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.

What's the view about including, under "Associated acts", acts who appeared in the same TV talent/reality show? I've come across a number of instances of this. A typical example is Ben Mills, who is said to be associated with Leona Lewis and Raymond Quinn because they happened to appear in the same series of The X Factor (at least, I assume there is no other reason). I'm always tempted to remove these (though I haven't) because to me it gives the impression of a stronger association than actually exists. What do you think? 86.150.102.12 (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

You're talking about musicians on a reality show, or a talk show? That is not an association. For musicians the association should be both musical and fairly persistent. - Steve3849 ^talk 04:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

you saw the outlines on the template's page of what's supposed to go in this field, right? that pretty clearly rules out "acts that happened to be on the same TV show". Sssoul (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't hurt to add another line there under "uses that should be avoided", to read "Acts that merely appeared in the same TV talent/reality series", or something like that. Then there's something explicit to point to when removing said acts from the template. Does anyone who can edit the article feel like doing that? 86.138.104.13 (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

No; the existing instructions cover quesitons that are raised frequently, or are needed to clarify other points in the instructions. I have never seen this issue raised before, and as has already been said, the current instructions make it clear this is not what the field is for. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

is there a reason this "musical artist" template omits these fields (and/or they can't be added on the fly on an individual usage)?

Template: infobox person, Template:Infobox Actor, Template: infobox artist, et al. have both of these fields. for consistency throughout the biography areas of wikipedia, one would expect a subset (i.e., "musical artist") to have all fields of the basic Template: infobox person. --71.183.238.134 (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the birth and death places are added to the born and died fields, separated with a break (<br />). — Σxplicit 23:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. although i know one can do it that way, it just seems strange and inconsistent to have "infobox musical artist" not to have all fields of the generic "infobox person" template (and many other subsets thereof). i would think the "infobox musical artist" template could be conformed to the "infobox person" template.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. I've started a discussion here if you're interested. — Σxplicit 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

further to comments in section just above about missing "birthplace" and deathplace" labels, this "musical artist" infobox seemingly also fails to accommodate the "spouse" label (strange, given the frequent marriage activity of so many celebrities...including musical artists) and is also out of conformity with the generic "infobox person" et al. --71.183.238.134 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion above and the archives, the consensus is that marriage has little importance to an artists music career. --neon white talk 10:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Neon white. The idea to add a "spouse" field to this infobox has been proposed several times and rather roundly rejected each time. There's clearly no consensus for it at this time. See the "marriage" thread above and past discussions in the archives. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What about handedness? Shouldn't we say so in the infobox if someone was a leftie? -Probably Too Sarcastic for His Own Good 00:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What about polictical inclinations? Shouldn't we say so in the infobox if someone was a leftie? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What about neckwear? Shouldn't we say so in the infobox if someone wore light coloured neckwear and thus was a leftie?--Alf ^melmac 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way that we could set up a bot that goes through music articles and finds non-standard or blank entries in the "background" field? I've found countless articles that have a non-standard entry in the "background" field or have just left it blank, and it really bugs the heck out of me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

((editprotected))

Please close the code tags at the subtemplate ((Infobox Musical artist/color)) to fix a wikicode problem (WP:CHECKWIKI). Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 20:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The same for this one ((Navbox Musical artist/color)). Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 20:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done both. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 20:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The voice type line in this template, in my opinion, is intended for classical vocalists. I believe that my opinion is supported by Voice type and Voice classification in non-classical music. Recently there have been unsourced additions to this field for rock singers; some examples include Ozzy Osbourne, Gene Simmons, Paul Stanley, Nikki Sixx, and Vince Neil. I would like to see some sort of a consensus reached one way or the other to support reverting the changes or leaving them there. J04n(talk page) 12:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's right. I'd support removing the voice type line (for soprano, mezzo, contralto, tenor, baritone, bass etc.) from the template altogether. --Kleinzach 14:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

the template is also used for classical vocalists, so removing the field altogether wouldn't be appropriate - but yeah, it's a misunderstanding to apply those classifications to rock singers, so i support reverting edits like that as misguided. Sssoul (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not used for classical vocalists. It's specifically for non-classical musicians. --Kleinzach 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ah so - well, good! in that case i agree that the field should be removed - it's misleading. Sssoul (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem using it for modern musicians, especially in cases where the artist is exclusively a vocalist (for instance, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw). If it can be easily sourced, why not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless specifically mentioned in text and supported by cites (such as exampled in the article about Maria Carey), agree with J04n, in the vast majority of cases it makes no sense to have a voice type for such artists.--Alf ^melmac 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What it actually says in the Maria Carey article is this:

"Although she self-identifies as "an alto with a five-octave range," Carey has "a range wide enough to cover all the octaves between an alto and a soprano and the agility to move between those roles . . . ", and her vocal trademark is her ability to sing in the whistle register."

