction. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There be something thats says years active is not when the group formed on the streets, but when they released their first single or debut album, since that is nearly what every infobox on the articles say. Mcanmooocanu

Nope, it should be the year the group formed (assuming, of course, that the dates are verifiable). There are quite a few groups who were "active" for years before releasing any records, ie. they were performing shows and getting press before any singles or albums came out. The Ramones, for example, played their first show on March 30, 1974 but their first release (their debut album) didn't come out until April 23, 1976. According to your suggestion we should just ignore those first 2 years of the band's existence, even though they were playing lots of shows and getting reviews in the music press during that time. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this has been brought up before, but should there be a "Producer" field as an option in this template? Bands have producers, and many are famous for either helping or ruining a band's sound (i.e. Bob Rock with Metallica, Our Lady Peace). Comments?. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 07:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not appropriate for this infobox, as most musical acts use different producers from album to album, or even many different producers on a single album. There is already a "producer" field in Template:Infobox Album, which is a much more appropriate place for it. If an artist uses the same producer through most of their career, as with Metallica, then that's worth mentioning in the body of the article. But this is only the case for a minority of artists, therefore it wouldn't be a good field for this infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where there is a long-standing association (Beatles/ Martin; Bowie/ Eno) can the producer not be included in the "related artists" field? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The field is called "associated acts" and therefore would not include producers. There is already another discussion near the bottom of the page (correction:) just above this one, about how the instructions for use of this field are vague, and it is often misused, so I don't think extending its use to producers would be accepted. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that producers should generally be kept out of the associated acts field for the reasons IllaZilla and Knight have cited, the producers Andy is talking about, George Martin and Brian Eno, are musical acts as well as producers, and I reckon they fit the criteria for inclusion even though their relationship to the bands Andy mentioned was primarily as producer. Brian Eno has released plenty of material under his own name, with qualifies him as an act, and he has co-written songs and played instruments on a bunch of Bowie's albums in addition to producing. George Martin has arranged, composed, and played instruments on many Beatles albums in addition to producing, and he has released a bunch of albums as George Martin & His Orchestra that he plays piano on, which makes him an act. Plus he's regarded as the fifth Beatle. Strobilus (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This goes back to the concern that the use of the "associated acts" field is not clearly defined in the instructions. Intuitively, I would think this is supposed to show other artists with whom the main artist has collaborated with, both as performers. Or it could be used to refer to spin-off groups which might be a sub-set of members of the main group. But without a clear definition, other interpretations are possible. For example, under the Beatles we find Wings. The Beatles never collaborated with Wings; it's not a spin-off project or an alternate name; only 1 person was in both groups, and not at the same time. Is this an appropriate entry? Maybe yes, maybe no. And if the field is to include "well known producers", maybe it should also include those who are not performers. I would like to see it spelled out. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the infobox would benefit from an awards section (such as that of Template:Infobox Actor)?--Darknus823 (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree: It is present in Template:Infobox actor jhawkinson (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm adding that since no one has objected. --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal and has been opposed many times. If an artist has received notable awards, these can be mentioned in prose form without expanding an already very large template and without the controversy over which awards are notable enough to be in the infobox. Infoboxes should not be trivia boxes. Prolog (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I just went through the archives and I found one discussion that only three or four people contributed to and there seemed to be no resolution. There was one mention in an earlier archive with ZERO response and nothing in any archive earlier than that. I see no evidence that it has been "opposed many times". An award is not trivia, as evidenced by the inclusion in the actor page. So far that's three FOR and one AGAINST. Right now you're out voted Prolog. --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not judge based on !votes, but rather the weight of the arguments. My opinion can be found here and I was not the only one who opposed. Basically I'm not in favor of adding fields to the infobox that don't apply to the majority of articles that the template is used in. I see this as a magnet for cruft/OR, with editors adding in any random "award" that they feel will fluff up their favorite artist. Then we have to debate about criteria: Which awards are significant enough to go in the infobox? Should we limit the number that are included? Do album awards apply to the artists? Etc. etc. I would be totally in favor of a separate "Awards" box to be placed next to a prose section about which awards the artist has won, but I feel that putting it in the infobox will simply lead to a mess of clutter for some articles and won't apply at all for the majority of others. Call me paranoid, but I see too many edit wars in infoboxes over really simple things to be gung-ho about adding more unnecessary fields --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of actors have not won awards and some sort of consensus was obviously reached about those inclusions. Why leave them there and prohibit them here? The weight of your argument doesn't jive with the reality of what the community has done with the Actor sections. --FilmFan69 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact I just noticed that the last two posts are from people who made good points about it and you gave no response to those points. I'm going to actively request that this change be effected. --FilmFan69 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have missed WP:POLL and WP:NOT. You have to present good arguments and then get consensus to change things. Most templates that could have award fields do not have them, so one other infobox having the fields is not the best argument. Actually, the fact that Infobox Actor has more award fields than all other fields combined makes me even more convinced that it's best to keep the number of award fields at zero. Prolog (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, canvassing like-minded editors like you did here, here and here is considered inappropriate votestacking. Prolog (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I see that the Ayatollahs are at it again! -- 76.68.221.89 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's appropriate to bring others who were interested in the addition back to the conversation. The fact that the argument gets spread out over several stages let's you say that there's no consensus when in fact there are quite a few more people that presented valid arguments which you dismissed then as you are doing now. Given the fact that the same couple of users continue to resist the addition no matter how many different users request it really illustrates that YOU do not have consensus. We, however do. Just saying my example doesn't count is bull. You're squatting on the page. I didn't miss jack. I and others have presented good arguments. It's not up to you alone to decide that you don't like the argument and dismiss it out of hand. That amount to page ownership which, since you like to quote wiki laws, you know is verboten. Now, can you still say that there is not consensus on this issue. And for f*** sake don't quote WP:POLL. I get it. Bit the arguments have been made and are valid, despite the fact that your OPINION is that the actor infobox is overloaded. If consensus was reached there it holds that it carries to this. Yes plenty of info boxes don't have award sections bit given the fact that awards for acting and awards for music are much more highly visible gives yet another reason include it. --FilmFan69 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

One last thought. I could have easily side stepped canvassing by notifying "all sides" except the only people that support your minority opinion are already in the dicussion. --FilmFan69 (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any awards should be included in the infobox. There are so many music awards these days that choosing just a few to include would be highly subjective and culturally sensitive. Even if a few awards could be agreed upon, it would be likely to result in a mess of clutter for some artists and would not apply at all to the majority of artists. This kind of info is best left in the article body. Strobilus (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for copy-pasting your original argument. Very compelling. I would like to know which templates could have an awards section and don't. I went looking and found that the templates for MUSICAL, NFL PLAYERS/COACHES, SPORTS TEAM, SWIMMER, FASHION DESIGNER, RACE CAR DRIVER and even WRITER all have some variation on an awards section (e.g., Awards, Notable Awards, Championships, Medals). I say again, that if people can agree on which awards are viable in other categories then consensus can be reached here. There's just no credible reason why all these others should have the award section and Music Artist does not except that you've claimed ownership and won't allow it to happen. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