In other words, she sings freely and not in range (as a soprano or whatever). This illustrates why it's better not have classical-type categories for non-classical singers. --Kleinzach 22:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But the point is, Kleinzach, it does actually have to something to say about the voice type, it isn't absent from the article, and it's all cited, Ozzy et al, have bugger all, so summing up in infobox becomes impossible.--Alf ^melmac 07:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. The Maria Carey quote does indeed 'have something to say', even if it's a bit nonsensical. I'm not suggesting it should be taken out of the article. On the other hand, it's not information that can be reduced to an accurate one word entry in a box — but maybe we are in agreement on that? --Kleinzach 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, we do agree on that. The infobox (as you may have heard me say many times before) is a poor substitute for reading the text the article - we've tried doing the right thing and we didn't get very far (eliminating 'dumb fields)', so I'm reconcilled to doing the best of a bad job.--Alf ^melmac 08:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Recommend sourcing, in the template documentation? -Freekee (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it now fair to say that the consensus statement is: The "voice type" field in the musical artist infobox template is intended for classical vocalists. This position is supported by Voice type and Voice classification in non-classical music. In the rare instance when a reliable source exists to support a voice type for a non-classical vocalist (i.e. Maria Carey) the source must be provided for inclusion in the infobox. If agreed on can it be added to the template page? Thank you all for your comments. J04n(talk page) 10:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no one is saying anything to the contrary I will begin reverting with this argument. J04n(talk page) 16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you acted on this yet? I see the template (Voice type) hasn't been changed. It still says: "This field is only relevant for individuals. This may be used for singers in lieu of the "Instrument" field. See voice type for a list of types."

I suggest that either (1) it is removed, or failing that (2) reworded as follows: "This field is only relevant for individual singers in lieu of the "Instrument" field, but only in those cases where the artist has adopted a recognized, classical voice type." --Kleinzach 01:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the examples above plus a few more (Bruce Dickinson and Rob Halford, probably a few others) as I run across them. I have met no resistance so far. To address your point I would slightly change to: "This field is only relevant for individual singers in lieu of the "Instrument" field, but only in those cases where the artist has adopted a recognized, classical voice type supported by a verifiable reference." Interestingly YouTube videos of singers singing were used as references in some of the examples. J04n(talk page) 01:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your rewording for Voice_type is fine. I'll ask for it to be inserted in place of the current text. --Kleinzach 06:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

((editprotected)) Please insert in the Voice_type field in place of the existing text:

This field is only relevant for individual singers in lieu of the "Instrument" field, and only in those cases where the artist has adopted a recognized, classical voice type supported by a verifiable reference.

Thanks. --Kleinzach 06:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are requesting a change to the documentation which is here and not protected. If I have misread the above and you need an edit to the actual template, then please accept my apologies and replace the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake. Thanks. I've now made the change. --Kleinzach 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi All,

I see that logos are to be avoided. Most bands are corporations, Limited Liability Companies or General Partnerships. By the same token, most have registered their logos and/or claim them to be trademarks. Logos for corporations are fair use. A band that is either a corporation or a business entity with a registered trademark (circle R) is basically no different than any other corporation with a recognizable logo. I think there should be a field option on the template that would allow for the band's logo over the photo in the infobox. It would only be permissible if the logo is in fact a registered trademark or fit under the same standards as other business entity's logos.

Can I get some feedback on this and if everyone agrees, can you tell me how to go about getting a modification to this infobox to add that parameter? Thanks! --Warriorboy85 (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See archive 4; we had a loooong discussion about this a year and a half ago. Bottom line, logos are non-free 99% of the time and thus their use must pass our non-free content criteria. Contrary to your assertion, band logos are not just like corporate logos. In the past, editors would frivolously place so-called "logos" in place of the "name" in the infobox. 90% of these were not, in fact, actual logos, but merely a stylization of the artist's name pulled off of their latest album. Putting a "logo" field in the infobox would only encourage fair-use abuse, which is not what we want to do. If a logo is significant, then it belongs in the article body next to some kind of referenced prose discussing it. For good examples of this see Ramones, Black Flag, Motörhead, and Hüsker Dü. There's simply no way we're going to add a "logo" field to the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We got rid of the plum colour for tribute albums so I figure we should get rid of it here as well. Any objections? Flowerparty^☀ 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No objection to nuking it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Rather than go searching through for all the tribute bands I've changed the default colour to be the same light blue we use for regular bands. Don't see why we need a separate default colour, really, but let us know if this causes any problems. Flowerparty^☀ 09:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please add the possibility of displaying signatures. - SSJ ☎ 23:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This was already discussed in the past (check out archive 6 here) and found no consensus. – IbLeo (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't see why having Michael Jackson's signature on display would do anything but improve his article, just like Barack Obama's signature "improves" his respective article. I don't see a relevant difference between politicians and artists in this regard. I'm not whining about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but why shouldn't this be possible? - SSJ ☎ 15:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't improve the article in any way, and certainly doesn't add anything useful to the infobox. IMHO presidential signatures don't add anything useful to those infoboxes either, but with respect to musical artist articles it's especially irrelevant. 95% of musical artists probably don't have a defining signature, and even if they do it has little to nothing to do with their career as a musical artist (whereas one can argue that a president's signature is important as they sign things into law). As I'm fond of reminding folks whenever these types of suggestions pop up, the infobox is merely a summary of basic information. It serves as an at-a-glance quick reference of basic biographical facts that are expounded on in the article itself. It is not an artist profile, a resumé, or the entire article reduced to bullet-point form. Signatures, height, religious beliefs, influences, etc. would all be, for lack of a better term cruft fields that would only serve to turn a useful infobox into a Tiger Beat artist profile. One does not need any of this info to get an at-a-glance answer to the question "who is this artist?". --IllaZilla (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Add more personal fields in infobox, like parents, spouse, childrens, it's a part of musician life and history Vilnisr (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

grin: how about if we put the whole article in the info box? Sssoul (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

three fields will not take a lot of place, and less then if you will put it in articleVilnisr (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Who there their parents are may be a part of their lives but with rare exceptions it is not what makes them notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fansite, such information doesn't belong in the infobox or article unles it relates to the notability of the artist (for example Jason Bonham being the son of John Bonham is notable enough to be mentioned in the article but this is the exception not the rule). J04n(talk page) 13:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

None of these are necessary for an infobox on a musical artist. Past consensus has overwhelmingly been against adding fields such as these, or really any more fields to the box at all. See for example Template talk:Infobox Musical artist/Archive 6#marriage. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hurrah!!! About time someone asked for that sh*t again!!! Maybe we can add favourite colour and shoe size and favourite cartoon too. Wippee!!! lets just add every fluff detail that has nothing to do with the subjects music into the musician infobox. *ahem* sarcasm *ahem* The Real Libs-speak politely 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a field for the musician's nurse, pharmacist and plastic surgeon? ...Personally, I'd like to see a much expanded genre field perhaps with an embedded data entry option (like the search field in the left column) encouraging readers to input personal opinions for genre. - Steve3849 ^talk 04:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

((editprotected)) As per WP:ALT there should be a way to specify alt text for images; this is for WP:ACCESSIBILITY for visually impaired readers. I've tested the obvious change (adding a new Img_alt parameter) in the sandbox and with the testcases and have installed documentation. Please install this sandbox edit into the main version. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

((editprotected))

Requesting sync with the sandbox for minor code cleanup to bring this template in line with the ((infobox)) defaults. Comparison available on /testcases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a field for postnominals etc. It doesn't apply to many of them, but there are some, such as Dame Mitsuko Uchida, who's now a DBE. The DBE has to be added after her name in the Name field, and it can't be made small, and looks quite ugly. Can this be rectified? Then there's the question of whether infoboxes are even appropriate for classical musicians, which I've never been sure of. Most don't have one, but some do. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The DBE does not have to be added after her name in the infobox. It can quite easily be stated & linked in the lead paragraph. We don't need extraneous infobox fields like this. It's the same principle as our MoS for article naming. See for example Elton John: The article title and infobox title are simply "Elton John", whereas the lead sentence gives his full name including titles & honorifics: "Sir Elton Hercules John CBE". --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The protocols for infoboxes seem to vary widely across the project. The boxes for politicians, for example, include a provision for honorifics. I guess each Wiki-project makes its own rules about these things. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The best way to resolve such issues would be to take them to ((Infobox person)), and then once a solution is found, cascade it to other infoboxes in a standardised form, as required. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