HELLO? You can't just kill this by not responding.--FilmFan69 (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, first of all, please calm down. There's no need to get incensed, resort to profanity, and then go into a flurry of canvassing. We're all aware that the discussion is still open; it's only been a day since you got involved. Second, don't assume that because no one's responded today that people are ignoring you. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and most users aren't checking these discussions every few hours. Third, maybe people would be more inclined to respond if you didn't insult them and accuse them of having some sort of vendetta, as you have in your last few comments. That isn't very polite or civil and makes it increasingly difficult for people to assume good faith on your part and to take your (otherwise valid) points seriously. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Point taken but you didn't even respond to the valid points made. As for canvassing, let's be very clear here. I went to all users involved in the discussion and left the appropriate message which was neutral (using the provided wiki template) That's not canvassing as I followed the wiki guideline to the letter. It would only have been canvassing if I only contacted like-minded users, which I did not do. I would have more faith in other users if they didn't merely copy-paste previous arguments rather than provide solid compelling evidence for resisting the change. --FilmFan69 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I haven't had a chance to check out the other infoboxes you brought up. I'm doing other things at the moment, but rest assured I (and others) will comment again in due time. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus that an awards field should not be added to the infobox. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Why single out this infobox for no awards inclusion when so many other have it? --FilmFan69 (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the all dissenting arguments don't hold up to the precedent established by other infoboxes. Does anyone have an argument that doesn't ignore precedent or any reasons why such precedent should be ignored?--Darknus823 (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FilmFan69, please stop adding notices/banners to the top of the discussion to draw people's attention to your comments and declaring them to be "more compelling". This is simply unacceptable behavior in a civil discussion. Please focus on discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments presented and stop waving flags to point to your own opinions. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, I have modified the banner to make it completely neutral (since you misread the first one. It's now 100% neutral, it only asks that people read the entire discussion. Do not delete it again and do not threaten me in edit summaries. --FilmFan69 (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification - when I wrote "more" on the first banner, it was used to mean "additional". You did not understand that and read it to be "greater". I pointed that out, and changed it accordingly and you deleted the banner anyway. Additional is a neutral term. I've changed it again to make it 100% neutral. --FilmFan69 (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No matter the language the intent is the same: You want people to focus on your comments and the comments of those who support your opinions. I did not threaten you, I merely pointed out that this is an inappropriate way to conduct discussion and that if you continue in this manner further action may be warranted beyond merely removing the banner comments. It is also completely unnecessary, since there are only 2 comments in the discussion which are more than a day old. I think we can assume that newcomers to the discussion will be intelligent enough to read the more recent arguments. Your comments in this discussion have not been entirely civil; In the RfC banner at the start of this discussion you even accuse those who disagree with you of fillibustering simply because your comments were not replied to fast enough for your liking. This makes it appear as though you are trying to dominate the discussion. I am going to step back for a while and let other interested editors chime in with their arguments. I respectfully suggest you do the same, as this line of arguing is getting us nowhere with respect to the actual point of the discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So to return us to the pertinent discussion as it is true that we have goten off topic. It has been proposed that an award section be added. This has been met with resistance despite ample precedence on many other infobox templates: MUSICAL, NFL PLAYERS/COACHES, SPORTS TEAM, SWIMMER, FASHION DESIGNER, RACE CAR DRIVER and even WRITER are some of the examples I have provided. This shows rather unequivocally that the norm is to have award sections on infoboxes where it's appropriate. If anyone has a compelling reason why this infobox should be singled out to not have the award section please share it. --FilmFan69 (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does this horse have to be dug up again just so we can beat it to death and bury it later. Awards sections are not required here. It would be just another musician infobox field nightmare. What is a notable award to include here. It's not like an athelete who has a defined league to get their awards from. This is music. Is a Grammy Award notable enough to include in an musician award field. Outside of the United States a Grammy Award is a useless piece of tin. Every country has their own "grammy". Some have resoruces that are easy to access. Some don't. The field would just be an "American award" field on a project that is supposed to be international. The US gets all stemmy over MTV music award shows and CMT music award shows. The rest of the world doesn't give a f**k about them. So does one of those awards merit inclusion in an a musician award field? No it doesn't. Just another useless field in an infobox that is already the coal for too many edit war flames. Leave it out. Libs (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this *ahem* discussion, and thinking along the same lines as Wiki libs, although I wouldn't have put it so strong. I think it's true that "industry" awards don't count as much among fans in music as in other fields, partly because music industries are divided by country, and most countries don't pay attention to the awards in other countries. (FilmFan, can you name the music awards cermonies of any country other than your own? And I say that without knowing which country you're in. Being a Canadian myself, I know the Canadian awards as well as American because we get all the American TV channels here, but I couldn't name awards from European countries off the top of my head.) (Oh wait, there's the Eurovision song contest, but I don't know if they give awards to artists, maybe just to songs.)

Another point is that there is nothing in this discussion that is preventing editors from mentioning awards in the body of an article, if such an award is important enough to mention. Using the infobox for this suggests that any time a musical group gets any award, it's worthy of mention, and there should be an effort made to find and document them all, similar to the way we have threaded infoboxes for #1 chart activity at the bottom of song and album articles, where they point to "previous" and "next" articles. I wouldn't want to see that here, given the questionalbe importance of awards to music fans. I know the press loves awards, but I don't think it's as big a deal to fans as it is in other fields. I'm also sure some fans who dislike the commercialism of music, look at awards as a put-on for advertising purposes, and feel particularly put off by them.

One more thing: IllaZilla was right to object to your placing a bold alert at the top of the article, asking others to read the whole section. It isn't done, and he was right to remove it, regardless of how "neutral" you think the wording is. When he said he was backing off this discussion for a while, you took advantage of that by putting it back, which was mean spirited. PLEASE show good faith by removing that paragraph. You now have two people asking you to do so. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To address these points one by one:
- Wiki Libs claims that it would be an American award field. Not true as has been proven with the actor field in particular - it has been used there to fine effect and obviously if it were a big issue then the field would have been removed. And Wiki Libs, I'm not getting "all stemmy"about some US award as the one I had wanted to add to an infobox was for a Brit Award. So take that and shove it in your snippy little craw.
- To Knight, actors are divided by country as well, like BAFTA, or simply see the list of awards List_of_film_awards Here. Until it's removed form the acting infobox then I can't imagine why it would be prohibited from the music one. I don't know where the assumption has been made that ANY award would be worthy of inclusion and the inevitable result is an edit war. Is the fact that a fan would be put off by some supposed commercialization reason to exclude it from mention? One of my favorite actors was J T Walsh - he never won an oscar but I didn't burn down the Academy as a result. If the award show is deemed "notable" enough for inclusion in Wikipedia how is it simultaneously not worthy of inclusion in the infobox?
- I've removed the oh-so-bold and offensive request from the top. You say "it isn't done". Does that imply precedent? Obviously if "it isn't done" then that conclusion had to have been drawn from a large sample. Right? So precedent works there but not here. I see. It's all clear to me now. - I'm sorry but you're just wrong. I'm right.

--FilmFan69 (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I copied my comments here from the last time we discussed this issue because I still have the same concerns. If we are to have an awards section in the infobox, what will be the criteria for inclusion? As users Libs and Knight have explained, cultural awards for music are very regional and come in many forms. As Wikipedia is an international project, any awards an artist wins would be better presented in the article body so their context and the significance of the awards can be explained.

Many of the infobox templates you've cited as precedence are sports-related and are therefore dealing with subjects that are all about competition, so awards are important in an encyclopedia article about the subject and merit inclusion in the infobox. Music is not inherently competitive, and awards for music exist as an afterthought. Awards won is not a vital statistic for musicians and does not need to be included in the infobox. Strobilus (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Which still leaves actors and writers which both have an awards section. Until those are removed then there is no plausible reason why music should be excluded. --FilmFan69 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm missing your point. The links you've placed in this reply do not appear to support your suggestion for the inclusion of an awards field. Is this personal prose, or has someone hi-jacked your account? - Steve3849 ^talk 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I have read the whole section. I've also looked through the various info boxes for people related to artists (not others such as competitors). It is true that many have "awards" fields, but I would not agree that there is a precedent. Some have no awards field. Some delineate the various "notable" awards in an expandable list of several separate fields. In the Actor box the selection of non-American awards seems arbitrary. Spain and Ireland are listed, but not France, Germany, Italy, or Japan (as examples). Cannes is not listed. Some artist info boxes simply request that the awards be placed in a single field be "notable". The term notable in these boxes are not described in their respective guides. This lack of definition for notability is one of the largest problems with an awards field for musicians. There are significantly many more musical artist articles and probably more musician articles than for artist, actor (which appears to include director), writer, "comic creator" and "tattoo artist" articles combined. Consequently, this implies that there are many more lesser notable awards to consider. Significantly more editors create articles of their favorite bands than do editors their favorite actors. Award notability here again becomes an issue for the field's use. One example of how this problem translates poorly to musicians is the existence of popular music journals that post awards annually (ie. Rolling Stone, Spin). These journals are often cited in article references (wikipedia is primary literary) making their awards potentially more notable. Another is the pervasive music festival trend, some of whom give awards. Although I agree, the pop music culture of various nations tend to disregard the awarding in other nations I do not however think that an existence of non-American awards is an issue if we are using other info boxes as examples of what works, or does not work. Although it would appear to be in wikipedia character to include the field for major awards (ie Grammys) I think having the field be included would be more trouble than its worth. - Steve3849 ^talk 15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Then because something is difficult we shouldn't include it? Your above argument is more of an indictment of the actor than a reason for leaving this section out. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The primary focus of my comment was meant to be and is on the lack of clarity regarding notability of the multitude of awards for musicians combined with the emmense quantity of music articles. To clarify, the concern has got nothing to do with difficulty of the work. Wikipedia being written 99.9% through volunteerism is testimony to that. Rather the concern is that adding the awards field would present another opportunity for increased rampant trivial messiness and bickering over the notability of music awards. - Steve3849 ^talk 21:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You've bested me this time Trebek. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. All this talk about "fillibustering", "resistance", etc. is completely different from the way I've been seeing this section. You asked for opinions on an idea, and for the most part the replies were consistent with what you asked for. I believe the main reason for the heatedness of the conversation, is that early on (you may have forgotten this), you stated you were going ahead with the changes, and I suspect people were strongly objecting because they thought you were trying to jump the gun. It also doesn't help that every opinion expressed here was followed by repeated counter-arguments from you, that appeared to be an attempt to "shoot down" and invalidate their opinions. I notice that nobody ever said, "Gee, you're right, in that case I withdraw my opinion", and the confrontational way you replied to everyone, discouraged any change of mind. Take a look at the whole thread, put yourself in the place of the other posters, and see if that isn't true. And yes, some others who posted here are guilty of the same thing. On the whole, this section is a good example of how not to propose an idea. The proposal itself seems to have been secondary to a perceived attempt to get one's way. We're here to decide what's best for WP, and it shouldn't be a contest. Now that it's over... no hard feelings, okay? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree with the other users. Plain and simple. They don't want it because it's supposedly would lead to edit wars and an an uncomfortably large info box. The actor box works so I feel leaving it out of this box is ridiculous. I'm not too worried if my responses are offensive so I really don't need to re-read the thread - I know exactly what I said. It's not about getting my way, I just feel that the other editors are plain wrong. Hard feelings? Who cares... --FilmFan69 (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Well I guess I do, since I said it. Real life is a lot more important than Wikipedia. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. That's why in the end it doesn't matter. --FilmFan69 (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this issue has produced another template fork: Template:Infobox Musical Artist 2. Is this second template necessary? Strobilus (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a bad faith create which was ignorant of consensus. IT has been redirected. Worth watching until it can be frozen from use on Wikipedia. Any bad-faith templates such as this should be reported asap so they can be turfed asap. Libs (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't used it anywhere so cheese off dudes. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, for clarification, FilmFan69 simply brought this discussion to my attention, although I didn't find out about it until now. I feel very strongly that this section be included, because it would be a good place to summarize the awards a group or musician was awarded, whether it be the Grammys or AMAs. Although this response may be a little late, I need to contribute my opinion. I believe the awards section should be purely optional, and should be regularly organized by making sure that it doesn't get overly crowded. A thing to consider is making it collapsible just like the awards for the film and TV stars. Cheers. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::sigh:: There is so much drama over here. I think any award should be included, not just the Grammys, not just the AMAs. I think it should be a field in which you can type the award received and for what and the year. For example, The Carpenters could have a collapsible box, that, when opened, says:

• Grammy Awards of 1971 - Best New Artist
• Grammy Awards of 1971 - Best Contemporary Song for "(They Long to Be) Close to You"
• Grammy Awards of 1972 - Best Pop Vocal Performance by a Duo or Group for Carpenters
• American Music Awards of 1974 - Favorite Pop/Rock Band, Duo, or Group

Cheers! – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

With that format, I think the (valid) hesitance is that we'll wind up with a lot of examples like this:

Fall Out Boy

• 2005 - Teen Beat magazine - Best hair
• 2006 - Tiger Beat magazine - Cutest smiles
• 2007 - Total Request Live viewer survey - Hottest lead singer

As I've said before, I actually think a collapsible awards box is a decent idea. But I think it should be a separate box that goes alongside an "Awards" or similar section of referenced prose. That way the awards are listed right next to the prose which contextualizes them. And I don't think we should allow any award to be included, because then we'll wind up with examples like this or "Ranked 32 on VH1's 'Top 100 hair metal videos of 1987 featuring the singer in spandex." --IllaZilla (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide examples where that has happened in any other infobox. Or is this just an assumption? --FilmFan69 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because the other infoboxes you brought up before control which types of awards can be added. What Obento Musubi is suggesting is something else: blank fields for editors to fill in with whatever types of awards they choose. That, I feel, is a Pandora's Box, as it would essentially turn it into a trivia section. I personally spend quite a bit of time fighting vandalism, cruft, and original research, and I feel that a section like that would provide ample playground for all 3. WikiProject Albums had problems like this in the past with the "Professional reviews" section of the Albums infobox, so they changed the description of the field to specify that "Due to their proliferation and dubious value, lists (e.g. Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s) may not be included." Further to that, they provide specific guidance on reliable and unreliable review sites. Now it is of course plausible that we could do something similar, or like the actor infobox we could go one step further by controlling which awards appear in the section. But the question is: Should we? Obento Musubi is suggesting a blank section with free reign to add any type of award. I've explained why I think that's a bad idea. The alternative, though, is placing the responsibility on this project to determine which awards are worthy of inclusion in the section and which aren't. I'm not very comfortable with that either, as it tends to be a subjective issue and, as we've seen in the proposals above, can become an "all or nothing" argument. And I'm still not convinced by the "other infoboxes have it, so this one should too" argument. If the same standards worked for every infobox, we wouldn't need different infoboxes for different projects and we could all just work off of Template:Infobox. Obviously that's not the status quo. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless my memory fails me, I was always more in favor of a controlled field like it is in the Actor box. I think that some consensus could be reached about what to include. I know there's cultural issues here, like is there a Ugandan version of the Grammy Award, etc etc. but nevertheless, if the field could allow for future additions as the notability of additional awards are verified. --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason the picture does not look right in the infobox on Peggy Zina. The infobox seems to be stretching/squishing the photo. Grk1011 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the dimensions of the picture. Try reducing the width of the image to 220 pixels and upload a new version. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 04:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding image dimensions, for some reason Image:The Fabs.JPG will only appear for me if it's exactly 220px. Strange? Gary King (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

NT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.140.158 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to add a new field to the infobox describing the artist's musical style? I've noticed that for many of the popular music artists out there, the infobox lists "pop" as their genre, even though pop isn't a genre. Additionally, while the idea is to list the artist's most general genre, infoboxes sometime contain upwards of five genres and subgenres, some of which are styles, and not genres per se. I propose that we add a field directly under "genre" called "style" that lists the musical style of the artists.

Take Michael Jackson for example. Instead of listing a million genres, why don't we follow this guide? His genre=R&B, his musical style= Dance-Pop, Urban, Motown, Pop/Rock, Club/Dance, New Jack Swing, Funk, as per Allmusic. In addition to finally being precise (Celine Dion is Rock (genre); adult contemporary, pop/rock (style)), the added advantage of this is that we can use Allmusic as a guide, so mentions of genres will be sourced, and not based on the whims of fans, such as those who think that Hip-hop should be listed as a genre of the Pussycat Dolls, simply because they did a song with Timbaland. Orane (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see this has change has already been made on the same day it was requested. I have a few comments:

• Can we please make the instructions for the new parameter similar to those for "genre"?:
  • Genres should be separated with a delimiter, either a comma or a line break (<br/>).
  • Genres should be linked (piped linked where needed)
  • Note that most genres aren't proper nouns, and shouldn't be capitalized, but the first word in the list should be

The examples do not conform to the latter two specifications, and should be changed so that they do.

• If there is agreement that styles should be linked, then it stands to reason that there should be an article (or section of an article) for every style to link to. In one of the examples, "urban" is not linked, and I presume no appropriate article exists, which suggests this is not a notable style, and maybe shouldn't be used. This is more of an issue with the examples that have been selected for the instruction page.
• Is it a good idea to instruct editors to refer to a commercial site for guidance to selecting genres and styles? Wikipedia is not in any kind of partnership with Allmusic, nor should they be. I can see problems with editors reverting changes and giving the reason that a genre does not match Allmusic's opinion, which is to be regarded as the sole authority in this matter, according to the template rules. Also, I don't see how we can depend on Allmusic's opinions remaining static, or that the site will be around forever, or be regarded as a good site in future (and of course, I have read some negativity about it at WP already). While I understand the concern about "whims of fans", it seems to go against the whole point of Wikipedia to insist that no edits be made in contradiction to a solitary source. Editors should be able to freely edit if they believe a better choice can be made. Any disagreements can be dealt with in the usual way (consensus, citing sources, etc.).
• The parameter should display as "Musical style(s)" to match genre(s) and label(s), especially since the instructions seem to be encouraging making a list.

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Separating "genre" and "style"
This page is a soft redirect. So#Why 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Whoah there, Hoss. I see Journalist went ahead and made this change immediately after suggesting it, without waiting for any discussion to take place. I'd like to see some consensus-building before we make significant changes to a template that's used in thousands of articles. Could we please revert for now and discuss this for a while? I for one think that "genre" and "style" are essentially the same thing, and as long as whatever's in the genre field can be attributed to a reliable source then there's no purpose served by changing our infobox to match Allmusic's method of categorizing genres. Also, I think the discussion should take place here since it's specifically a change to the infobox that's being suggested. Redirect the discussion at the Musicians project to here. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been reverted back to the discussed and agreed on version. I believe this topic has been brought up several times in the past and each time is has failed. Yes it does make some sense to do it in that format. Problem is that the bulk of Wikipedia editors don't even know how to edit the single genre field properly at all. Adding two field will just compound the confusion. Also, there has already been a huge amount of chat and agreement across several music related Wiki-projects that lean towards not allowing Allmusic to be used as a reference for genres at all since there is so much ongoing dispute over Allmusic's choice of genres to begin with. An idea with good intentions. But if this sort of separation between genre and style (and everyone knows Wikipedia is not an accurate/trustworthy resource for genre in the first place) then this division between genre and style should have been put into place 2 or 3 years ago. Right or wrorng, Wikipedia is on a pretty concrete path when it comes to this topic. And, unfortunately, I think it's too late to turn back now. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the change was made too quickly. The difference between genre and style is not clearly defined. I do find labelling musicians and bands by genre can often be ambiguous and misleading and think that allmusic's use of "style" categories does help define characteristics of any particular artist. So, based on allmusic: use of "style" is tempting. However, wikipedia is still not a place of original research and allmusic has not set the standard. Yet, if wikipedia adopts this sub-categorization of "style" then it likely will become the standard. - Steve3849 ^talk 01:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is really unnecessary and bound to cause more problems than it'll solve. While Allmusic is a valuable source for genres, I'm rather wary about how it's now being used as the final word how to organize infobox templates. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have requested that User:Journalist undo this hasty change until proper discussion has taken place and a consensus reached. Unfortunately he seems to be done for the day so another admin will need to revert the change if he doesn't return quickly to undo his wrong-doing. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me Anger22. First off, let me apologize for being too hasty with my edits. I should have waited. However, I was under the (wrong) assumption that no one would reply, since no discussion has taken place on this page for a week or so.