((editprotected)) Please remove the hCalendar (event) microformat from this template (as recently done to ((Infobox Person)) and others), because people are not events. Simply change the first live from class="infobox vcard vevent" to class="infobox vcard ". and in ((Infobox Musical artist/hCard class)) remove each instance of "summary". Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unresolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ask two things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It's been a couple of days since anyone has commented and it looks like a consensus has been reached. I believe it's time to delete the field... J04n(talk page) 10:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, while at the same time I'm trying to get the infobox accepted back into use for classical artists, probably (but not necessarily) including opera singers. As I pointed out elsewhere, the "instruments" field is used to specify "singer", and could easily say "singer (soprano)" for a classically trained singer with a notable voice range. I'll be proposing a change to documentation to recommend this, if and when we decide to allow this infobox to be used for opera singers. A separate field is not required. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A Knight Who Says Ni: This box was never 'accepted' for classical artists, so it's disingenuous to talk about getting " the infobox accepted back into use for classical artists" . You should consider carefully whether there is a consensus for what you are proposing. A series of editors have already expressed their reservations here and below. --Kleinzach 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There isn't actually any requirement that infoboxes are "accepted" by WikiProjects before being used. I have no idea where this meme that WikiProjects have some sort of official sanction came from, but it needs to be confronted whenever it manifests itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach, if you weren't involved in other discussions on this page, I would think your statement was made without knowing what is being discussed. As has been pointed out, you yourself added the "non-classical" restriction, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, a year ago. This infobox was for all musicians up to that time. Your statement that "this infobox was never accepted for classical artists" is rubbish, and you know it, and you are calling me disingenuous? There is nothing inappropriate about my anticipating the next step "if and when" other proposals go through, as they relate to any lingering concerns about the voice type field's removal. My statement was to clarify my opinion, in case anyone is wondering why I'm in favour of removing the voice type field while arguing elsewhere in favour of using this infobox for classical musicians. Please show good faith in the opinions of others. That's what I'm doing, and I don't try to score points by putting down others, or making claims I know are not true. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's get the record straight, I added my clarification on 10 March 2008, see here. It remained in place (without causing any kind of controversy) until 31 August 2009. That in itself is indicative. Prior to March 2008 the box was not for "for all musicians" . It was used by some groups of editors, and not used by others.--Kleinzach 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep saying "let's get the record straight". As you say, you added the restriction in 2008, and there was no discussion about it on this talk page at that time, nor any time before this month. This is the first time it's being discussed here. Until the restriction was put in, the template was clearly intended for all kinds of musicians, because the template is called "musicians", and had nothing in it to indicate otherwise. It was that way for two years, prior to last year, and it is the original state of the status. Whether or not editors actually choose to use it, is irrelevant, as is the mass removal of the infobox from classical musician articles you personally did last year. Please remember that when I started this discussion, I called myself an "uninvolved editor". I started the discussion because I noticed several people already on the verge of edit warring, and not using the talk page at all to discuss it. So I openend the discussion and called for proper procedure. I also described myself as "weakly" in favour of removing the restriction, meaning I was more interested in preventing an edit war, though it's true I have been presenting arguments in favour of removing it. But have also presented the other side (as I saw it) and have been the main person asking for more comment from the other side, as I think YOUR side has been underrepresented when it comes to actually giving reasons! Since this restriction was not here originally, and since this month's discussion is the first one on the topic on this page, if no consensus were to be reached, the correct resolution would be to restore the original wording, allowing the template to be used for all kinds of musicians. That's just following procedure. I'm not predicting that will happen; we will see. I've stated that the documentation should not be changed while discussion is ongoing, and do take note that at the moment, it is in the state that you prefer. That's an action in good faith, right? Hope I've "set the record straight". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it for now. If this template changes it can be put back. Although I hope it won't. If editors on classical musicians don't want to use an infobox, let them. Garion96 (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm still confused by the claim that this WikiProject "owns" the template. What does ownership mean in this context, and how is it established and/or transferred? Powers ^T 17:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Let's establish some facts:

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

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

I'd be very pleased to see "non-classical" go back in here. Tony (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

i'm in favour of reinstating the "non-classical" and eliminating the "voice type" field. stating that this infobox isn't intended for classical musicians doesn't preclude its use for "crossover" musicians like Bedford if that's what the editors involved with those articles decide to do; and in the few cases outside of classical music where voice type is relevant, verifiable, etc, it can be discussed in the body of the article. Sssoul (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewording this in positive rather than negative language. If the classical music project isn't a child of WikiProject Musicians, then it is implied that this template isn't the standard template for classical music without having to start listing where this template can't be used. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere on the project page where WP Musicians excludes classical musicians. If people have to have been active in this area of Wikipedia for a while in order to understand the issue, then your wording is going to be pointless. We need something that a novice editor who thinks these infoboxes look good will understand.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, no. That is the job of the classical music project's MoS, not the job of every individual piece of template documentation. In much the same manner as the classical music project apparently doesn't want to follow the conventions of the rest of the encyclopedia, nor should the rest of the encyclopedia have to accommodate them. In the absense of any actual evidence that in the month this message was gone that there was some adverse effect on the classical music project, it looks like the classical music project using this template's documentation as a soapbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no such implication. WikiProject Musicians is not a parent of WikiProject Classical Music because neither is a strict subset of the other. WikiProject Musicians includes non-classical musicians, and WikiProject Classical Music includes non-musician topics. Powers ^T 13:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And indeed WikiProjects can overlap, because they have absolutely no actual authority over the articles they claim. Which is another reason that this opt-out is ridiculous. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

and indeed WikiProjects can overlap, because they have absolutely no actual authority over the articles they claim' --- indeed, and repeatedly I've seen Kleinzach not understand this (and his message directing people here on implies that somehow tagging classical music bios as part of the Bio project was a bad thing). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thumperward/Chris Cunningham: How about simply calling it 'popular' (rather than 'non-classical')? Would that solve the problem you are seeing? --Kleinzach 14:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're reviewing the "facts", let's also review who inserted the word in the first place. The edit summary says the reason is: "Clarification as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Infobox". So let's see who made that insertion in the first place. Now look for discussions of these changes in the talk pages of those 2 pages, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 3 (the appropriate archive for the time the first change went in). I haven't found it yet. (Pointers to discussions in other WikiProjects have been posted before, but as has been said, that's other WikiProjects.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) We still seem to be discussing the "territory" issue, which is okay, but I'd like to see more about the pros and cons of inserting the word "non-classical" (which would restrict the template to non-classical musician articles). I have seen some say they are for it, but not give reasons. The "territory" concern is irrelevant because we, the participants of this talk page, will decide the wording of this template's documentation, regardless of which WikiProjects we belong to. (And please, as long as discussion is ongoing, let's not change the documentation again. At this point, neither version can be declared the "original", so let's leave it in whatever state it happens to be, for the time being.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My reason for supporting the inclusion of the phrase is two-fold. First, it's descriptive: the infobox is, I believe, not currently (widely) used on the pages of classical musicians. Second, it's practical: the infobox was designed with popular musicians in mind and is not well-suited to classical musicians. Powers ^T 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Non-popular" would be better, describing "classical" music, rather than the other way around. Popular (= folk) music is the natural form, from which classical is a diversion, phylogenetically. But in this context, I'm splitting hairs. Whatever is neatest and most immediately understandable. Tony (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason for inserting "non-classical" is that the classical music WikiProject doesn't want to use it. There is no other reason for it that has been presented. Changing the word to another is a nonproductive way of avoiding the objection. (I just said "no" in reply to this suggestion when it was made before, but should have said more, and now I have.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(reply to LtPowers): The infobox was created in early 2006, the "non-classical" restriction was added in early 2008. Are you sure it was designed with only popular music musicians in mind? Infoboxes are not found in classical musician articles because someone from the classical music WikiProject went through them all and removed them, as per a decision made at that WikiProject. I'm still looking for reasons why this template is not suitable for classical musicians, and you seem to be saying "it isn't because it isn't". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't you know? Classical musicians are too important to be shoehorned into a little box like that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a general impression. All of the examples are popular acts; the instructions for "current members" and "past members" assume that such fields can be completely filled (as they can for rock bands and some chamber ensembles but not for large orchestras and the like). That sort of thing. After reviewing it, though, I think I may tend to agree that such problems are minor and could easily be adapted to be suitable to all types of musicians. Powers ^T 18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We could certainly state which fields are better suited for rock bands. The fields you mention are already identified as not being intended for solo artists; we can add "and classical orchestras" to that. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate uses

(splitting section for readability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

Hello, I think the best case for treating the classical artists separately would be based on expertise. I am quite clueless about most forms of popular music and it would really be stupid for me to try to edit any of the WP's articles in this area. And likewise, my experience as a classical editor suggests that when people not experienced in classical music try to edit classical articles, it produces very troubled results. So, I think we should all stick to our own best areas of expertise, and maintain separate systems of article management, including management of infoboxes. Thanks for listening, Opus33 (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Whenever this subject comes up, it always seems just as ridiculous and petty as the last time. Infoboxes are extremely helpful tools. A classical artist is, in fact, a 'musician', and if a 'musician' infobox helps to summarize an article, so be it. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just some input about why WikiProject Opera editors don't use this infobox (which the doc examples and field names show it is clearly intended for non-classical musicians)....

Origin: (doc: "The city from which the singer or group originated (that is, the city where the group was founded; or the city where individual performers started their career".) For an opera singer, this would presumably be the location of their stage debut? However, many if not most people read "origin" as meaning "nationality". It's a very misleading label for the field in general. Information like that about an opera singer in a music reference work would be labelled Debut, not Origin.

Instruments: (doc: "General class(es) of instrument(s) played by the artist, e.g. guitar or violin. Include singing, rapping, beatboxing and/or scat singing if relevant." OK for an opera singer, presumably we then put simply "singing"?

But then we get to Voice type where the doc says "only relevant for individual singers in lieu of the "Instrument" field" So we leave Instruments field blank and just put say, "soprano" as the doc rather confusingly suggests? Or do we fill both in? If we just leave Instruments blank, then the reader has to wait until the anachronistically named field Occupation two fields down before they find out they were principally an opera singer. If we fill in both + the intervening Genre, then Occupation is totally redundant unless the singer was also at some time in their career was noted in another field. Even then, adding singer is redundant and repetitious and leaving it out is misleading.