There is a definite distinction between genre and style. This stems from the fact that there are some type of music (according to Wikipedia itself) that is a style, or a radio format, rather than a broad genre of and within itself.

The thing that initially fueled my intentions was the fact that many artists on here are listed as "pop artists" (Celine Dion, Madonna, Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, and an infinite list of artists) when pop isn't even a genre. It's confusing and contradictory to see "Genre=pop" in the infobox, only to find the article about pop music declaring that pop doesn't refer to a particular genre, but rather mainstream music. However, many people may be opposed to referring to these artists as rock artists— which they actually are. "Musical style", therefore, would help to specify the manifestation of rock, R&B etc that is a part of the repertoire of each artist. Celine Dion, Madonna, and Fall Out boy are all artists from the Rock genre. Amy Winehouse, Beyonce and Aretha Franklin are all R&B artists. However, the "musical style" of each artist (subject matter/lyrical content, radio format, sound, use of instruments) are distinct, which would be made clear with the style column. I think it's very useful.

PS, urban actually has a link, to anyone who said it doesn't :). Lastly, All music is actually a very reputable source. And on one said that it would have the final say. There are other sources. Orane (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pop is definitely a genre, by the way. Poorly serviced on Wikipedia, but it's been long described by reliable sources. The genres and styles division is prety much unique to Allmusic; most other sources simply term what Allmusic calls "Styles" as "subgenres". WesleyDodds (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done a lot of research on it. Pop is not a genre. Rock, R&B etc are genres of pop music, but pop is a blanket term for either music of the populace (music that is "in", that is for everyone=pop culture), or music that is being charted on mianstream charts. Orane (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also mainstream pop, which does cover everything from 50s pop crooners to the Carpenters to Michael Jackson to boy bands. This is why further complicating the genre field is not a good idea. WesleyDodds (talk) "04:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "there is also mainstream pop"? Is there any other kind of pop? All you mentioned is pop/mainstream music, which is what I've been talking about. You seem to be the only one who is confused. In any case, please don't understate this discussion to simply about confusion about pop music. That's not really the issue. Orane (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My comments were an aside anyways. What's important to note is that it's a fallacy to say that there are "genres" and there are "styles". Often they are synonyms. I don't see this new field being helpful. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "there is also mainstream pop"? Is there any other kind of pop? - actually, there are a lot of them. Please see Indie pop. Then Baroque pop. Then Chamber Pop. Netrat (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, this is why I would be in favor of removing the "genre" field entirely (I'm not suggesting that, as I don't want to open a hornet's nest...just saying that hypothetically if it were up for discussion I'd support cutting it). An infobox is an at-a-glance summary, and as such it should stick to basic, simple information that is uncontroversial & easily verifiable. The more subjective info, like genres and styles, belongs in the article body where it can be explained in context and properly referenced. IMHO stuff in the infobox should be so straightforward that it doesn't even need to be referenced (as the info should be referenced in the article body anyway). For example, stating in the infobox that the Ramones were from Forrest Hills in Queens and active from 1974–1996 is completely unctontroversial, easily verified, and indeed already referenced in the article body. Apparently, though, we can't agree what genres they fall into. The constant edit- and revert-warring over genres in infoboxes just drives me nuts, and as the editors before me have pointed out it's almost impossible to summarize an artist's genres and styles as some kind of bullet-pointed list. You need sources, discussion, and context, which can only be adequately provided in an article body. The infobox is simply a poor place to try to summarize these things, as they are often controversial and not really easily verifiable and just lead to POV problems. I just can't support adding more fields that will only compound this problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Genre isn't really that controversial, only with a few artists and usually due to the differing attitudes and opinions of editors. There's certainly a usefulness for it in the infobox. But this "genre/styles" division has no grounding. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Only with a few artists? I've worked on dozens of musical artist articles and can't recall offhand a single one that didn't have some sort of edit war over genre at some point. Granted this problem mostly stems from the POVs of editors, but it's a widespread problem nonetheless. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are edit wars about everything. There are reliable sources on particular sub-genres for particular artists (such as AMG), so genre is not a POV field. If some uneducated editors replace verified information with mere opinions, this is not a good reason to get rid of the information. Netrat (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

IllaZilla, that a good point. However, the edit warring and reverting would cease if people would even follow the instruction given on the template page: list the most general genre. The Ramones is a Rock band, in general terms. Styles could list Punk or college rock etc. I think it would have helped to have the style field in this case.Orane (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How would that help? The instability would move from "genre" to "style". Gimmetrow 05:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Artists usually perform a variety of styles, so all of these could be listed, and maybe satisfy those who are arguing about which single music style/genre is most appropriate. But as a side note, there really shouldn't be any quibbles over genres. I notice that many editors debate endlessly over what genre(s) to list, while failing to cite sources. It's not up to us, really. People may doubt Allmusic, but it's one of the best databases out there. Orane (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, as it becomes as much about what a band isn't as what it is, meaning people will happily remove what they don't agree with. Take, for instance, Cradle of Filth. Everyone can agree that they are heavy metal (or, if that's too specific to be a genre, 'rock') but from there, people will argue they are extreme metal, melodic death metal, extreme gothic metal, symphonic black metal and so on. Black metal purists often refuse to accept that Cradle of Filth are anything to do with black metal, so rather than adding their own pet genre to the 'style' section (say, "vampyric metal" or "fourth wave of gothic metal" or something equally stupid) they will just remove references to black metal. This may slow the current wars over genre classification a little, but it won't remove them all, and will leave us with huge long subjective lists of 'information' in the infoboxes, and will create new arguments as people fight for their favourite genres to have the right to be called 'genres' rather than 'styles'. In short, I do not support this proposal at all. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this very topic (as 156.X) with the noble Wiki alf over a year ago. (it was actually more of a rant on my part which he politely tolerated) For Wikipedia the entire genre subject is the Achilles Heel for the project. My rant to Alf was similar to the suggestion above. Wiki should distinguish between genre and style. But even then we decided that.. yes... dividing genre and style was the correct thing to do. But that it was something that should have been done way back in 2004-2005. Because at this point in the project... if we try to attempt it... no one will get it right. As it is people are stuffing the genre field with things like "power ballad" and "NWOBHM" and "British Invasion" and "arena rock" and "Acoustic rock" etc etc etc etc which are terms that have no place being in the genre field in the first place. If we use heavy metal as an example, most of the die-hard rivetheads will scream until their blue in the face that heavy metal is a genre unto itself and will never admit that it is just a sub-genre (style) of Rock. So we'll never get any of them putting Rock in the genre field and heavy metal in the style field. Editors like User:SlayerXT spend all day removing the link to Rock music from musician/album/song infoboxes. He is just one of a thousand who have that bad habit. All Music Guide has already been pretty much turfed as an RS for genres. I have no problem with it. But there are a large number of regular editors who don't like it. The genre field is already the source of just about every edit war for most music related article. Add another field and we'll just end up doubling the number of edit wars. Libs (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. You raised some very good points. Many people put info like "ballads" or "adult contemporary" etc into the genre field, and I spend a lot of time trying to remove it and explain that it doesn't belong there. I agree that the change happened too quickly, but the infoboxes actually worked quite well for many pages. THe Michael Jackson page for example was the cite of edit wars regarding genre. However, after his genre was designated (R&B/Rock), and his styles listed (Motown, dance-pop, etc), an editor actualy liked it enough to thank me. The Beetles page was also the source of much contention, which I think the infobox helped: Genre= Rock, Musical_style Pop, rock & roll, psychedelic, merseybeat, pop/rock, folk-rock. And everything was sourced. It was far more accurate than the other version.

I hope people can consider its usefulness, rather than their own personal attitude towards such an addition. This project affects every music page on Wikipedia, and it shouldn't be only up to the members of this project to decide (there's even editors saying that we shouldn't change "our" infobox). Even now, another editor, XxJoshuaxX, is voicing his approval. Orane (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of that, there is a BIG infobox at the top of this talk page which says changes to the template itself are only to be made by an administrator, and this instruction was not followed. As for someone calling it "our" infobox, the infobox was designed and is maintained by the WikiProject, whose members seek to determine what is to be changed, although suggestions, comments, and even votes from non-members should be welcome. Does this violate the spirit of WP? I don't think so in this special case where the infobox is used in so many articles. (And by the way, I'm not a member of this or any WikiProject.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as an insult, I meant it as a plea. and I don't understand the administrator comment. I am an administrator, so that bit of direction was actually adhered to. And as a side note, are you telling me that I can create my own infobox then? Orane (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, put egg on my face. :) All along, I didn't realize that Orane and Journalist were the same person, and foolishly didn't check to see if you are an administrator. I guess this invalidates half the comments I've been making. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with original idea, but I'd say that we'd better leave genre field as is (without remaning it to "style"), but add an additional meta-genre field. We already have color classification, when blues sub-genre infoboxes are in blue, сarribbean music sub-genres infoboxes are in green, etc. It would be natural to state meta-genres explicitly. Netrat (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

Setting aside the "style" issue for a moment, I have a proposal that may help us move towards quelling edit-warring in the "genre" field. The album infobox uses special coding for the "type" of album (studio, live, EP, etc.). Depending on which type you put in the field, it will automatically affect the color of the infobox and add a wikilink to the article about that type of album (box set, for example). If you put an album type in the field that there isn't a code for, it doesn't display and instead gives you a generic beige background. What if we created a similar type of coding for genres? We could build up a list of genres here and cause them, when entered in the "genre" field, to automatically produce a wikilink to the article on that genre. Typing "jazz", for example, would cause "Jazz" to appear in the infobox, while typing "rock" would give you the piped link "Rock". If you typed in a genre that wasn't supported by the coding, such as "laptop emo" or "vampiric black post-hardcore", it simply wouldn't display at all in the page view.