Genre (doc: "Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop)...") In which case we presumably use "opera". If someone is a soprano opera singer, then should the reader have to plow through three or four fields to piece together that information when it appears in the first sentence of the article?

Then we come to another totally unsuitable (and anachronistic) field Associated acts (doc: "This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career.") Let's see, Margherita Durastanti created a lot roles in Handel's operas and oratorios so is George Frideric Handel her 'associated act'? Also opera singing is by its nature an ensemble activity. Most singers have sung in many companies and theatres and with many orchestras in their career, way too many to cram into an infobox and just picking one or two is terribly misleading. e.g. Caruso's 'associated act' was the Metropolitan Opera? I'll leave out the whole Label schtick, but again modern opera singers record for many labels.

Read the short opening paragraph of Eugenia Tadolini. What is to be gained for the reader from additionally shoving that information into a musical artist infobox whose fields are repetitious, anachronistic, and foster misleading over-simplification and whose format seriously limits the size of the image and surrounds it with ugly and space-consuming yellow bars.

This has nothing to due with opera or classical music being 'elite' or 'better' than any other kind of music. Nor does have anything to do with 'owning articles'. It has to do with the encyclopedic conventions and specialised vocabulary for writing about different subjects, and the reality of careers in a particular art form. One size (or in this case one infobox) does not fit all and why should it? What is so bad about documenting in some way that this infobox is not generally suitable for opera singers and classical musicians? Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not confuse issues here. This is not a matter of whether the template is actually suitable for use by classical artists - it's whether or not we have to explicitly note that it isn't in the template documentation. To my mind, the former is a technical problem and the latter a social one. IMO the former can be worked on gradually and the latter is either pointless or actively unconstructive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am addressing two issues, but I am not confusing them. There have been repeated requests here as to why this template is considered unsuitable for classical musicians and singers, with the clear implication that in the absence of a rationale, there's no reason to document it. I provided one with respect to opera singers. I then provided a separate opinion as to whether this template's current unsuitablity for certain types of musicians should be noted in the documentation. I personally think that it would be helpful to other editors, especially novices, and I really don't see what is "actively unconstructive" about that. There's nothing in the wording to prevent anyone in this project from gradually improving the template and its instructions. And frankly it needs it, even for non-classical musicians. Having said that, I think it would be a mistake and a waste of time to try to make this template equally suitable for opera singers and at the same time user-friendly for editors and genuinely helpful to readers, who should be our primary concern. But until it does become suitable or a separate suitable template is developed, well... Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You did list some point by point reasons for resistence to the box's use for opera singer articles, and I thank you for that, it's what I've been asking for! My replies to those points are below. But by the end, your post turned into a gripe about infoboxes in general ("ugly and space-consuming yellow bars"), and accused this infobox of being underdeveloped and unsuitable for use. I certainly don't agree! No content on Wikipedia will ever reach an ideal and become inert with nothing more that could possibly be added or improved. Present-day and probably future changes to this infobox are in the form of "tweaks", not a wholesale overhaul, and tweaks are all that are needed. Tweaks are mostly required in response to other changes at Wikipedia, moreso than to address deficiencies. Infoboxes, including ours, are widely used and appreciated at Wikipedia. I was unaware of this anti-infobox sentiment until this discussion, and it completely surprises me. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is pretty strong anti-infobox sentiment in WikiProject Opera, WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Composers has been for years. The usual response is that we're all a bunch of elitist cranks.;-). The Visual Arts project has quite a few members who aren't too keen on them either. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Infoboxes. They may be widely used, but they are no means required, not even for Featured article status. I'm not against Wikipedia using them where they are appropriate and where accuracy is not sacrificed in favour of uniformity. There are certain types of biographies where they can be useful, including this one for the type of artist it was originally developed for. Voceditenore (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I didn't "accuse" this infobox as being "undeveloped". I pointed out some problems with it in general, i.e. the Origin field and the ambiguous relationship between Instrument and Occupation which could definitely use improvement. If you don't find them useful suggestions, feel free to ignore them. Nor did I say it was "unsuitable for use" for any musician. I pointed out why it's unsuitable for use with opera singers. I really don't why see that's such problem. I did accuse it of being ugly in my final sentence, but so what? That was not the thrust of my argument, just icing on the cake.;-). Voceditenore (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken about my reinterpretation of your opinions; I hereby admit to possible exaggeration to make a point, no offense intended. As for anti-infobox sentiment at projects, I'm attempting to disregard them and just concentrate on getting a consensus at this page, not trying to change opinions on other pages. We can't please everyone. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the documentation examples not including classical musicians, we currently show two examples, one for a solo artist and one for a group, plus we have links to three more. I really don't think anyone is going to get an implied restriction on genre out of that. Another user agreed with me that "crossover" or multi-genre musicians can have an infobox, and we could add one of those to the links, if there is agreement that this is a concern. It doesn't have to be a classical crossover musician, if that upsets the classical music project.