As I see it the advantages of this approach are:

1. It would create consistency by ensuring that every genre appearing in the infobox is wikilinked to the article on that genre.
2. It would make maintenance easier—If a genre article is moved or renamed, we simply change the coding in the infobox and the redirects are automatically fixed across all articles using the template.
3. In a way this would force editors to follow the "aim for generality" guideline, because if they typed in anything that wasn't on the list (say something that would be considered a sub-genre or style), it wouldn't appear.
4. It would help with stability—As long as the template page stayed protected, then overzealous/POV editors couldn't add or remove the genre types on a whim.

It wouldn't be a permanent solution. We'd have to work on building the genre list, and I'm sure there would still be disagreements. And if we added a "style" field I'm sure the edit-warring would just continue there. But at least the genre field would be somewhat stabilized. I see this as acting sort of like a filter, to make sure that only genres are in the genre field and not sub-genres or styles. We could worry about that separately. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughly disagree. We shouldn't need to force editors to edit the way we want them to. This is a Wikiproject. None of the information here should be considered "guidelines". They're mere suggestions to make music articles consistent. Also, (and this is something that I'm going to start gunning for) no one should be edit warring and debating which genre is appropriate. We should cite sources. It's not up to us. Orane (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, though. This is a template. Editors don't have to use it. By default we, the people who are designing and changing the template, are forcing (I would say "guiding" or "nudging") editors who use it to act in certain ways. That's why we discuss adding or removing fields to/from the template here before we actually go forward with it. It's all well and good to say that "no one should be edit warring and debating which genre is appropriate", but nonetheless it's something that happens all the time, even when sources are provided. You act as if this is surprising and something that doesn't happen very often, but most of us who are involved with Musical artist and Album articles deal with it on a daily basis. And however much you're "gunning for" it to stop, it's such a widespread problem that I doubt you'll have much success unless you somehow gain super powers. And in fact Wikipedia "forces" editors to edit in certain ways all the time through the use of bots, warnings, blocks and the like. Sure, we all wish everyone would stick to sources and stay in the top tiers of the disagreement heirarchy, but the reality is most people who war over genres either don't care about sources or choose to only acknowledge ones that they agree with personally. My proposal is not an iron-fisted rule on how to edit, merely a set of parameters to govern where different types of information go in the template (genres go in the genre field, styles go in the style field if we create one). Wasn't that kind of the point of your initial proposal anyway? I mean, surely you wouldn't object to a coding tweak that prevented an image from being displayed in one of the text fields (like if someone was trying to put a picture of the New York City skyline in the "origin" field rather than typing "New York, New York"). That's kind of what I was gunning for months ago when we decided that the "name" field was text-only and not the appropriate place to slap logo images; I would've liked to have seen a coding tweak that prevented images from being displayed in that field. This is not too dissimilar of a proposal, and not really that radical when you consider the constant POV wars that take place in the genre field across WP. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of the constant edit warring. Pop music articles are my main area of expertise. Believe me, I'm privy to all the issues that arise. Let me say though, that citing sources is the foundation of every article, and takes precedence over almost every other policy. If an editor fails to accept a point that is sourced with an authoritative outside source, then it's too bad for him. If you ask me, there is hardly anything to fuss about. Inform him that verifiability, and not truth is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, and if he ignores that rule, then we protect the article, or block him, because by then, it just borders on disruption and original research. Simple as that. Subjectivity plays no part in an issue like this. But hey, that's just me. I'll use my superpowers to see what I can do :) I've been honing them since childhood :) Time to put them to good use.

Yes, I know that Wikipedia compels people to follow certain rules. However, what I was implying was that this WikiProject lacks the force and authority of one of the more standard policies. But yes, I do see some similarities between both our points, and I understand your concern. Orane (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I know we aren't supposed to rehash the "styles" issue here (though let me say I don't like it; I'm not really sure myself where genre ends and style begins). But since we don't have it, I think "genre" needs to be flexible enough to specify more than just "rock" or "pop". These categories are just too wide, will contain artists with little in common, and cover very different music from different eras. As for the problem of continually changing genres, I suspect the existing genres in articles (for artists, albums, and especially songs) are often incorrect, and I don't mind looking at a change to a genre, and thinking about whether it's a good change. Let me also confess to secretly enjoying reverting bad genre changes, so this "problem" isn't something I mind fixing. I should also point out that some reverters are often rash. For example, recently an editor who has contributed to this section (name and diff withheld to protect the guilty) reverted an anon IP's genre change on a song from "blues rock" back to "psychedelic rock" on a song that is clearly blues and not at all psychedelic, even though the group performing it could be classified as psychedelic. I think the editor was just reverting out of habit. (I didn't change it back, but maybe I will, now that I'm thinking about it again.) Anyway, I guess I'm trying to agree with Illazilla's observation that genres are editors' opinions more often than from cited sources, and maybe going further in saying that I don't see how it could be any other way, especially since the "sources" tend to be no less opinionated and debatable. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of the edit warring, i like this proposal. But it would only work with styles used as well. But as you guys said, styles would just turn into the next genre's to have edit wars over. WP has put itself in a rediculous position with the current and past guidelines, i'd estimate 90+% of articles have genres in the infobox that are POV, and definitely not sourced (someone touched on the fact that even sourced genres can be POV, because people choose to ignore the ones they don't agree with). AMG is all the editor/author's opinion there, i don't see it as a single reference, there's more verifiability behind a discussed WP genre, that has reached consensus. As to what to do about this, i'm not so sure. Needs some action taken. kiac (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, per Journalist. We should not force editors to use a very limited list of very generic genres! Netrat (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, I didn't expect this proposal to be met with much enthusiasm. I merely wanted to draw renewed attention to the POV problems we have in the genre field and the fact that there are probably ways we could adjust the template to help control this. Of course when push comes to shove I'm still in favor of removing the genre field entirely (due to it being a POV magnet), so you can pretty much consider this proposal withdrawn. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Musical artist2

It was brought to my attention that User:Journalist went ahead and created his own version of this infobox—Template:Infobox Musical artist2—with the "style" field that he wanted added, and has applied it to several articles (Nelly, Celine Dion, & a few others). I'm not really sure how to feel about this. On the one hand, no one is required to use one particular template vs. another, and there's no "rule" that says an editor can't create their own templates to use as they see fit, and I even applaud the application of WP:BOLD. On the other hand, though, I see this move as reactionary to the fact that Journalist (aka Orane)'s proposal wasn't enthusiastically received here, and I don't think that running off & creating your own template because consensus went against you is really the right way to go. I realize there have only been a half-dozen or so participants in this discussion, which it could be argued doesn't truly constitute a consensus, but collectively we all have tons of Wiki experience (particularly with musical artist articles) and I think based on the above arguments we're capable of reasonably assessing whether consensus on a proposal is heading one way or the other. I think Journalist really jumped the gun here by creating his own template, seemingly to circumvent WP:MUSICIANS. While the Wikiproject of course doensn't dictate anyone's editing practices, it does pool the experience of many editors acting in good faith to improve & standardize these types of articles. This infobox is used in tens of thousands of articles, so it clearly has some widespread acceptance across the project. That's why we discuss potential changes and try to form consensus first. I personally don't think that making a change without discussion, as Journalist did here initially, and then creating your own template for use in articles that you edit when consensus isn't leaning your way, reflects a spirit of collaboration. Would other editors care to comment on this? There are a couple of relevant discussions here and here. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The pov box from the Celine Dion article once already but User:Journalist overstepped his admin privileges and put his personal box back. Journalist overstepped has admin privileges on a number of thing with regards to his own personal pov and, judging by some of his comments on the Anger22 page he was close to having his admin status put up for review. I do not agree that no one is required to use any one particular template. Why do we have a Project for this if everyone can just go and do their own thing? Wikipedia is all about consensus. There was no consensus for Journalist's POV box. There was no discussion at all. Poor form/poor etiquette. He should have done the right thing and deleted his Frankenstein until a proper talk was held. One project, one box based on consensus. Libs (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the template fork for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 14. Prolog (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that, yes, User:Journalist originally approached my talk page with an uncivil personal attack. But as our conversation progressed it became positive and constructive and ended in agreement that at some point we would work together on a music related article. So any questions or concerns about the user's sysop privileges were resolved as far as I was concerned. That being said I also believed that, at the conclusion of our conversation, that he would delete his test template from Wiki. I was wrong. I believe the project should only have a single infobox with fields agreed on by discussion on this page. I also support the idea that a music project can reject the use of the musician infobox and create their own, as a community and not as an individual. The WikiProject Composers has a consensus not to use the WP:MUSICIAN infobox. And that is fine. That was a group decision. I do not think they have created one of their own. I represent the WikiProject:Guitarists who had their own infobox which was superior to the current musician infobox. But it was decided to delete that project's infobox to avoid confusion and conflict between which box to use for certain artists.(IE "notable guitarist" vs. musician who simply "played guitar"). Whatever fields are added or removed from the infobox should be decided here. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was the musical styles part removed? You do realize that it's useful,right? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it was removed because it was originally added without discussion. But I agree it's useful, as there is a lot of contention between genre and style on some articles, and this seems to be the appropriate compromise. Jезка (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please add the musical styles part back,as it is very useful for solving the problem of people who don't want to aim for generality. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion immediately above this one. We're discussing the merits of adding a "style" field. It was previously added without any discussion, then quickly reverted so we could form some consensus before making a significant change to a template that's used in thousands of articles. If you want to participate in the discussion, please go ahead. But the field isn't going to be re-added until we reach some kind of consensus. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted images See here for background. If an image is deleted and consequently removed from the template by User:Commons Delinker, text remains in the infobox. Is there any way to make this text disappear if there is no image? If this post doesn't make sense, please let me know an I'll try to elucidate.

I think the template is already handling the problem by showing parts of the tag that would not display if the image were present. The purpose is to highlight to the editor, Zariane, that the edit was not complete: S/he has left behind some information which suggests an image should be here. The software can't determine whether or not it is the editor's intention to have an image here, if only half of the information is present. Editors are supposed to take a glance at the results of their edits. The problem in this case is human error, and the software is doing its best to point it out. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Where the "occupation" field applies, it should be before "genres" and "instruments", because these fields don't make sense when speaking of non-artist. And this template doesn't mention anywhere else this detail, so this field should introduce artist-related ones.--190.31.165.125 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The template is called "Musical artist", so it shouldn't be used for anyone who is a non-artist. I don't understand the rest of your post. But I can't see how displaying data in a certain order causes it to make no sense. Can you point us to a specific page using this template, where you think there is a problem? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a valid point here if you look at the example template for a solo artist or individual. "Instrument" and "Voice type" appear before "Genre" in the template code, but in the example genre appears first. Logically I think Occupation should appear first, followed by instrument, then voice type, then genre. This just makes sense in an order-of-information way. First you have to establish that a person is a singer or musician (occupation), then you say what they play (instrument or "vocals"), then their voice type if it's a vocalist, then the genre that they play. So for the example (Mariah Carey) you first say she's a singer, then her voice type, then her genres. For, say, Josh Freese it would appear Occuption=drummer, Instument=drum kit, Genre=whatever. This just makes a lot more sense to me than listing genres before you even establish that the person is a musician. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bump. Anyone agree? Can we move on this? --IllaZilla (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as anything other than minor/trivial/why?... but... that being said... is there any harm in it? I'm certainly not going to hiss n spit over it if it really needs to be done. It's not much of an issue to have anyone spin their wheels over it. Just do it and move on to bigger salmon. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Good idea. – IbLeo (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. Occupation is a key piece of info and should appear before info related to it, i.e. genre and instruments. mattbr 08:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Where to list Sublime's mascot Lou Dog? I would suggest to list it as a former member stating it was the mascot, or maybe as a footnote. Any opinions?

This is something that needs to be discussed on the band's page, where editors are knowledgeable about the subject. I don't think any official decision can be made here about an obscure exception to normal use of the field. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just discuss it in the section on the band's history or in a section of its own. A dog, however often it went on tour and wandered around onstage, is not a band member. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

((editprotected))

Please change:

((#if:(({Birth_name|))}|
! style="white-space:nowrap;" ((!)) Birth name
((!)) (({Birth_name))}

to:

((#if:(({Birth_name|))}|
! style="white-space:nowrap;" ((!)) Birth name
((!)) <span class="nickname">(({Birth_name))}</span>

(alternatively, the class can be added directly to the TD). This will include the "birth name" as a "nickname" value in the template's hCard microformat. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not done: The value of |Alias= is already set as the "nickname" value in the hCard. Why would you want to add another? Happy‑melon 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"nickname" is a plural property in hCard (and vCard) and so can legitimately be used more than once. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant that "full name" is not a 'nickname' - that's what |Alias= describes. If a person has no |Alias= field defined, they have no verifiable nickname, so we shouldn't be substituting with |Birth_name=. If there's an hCard class for "real name" we should be using that, but I don't think we should be saying that a person's real name is also their nickname. Happy‑melon 14:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see how it might read counter-intuitively, but if we record, say, "Sting" as a person's "fn" ("formatted name") in their vCard, it's correct to use an instance of the "nickname" field (which might be better called "alternative name", but we have to work with what we've got) to note that they're also known as "Gordon Sumner"; regardless as whether they have another alias/ nickname. hCard has no "real name" property, other than "fn" (or "n", but that's just a granular form of the "fn"). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it.  Done Happy‑melon 16:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How very sensible! Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before, but for single artists, this infobox needs the field "NICKNAME." Editors routinely put nicknames in the "alias" field, only to have those nicknames removed. I have seen FAR MORE nicknames in the alias box than actual aliases. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the issue of certian articles, not this infobox. There's nothing wrong with listing nichnames under alias field, given the fact is widely known or can be supported by reliable sources. Show me the people who remove "The Godfather of Soul" from James Brown's alias field (or "G Child" from Warren G's alias field) and I will join you in beating them :-) In fact, I would suggest using discussion page first, adding a link to reliable source if this does not help and asking admins to interfere if this does no help either. Admins would almost always ban the user who reverts claims supported by reliable sources. Netrat (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently, there is a label category for music artists & bands, however there isn't a section for Management. This section should be added so that those interested in getting in touch with their management will know exactly where to go for booking information or questions, just like the label is listed on there. --Ivygirl16 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC) ivygirl16

I think of the label information being there for discography purposes, rather than contact. Most contact-related links are discouraged at WP. Another point is that the infobox is intended for an "at-a-glance" summary of the article, and usually duplicates information found elsewhere in the same article. If someone is looking for management contact, and if such contact is permitted at WP, it will be found in the external links. Is there much of an advantage to putting it in the infobox as well? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the reason. Wikipedia is not a booking service. The article will have a link to the band's official website, if any, and through there a reader may be able to find management & contact info. Providing contact info is not part of our mission. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No free advertising for nn companies that wouldn't pass WP:CORP and get a Wikipedia article. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to request a vote: Back in April 2008, Save-Me-Oprah brought up the question of adding a "Spouse" field, but this was never addressed. Assuming the field is only available to solo artists, do you believe we should include or not include the field. If you vote to include the field, do you vote for the field partner (subject to the same source requirements as all other parts of the article) or spouse to be used? -- Saaga (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see a purpose for it. 95% of the entries in the field will just be nn names. Plus it would be a target for vanity vandalism with fan-trolls adding their own names as spouse to the field. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• The original suggestion to include such a field only states that because the actor infobox has a spouse field there is no reason for the musician infobox not to have one. A double negative with the actor box as a model does not convince me. Notability for such a field in the musician infobox would appeal specifically to celebrity rather than music. For example, Tommy Lee's infobox would include Spouse: Pamela Anderson. Now, how does one accurately edit divorce and reunite dates? ... and what about his girl friends and rumored dates? Perhaps a "People dated" field, or "Favorite groupies" field would also be notable. The scientist infobox has no spouse field. Yet Albert Einstien's spouse is notable. Not include. - Steve3849 ^talk 16:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not include - I agree with Steve & Libs' assesments. Appeals to celebrity rather than music, and opens up issues of confusion with regard to divorce/reunion/domestic partner/what-have-you. We want to avoid this infobox becoming as cluttered with fields as Infobox person, which is why we have an occupation-specific infobox in the first place. Even that infobox cautions "Do not use all these parameters for any one person...Only use those parameters that describe why the person is notable." For 95% of musicians, who their spouse is has little or nothing to do with why the musician is notable. They are notable for their musical career, and so the infobox is limited to fields that are relevant to that context. The original proposal based on "this other infobox has it" is not convincing. Save-Me-Oprah made the same proposal a second time and it didn't pass then either, nor did his proposal to add "net worth". No need to rehash a proposal that's already been shot down twice...third time's not the charm on this one, I'm afraid. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Though I can't speak for all readers and ignoring the fact that I am an editor as we pretty much all are here, I can think of no useful reason why I want to see which person is ceremonially tied to which, even if they are both famous per the Einstein example (my thanks for that eloquence there :)), when learning about a musician. The 'spouses' bearing in the subject's musicality is either nil or will be for inclusion, per the normal requirements, in the text of the article itself, where such an influence can be put into contenxt. Agreeing with all comments so far pointing to not include.--Alf ^melmac 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not include per above. Netrat (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Not Include. But as for an awards entry....kidding. --FilmFan69 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm missing out the color codes of the headers, like in the text presented under "Display" (the table). Please insert that in the text or list it here. Thanks, --77.4.109.198 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the colors of the header banners that appear in the infobox? Template:Infobox Musical artist#Background has the parameters. Type the code into the "background" field of the infobox and you'll get the corresponding color. For example, typing "group_or_band" causes the banners to appear in blue. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell us the page where this is a problem? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmm genre field is not working.. someone removed it, revert it immediately! --Kmaster (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Time_to_remove_genre_section_on_info_box.3F - Steve3849 ^talk 17:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This was not properly announced. I'm watching this page but not WikiProject_Music, so it went unnoticed by me until today. I second this. The removal of genre field is worst thing to ever happen to WikiProject_Music! Netrat (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some confusion over the overdue removal of this field. A bot should be fired up to handle the overwhelming task. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to object to the removal of the genre field. Why was this discussion not widely publicized, ie. among WikiProjects and editors? Also, album, single, and song infoboxes still have genre fields, so I think it's a bit silly to not take that into account. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It was brought up at all projects. The overall result was to remove them. And all of the commentary coming from editors today as they have been learning about it has been nothing but positive. It is the most overkilled POV edit war battlefield on Wikipedia. And it is a change that should have been implemented 2 years ago. The song/single box has been exempt, temporarily, and to be discussed in the next few weeks. The result, based on the overwhelming postive response from the musician/album changes will likely be to push the field out of those boxes as well. It's an "opinion" field... nothing more... nothing less. And opinions needs ctations and that sort of content is better placed in the article... not the box. The removal of the genre field from the song box can't come too soon. As mentioned already.... it'll be a great day on Wikipedia that someone doesn't have to rm 'heavy metal' from the Revolution page. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading the discussions now, and only a few editors were involved. Also, note that other media infoboxes (such as novels) list genres. Genres aren't "opinions"; there is much academic study of them. Removing the field from music infboxes is addressing the symptoms of problems best dealt with on a one-by one basis in each article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That was discussed. We tried that. We've been trying it for a long long time. It failed. Failed miserably. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel the discussion needs be held at a wider level, or at least find a way to bring more people into the discussion. This is not something that should be settled lightly. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: At present, the genre field has been removed from both the Musical artist and Album infoboxes. You may see some articles in which it still appears; this is because you are looking at a cached version. If you purge your cache (or hit refresh) you should see it take effect the Wikipedia servers are displaying cached versions of those articles. As the servers purge their caches, or as the articles are edited, you will see the change take effect (you can also see it by opening the edit window and then saving the page...this makes no change to edit history but forces the server to purge the article's cache). It still remains in the song and single infoboxes because it was decided that a separate discussion was probably needed for that. The discussion took place at Wikiproject Music (here), and was publicized at Wikiproject Musicians (here), Wikiproject Albums (here), and Wikiproject Songs (here). The discussion went on for 2½ weeks, beginning on Sept. 21, with overwhelming consensus in favor of removing the field. The change was implemented today, Oct. 8. We can certainly discuss further here; I just wanted to lay out the history of the proposal and its implementation here so we're all on the same page about how this was arrived at. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What we need to discuss is on what date do we remove the field from the song box. Todays changes have been an overwhelming success (minus one complainer) We should really get a push on to get the stupid field out of the songs ASAP. I have admin friends blocking IPs on a daily basis over edit warring genres in song articles. The edit wars were most prominent in the musician boxes. But that doesn't mean they don't happen over songs too. How many times does someone have to delete ballad or power ballad from a song box before enough is enough? I have been here for four+ years. And today is the first day I can honestly say that the music editing community finally hit a home run. We hit a couple of triples when we killed flags and logos. But todays changes are out of the park fantastic. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice analogy, I like it :) and I agree with it, we definitely hit a home run with this one. However, it's only been ½ a day since implementation. Let's hold our breath a tad longer before we go hitting the Songs box with the same bat. Note: I'm in favor or removing genre from the song box, I just think that charging headlong into it, bats swinging, is going to cause more upset. WesleyDodds is kinda right on one thing: We didn't get much input from the Wikiprojects. We made the effort by posting notices on the project talk pages, but even so we only got input from 15 editors altogether before implementation. With a change that involves 4 Wikiprojects, I had expected more editors to join the conversation. I think we gave a reasonable amount of time, but obviously making a change with as much ripple effect as this is going to attract a lot of attention. I don't see the harm in waiting a day or 2 to see if we get more feedback from other editors before we make our last swing of the inning. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a time for politic'ing to the prissy and then there is a time to take WP:BOLD by the b*lls and just say f*ck it... no more spinning wheels. We've been mamby pamby wheel spinning around here for too long and it just gets in the way of progress. I have 30000+ edits as an anon and now with this new ugly account I am getting up to 10K. How many of my edits were just a waste of time reverting pages back to long since beat-to-death consensus agreements and chasing POV trolls and soapboxers around? 50 vandals slip through while we read back through talk pages trying to figure out if an edit is contradicting a long history of discussion and consensus. It's nice to AGF that all editors will follow rules and use talk pages to work out their differences. But as the history of music related pages on Wiki tells us.... this just doesn't work here. Time to put away the politeness feather and take out the "this is how it always should have been" sledgehammer. This is how it always should have been. Why did it take so long for us to figure it all out? The Real Libs-speak politely 01:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? If you wish to comment, please do so there. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Please explain something to me. Please. I was castigated and heavily criticized for being hasty in making a change to the template a few weeks/month ago. And now, here we are hastily deleting a field from the template and completely ignoring the ongoing discussion that still ensues. A discussion that saw new comments being added today (the 9th), and editors asking about getting more people involved, since he, like I, realizes a discussion that is going to affect every music related article on the English Wikipedia, needs the support of more than seven people. Someone please explain the logic in this. Orane (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what, probably only a bureaucrat or even higher can help in this. I just don't understand the logic. Someone spends hours, even days, weeks even, on developing an article to its potential. Then suddenly, the articles are placed under the Wikiproject Music, where a handful of editors get to impose their subjective ideologies and changes into the article, and everyone is supposed to stand back and accept it? Goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. Orane (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite as rash as you make it out to be, I'm afraid. You made a change to the template a half day after suggesting it, without waiting for a single response to your proposal. That was out of line. This proposal, on the other hand, was discussed for 2½ weeks, notices were placed on the key project talk pages, and at least 15 editors contributed to the discussion before any change was made. At that point the discussion had more or less petered out with an overwhelming consensus in favor of the change. Would I have liked to have more editors get involved in the discussion? Certainly, and it seems that since the change was made more people are taking notice (it would have been better if they'd taken notice when the notifications were placed on the project talk pages, but for whatever reason they didn't). As I expected, a major change is resulting in a good deal of uproar. Naturally we can continue discussing it (at the Music project page, where the main discussion is taking place). Personally I support the change, as I've already seen a reduction in the number of POV edits to the infobox in the several dozen artist & album articles on my watchlist. But now that we have people's attention we can expand the discussion and evaluate the consensus that got us here. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, that's not how Wikiprojects work. Articles are normally placed under the scope of Wikiprojects early in their development, and the projects allow editors to better collaborate on improving the articles and standardizing conventions between articles. Very few articles are fully developed before any Wikiprojects come along and at least place them under their scope. This template was created, and is maintained, by Wikiproject Musicians. It says so right in the template coding. The Musicians project and its parent project Music are totally within their scope to discuss and make changes to the template, which in fact is what happened. Not every project member pays attention to the talk pages, unfortunately, so there's only so much we can do to try to draw attention to a discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know what? For the article(s) that I wrote, the project didn't take it under it's wing and control how/what I edited until after it was featured. But I digress. And I'm still going to take this further. No one made this miniature group gods of the music articles. If people have to use your templates, then, in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, the discussion should be much broader in scope, and must involve people outside the project, since it affects them too. And, as you said, not may people pay attention. But that doesn't give the remainder of you the right to overhaul Wikipedia. Orane (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I'm aware of my mistake, apologized for it, and the change was reverted as soon as it was deemed unpopular. This is totally different. You simply should not make a change in the middle of a discussion, because whether you agree with them or not, comments are still being made. And fifteen people is still not sufficient. This isn't a change to the WikiProject, but a change to the entire English Wikipedia that the project has managed to worm its way into. And I'm sure that not all fifteen supported such a change. Plus, there is nothing stopping these editors from altering the genres in the body of the article. Orane (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was not "in the middle" when the change was implemented; it had in fact petered out with consensus clearly in favor of a change. The new comments have only come in since that change was made, as editors have started to notice articles being affected. There's certainly nothing wrong with continuing the discussion and addressing those editors' valid concerns, but to declare that the change was made "in the middle of a discussion, while comments are still being made" is not correct. The discussion had reached a clear conclusion. The change was made. That change caused reactions which have revitalized the discussion. At this point we're just spinning our wheels here on this particular talk page. The discussion itself is here; let's keep it in that one place. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I need to see any more of this fake concensus, (which actually took a one week break in the middle). The point is, you guys have no intention of changing it. So I'm going to have to ask around and challenge the power of this Bureaucratic Wikiproject. I really need to know if 15 people can impose a change on all of Wikipedia?

And the change has obviously met with great positive enthusiasm as more user learn of it (user who weren't involved in the consensus) they are gleefully charging like bulls through Wikipedia removing genre fields. They didn't whine and cry and challenge it. They said "hurrah!" and went with it. One of the best changes we've made to Wikipedia music related articles in a long long time. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Met with great enthusiasm by who? I still see a lot of people unsatisfied with it. So, excuse my whining. I'm not necessarily concerned about the change per se. It's the principle behind it. Here is what we have happening time and time again:

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, it is compulsory that you use our infobox in every music article. And since it is our infobox, a contingent of 15 editors have decided to control the way every article is set up. We get to decide what goes and what doesn't go in all of the articles regarding music on Wikipedia.

Pardon me, but that's a little too much for me to digest. I didn't come here to be governed by a small group of people who feel that their project has the right to impose rules and regulations on how every article is edited. I'm going to have to ask around (bureaucrat, committees, even Jimbo himself) until I get answers for this. Orane (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• We should Strong Keep the genre field. Most of the bands have undisputed genre (for example, no one would argue Iron Maiden is a heavy metal band). When a band's genre is disputed, we're used to have a larger term there (smth. like "Rock music", "Pop music", etc) and leave a link to "Music style" section (like in HIM (Finnish band) and Marylin Manson articles). The music style information is, perhaps, the most useful information about a band. Information of music style should be reliable as with any other information, so references are favorable. I can see no reason to remove genre field except lazyness to seek for sources and make referenses. Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And yet there are disputes and reverts about Iron Maiden's genre even within the last week. There's even a discussion on the talk page where, instead of using reliable sources, editors decided based on their own opinions what genres to list. Twice. Unfortunately the genre issue is almost never as simple to solve as you might wish it to be. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Again folks, The centralized discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? Please make your comments there so that all who are involved in the discussion will see them. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Seen, and then what? Is anyone going to do anything about our concerns? All you're doing is creating the facade of a centralized discussion. But your mind is already made up, and the project has already executed the change. The only thing we can do now is organize a way to reverse this. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Out_of_hand. Orane (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you want to reverse it, the place to work towards that is at the centralized discussion. There are now plenty of editors participating there, several of whom I'm sure share the same views as you do. Continually hemming & hawing with just me & Libs isn't going to get any of us anywhere. Yes, I supported the change, and yes, I'd like to see it stick. But I'm not nearly as vehement about it as some of the other supporters are, nor am I waving a proverbil sledgehammer around. On this page, at this point, I'm more concerned with bringing peoples' arguments to the right place, which is the Music project talk page. Nobody's points are made stronger simply by repeating them in several places. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys were thinking, that was the worst idea ever. --Kmaster (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is one of the worst ideas ever. Its true that it often caused edit-wars and disputes, but this will not prevent them from happening again. The feature was very practical and informative. For example, some artists changed several musical genres during their career, it was very useful to have the genres ordered like that, not to "hunt them" through the biographies. Also some groups are described as generaly rock bands in the introduction, while the specific subgenre(s) that they belong to was listed in the infobox. Bring it back please, if there are disputes, there are wikipedia instruments to request citations etc. Why are you doing this?--Dzole (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, is like "Hey, those edit wars are annoying so let's not include that info" BTW the edit wars are now in the introduction, so that didn't fix your edit war problem. Oh and let me quote the Wikipedia policy: "Do not nominate an article for deletion because it is being vandalized. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and simply encourages vandalism further." Isn't that the same thing that are you doing now with the Genre field? And I think the discussion should be made here. --Kmaster (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dzole - if people had no option but to put genres/style into context then it's not the biography you would be hunting through you would be reading through a section devoted to their style as per this example, would this not inform you better than any form of little list in an infobox?

Kmaster - it is not because of the edit wars that I have supported the removal - it's the misclassifications and uniformative entries that the infobox gives. If you read that a band is both heavy metal and speed metal but you know darn well when you've heard them they were rock - would you be happy with how Wikpedia described the band to in the information box? I wouldn't - if it said that the band see themselves as rock but most sellers describe them as heavy metal and other well known writers claim that the band were the 'fathers' of speed metal but don't sound like speed metal per se are you not a little better informed? Again this issue is not about solving vandalism - though that might be a side effect.--Alf ^melmac 17:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alf, Im repeating again: this will not solve the problems on wikipedia. Problems will be solved when Wikipedia will cease to exist, as it is a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit (incl. pov pushers, vandals and so on). Also, regarding the "style" subsection which you suggested, pointing to Motorhead as an example, it can be filled with unsourced information too, so? I can write that Led Zepelin were techno, if not in the infobox, then within the "style" subsection. --Dzole (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right nothing will stop problems, though we can do our best to minimise them. You could write in a style subsection that Led Zeppelin (or Motorhead, Pink Floyd or any other band I believe I'm informed on and have on my watchlist) are techno, but if you were to do so, I would be right on the case :) - Despite having the first of 'the pillars' encompassing verifiability (WP:V), unfortunately, you could probably get away with it in other articles, hence the need to do something positive about it - I thought (but maybe I'm wrong here) we shouldn't be putting cites in the infoboxes unless absolutely necessary, which it isn't here, it can be backed up by text which is citeable and then allowed to be added to the infobox genre field on that basis (which would then satisfy WP:V) And of course I'm not so naive to think that the problems would end there, but I do sincerely think that forming such a rule would significantly help towards that direction, at the very least it gives common, reasonable grounds for the entries to be included in a genre field and would also help improve the articles by starting off info about a band's style in the articles which have no such information already.--Alf ^melmac 10:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is convenient for the editors, but overall this is a terrible idea. The genre field was extremely useful. It was generally more specific and more accurate than the prose, and often had useful detailed information (e.g., Black Metal (early), Death Metal (now)) that was very hard to pick out in the text of the article. Please bring the genre field back. I'll express my opinion over at the other page too. --darolew 04:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"It was generally more specific and more accurate than the prose" - I couldn't disagree more - very much the other way round, the genre field can be extremely misleading if read in isolation - rarely is there is a section on genre/style in the article which is why it has been difficult to pick out, it needs it own section so that the info can be adequately housed (band n were considered as black metal during 1996-1999 as exampled by some album title and "Some single title" and since mid-2000 they have played "some of the hardest death metal on the planet"<reference stating who said this in what magazine/interview etc.>. The band's lead singer, however, said "we've always played extreme metal and we always will"<reference stating Mr lead singer's comments, in whatever publication>). Even very basic prose like that is more helpful than a little line of genre names.--Alf ^melmac 15:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I fucking agree. There aren't a lot of articles that actually describe the band or album's genre, like they are supposed to. Why don't all the pages that have a genre debate develop a consensus on their talk page? Tezkag72 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's highly inappropriate for editors to "decide" (even through consensus) on genre on article talk pages. Unless the discussion involves bringing in references and applying them to the article, this is a prime example of editors basically agreeing on a common POV and then establishing a "wiki-ality" by enforcing that POV in the article. Prime examples are Iron Maiden and The Used, where editors decided on talk pages which genres would be included and which wouldn't, without any sources at all (The Used later incorporated sources, but for a very long time what appeared in the genre field was total POV-pushing by the article's regular editors). Unverified info of a substantive nature (like genre) is original research any way you cut it, even if a bunch of editors agree that it's correct. The fact that editors disagree on which genre a band or album falls into is a prime example of why this type of information is poorly presented in an infobox. It needs to be in the prose, where it can be sourced and placed in context. Almost nobody debates, for example, an album's release date or producer credits, or a band's record label, and if they do the answer boils down to a simple true or false which is easy to verify from the primary source (the artist's website or album credits, for example). Genre, however, is a classification assigned by secondary sources (critics, charts, etc.) and therefore when debates occur it doesn't come down to a simple true or false that's easy to verify: it gets into comparing sources and discussing subtleties and critical reception. For this reason it is not well-presented in an infobox, and should not be left up to editors to hash out amongst themselves on talk pages. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reason why a large number of articles fail to have a decent genre section is because once a bunch of links are put into the genre field no-one bothers to look any deeper. If only genres that were actually mentioned in citeable text were allowed to be included, this would not be a problem.--Alf ^melmac 15:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the comments and concerns from Wiki alf. I mentioned this several days ago at the other genre field discussion. I do not feel this is an edit war issue. I believe it is a verifiability issue first. In many jazz, blues and classical music entries the genre descriptions are vague as they relate to periods as well as styles. And in many of the genre entries for these artists and albums is wrong. It would not be an easy task to correct every single one of them. Genre should not be determined in the infobox. And it should not be placed as an adjective in the article lead-in sentence. The genre should be reference text in the article body in a section for 'musical style' No genre fields Peter Fleet (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a centralized discussion of this subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box?. Please make your comments there so that all who are involved in the discussion will see them. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)