Regarding the "origin" field, if an opera singer really began his/her career in a big touring opera company, and never sang previously in some other context or local performance (which I would think would be in the minority), then yes, their debut is their origin, as defined. If a reader were to mistake the field as referring to nationality, the same mistake could be made in any article. But I don't think the word invites readers to jump to conclusions.

Regarding instruments and voice type, there is a proposal to remove the "voice type" field, with no objections so far (so I'm surprised it's still there). If the documentation were to say that for a classically trained musician notable for a certain voice range, "singing (soprano)" (for example) should be used in the instrument field, would that resolve the concern? Many infoboxes use similar elaboration in this field where needed. The "occupation" field is used where additional information is required, not already covered by other fields, and should be viewed as an optional field. No fields should duplicate information within the infobox.

The other points you raise appear to be an objection to the concept of infoboxes, and are also applicable to any article. I don't see any conflict specific to opera singers, but if there is, the solution is to clarify the documentation, if common sense and reference to other similar articles isn't enough for editors to figure out how to use the fields. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree as to whether the reader intuitively understands Origin to mean "where the singer got their start". The average reader does not read template documentation. I don't think that field is aptly named (given what it is intended to go there) for any musician. I've picked several non-classical singer bios at random, and lots of them use that field for nationality or place of birth. It might be a good idea for this project to see how these infoboxes are being used by editors. Secondly, in opera and classical music reference works, the date and place of a singer's official debut is considered key information and the term debut is used, never origin. All opera singers have an official debut it's practically the first thing they list in their professional biographies. (An official debut is as a paid performer in a public performance with a professional opera company or orchestra.) Whether they got their start in "a big touring company" or a small opera house in Prague is immaterial. (Incidentally, the really major opera companies, e.g. La Scala, Metropolitan Opera, Royal Opera, are not touring companies). Even leaving out Voice type (which is actually a defining characteristic of any opera singer), putting "singing (tenor)" in a field labelled Instruments is silly. And if Occupations really means Other cccupations, why isn't it labelled as such?

I agree that truly crossover and multi-genre performers could use these infoboxes. It doesn't "upset" me at all. But opera singers, i.e. ones who have actually sung professionally in operas in opera houses and are equally notable as cross-over singers are very rare. Andrea Bocelli is the only one who comes to mind, and he has an infobox, albeit for "solo singer / rap artist" and with his place of birth in the er... Origin field.

I personally think (and as do most of my fellow editors in the opera project) that an infobox for opera singer biographies is unnecessary if the lead is properly written, especially in short articles, and that they can be counterproductive. But that is neither here nor there. I am specifically focusing on why I think this infobox is unsuitable for opera singers, and cannot be made so without making it incredibly complicated and error-prone. Why not concentrate on making it better for the kinds of singers that it was primarily intended for? But feel free to disregard everything I've written, and we'll just agree to disagree.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disregarding reasons that are being given, and I'm doing my best to encourage them! A compromise solution is to allow the infobox to be used for classical musicians, with the exclusion of opera singers. I can't propose this, or other compromises, if I don't know the reasons for exclusion, so that's why I'm asking. Regarding "singing (tenor)" in the instruments field, if "singing" by itself is acceptable here, why not? Some people get outraged when voice is not held on a par with other instruments, so it's not silly at all. "Occupations" is not labelled "other occupations" because info should not be duplicated within the infobox, and many fields (most?) are non-mandatory, so it's just common sense to use it only where needed to specify something other than singer or musician. Regarding "debut", from what you're saying, this term is something completely different from "origin"; a singer could be born in one place, start their career in another, and make their operetic debut in yet another. A field called "opera debut" with stern warning about using it only for opera singers, could be a solution. Regarding inappropriate use of the "origin" field in musician articles in general, I've seen that happen, but I've also seen it addressed and fixed. I remember a discussion at the Pink Floyd article last year where we ended up changing the field from "Cambridge" (which the group were usually associated with early in their career) to "London" (which is where they really started), to be in accordance with the instructions. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Voceditenore gave some of the reasons why infoboxes for opera singers are not helpful to the reader. (One more is: what's the background colour for opera singers? In fact, what's the background for any classical musician, be they composer's or performers?) Here are some reasons why infoboxes are not helpful for other classical musicians:

1. Do we really want to list the full birth name of Mozart in an infobox? There's a whole article about it.
2. What's the "origin" state and country for Mozart? There are already occasional scuffles about that as it is; no need to present a broader attack area.
3. What's the birth date of Beethoven? There's a lengthy footnote about it. There are hundreds of composers for whom we don't know their dates of birth or death.
4. What is Daniel Barenboim's instrument? The piano or his orchestra? Can an orchestra be an instrument?
5. What genre would apply to Richard Wagner? Which one to Leonard Bernstein? Or to Karlheinz Stockhausen??
6. When does a typical instrumentalist become active? When they win their first competition at age 5, as they invariably do? When is the period of Nellie Melba supposed to have ended? Well, that's an opera singer, and apparently we agree that the template is not suitable for them. What about Vladimir Ashkenazy? When he stopped concert tours or on the day he quits conducting?
7. What "label" would apply to a composer? A performer? We have extensive discographies to cover them. Put them all into an infobox?
8. The "associated acts" field is just too silly to contemplate.
9. What's William Byrd's "URL"?
10. What's James Morrison's "notable instrument"? He actually does have an infobox, and what a mess it is. I've seen him play the 3rd movement of Mozart's Horn concerto K. 495 on a garden hose. Well again, Morrison is not mainly known for his playing of classical music, but what about Telemann? Apart from being famous for probably the most prolific output of compositions of all time, he played, and was most notable in his day for that, violin, viola da gamba, recorder, flauto traverso, oboe, shawm, sackbut and double bass; today, we only know him as a composer. There are others in a similar position; how does one put Arnold Dolmetsch into an infobox?

This is just an off-the-cuff selection of reasons why infoboxes don't work for classical musicians. And I haven't yet mentioned orchestras, ensembles, instrument builders, musicologists, Artistic Directors. opera directors, stage designers… -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on! You're talking about composers. I have made it clear this proposal is not about using this infobox for composers (classical or otherwise), and as far as I know, nobody is proposing that. If a person is both a composer and a musician, they can have an infobox to cover their career as a musician. An example of this was discussed earlier. If Telemann is not notable today as a musician, and his article is mainly about his career as a composer, he shouldn't have the box. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stage designers? Artistic directors? Instrument builders? I don't think anyone is suggesting we use this infobox on such articles. Anyway, your classical musician difficulties are largely applicable to non-classical musicians as well. It is not only classical musicians who might have uncertain dates of birth, for instance. If a field is inapplicable to a particular musician, it can be left blank, or footnoted. Powers ^T 12:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing using it for bricklayers, chemical elements or shopping malls either. That does not mean that these need to be specifically excluded in the template documentation. If an exception is added every time a group in some niche in of Wikipedia does a straw poll and decides to opt out of the rest of the encyclopedia's conventions then the documentation will be unmanageable. I'm further opposed to this because Kleinzach has in effect argued above that the existence of the opt-out on this documentation (which he added himself) reinforces the position of said groups, which is backwards. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox musical artist says it's for musicians; that article includes composers and more. WikiProject Musicians/Infobox provides no further guidance, except that it currently excludes classical musicians. I understood that this very exclusion is being disputed now. If I'm wrong in my understanding, for which kind of classical musicians, if any, is this infobox proposed? I find it difficult to get my head around a distinction between musicians and composers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me that the definition of "musician" might be an issue. But part of the proposal is to explicity exclude "composers who are not also notable as musicians", which should resolve that problem. Unless there is a question of what "composer" means? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We need not enforce a strict guideline of that nature; different situations require different approaches, and it may be appropriate for some people and not appropriate for others. That is a matter for the relevant WikiProjects to discuss on a case-by-case basis. The argument against prohibition is simply to say that if you're going to use an infobox then you might as well use this one (and help to make it more relevant to the subject in question by proposing changes to it). This is the position I've held whenever strict rules on infobox use have been proposed in the past. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that position. We should make the template relevant to all musicians, or, if it cannot be made so, create a new template that can be used for other types of musicians. Powers ^T 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"different situations require different approaches" indeed, and i don't see any advantage to trying to come up with a "one-size-fits-all" infobox. different music projects can develop different infoboxes that suit their needs. Sssoul (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that might be where we run into problems. Prior to the advent of recording, nearly all composers were also notable as musicians, because that's how they disseminated their works -- but they are primarily known today as composers because there were no recordings made of their performances. Powers ^T 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The word "notable" in the instructions could wikilink to WP:Notability (about notability requirements for articles), to make it clear we're talking about present-day notability as defined at Wikipedia for article content. I just presumed that was self-evident, but the wikilink could make it closer to explicit, without the need to add a definition of "notable" that readers will skim over. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) God damn, why does this tripe popping up? The first three on the list are CLEARLY unrelated to them being musicians. They can be problems with ANYONE. No. 4 -- ok. But who says a field can't list that he's a piano an conductor? There's room for both. No. 5, well to most readers, "classical" may be enough info. Perhaps the era they are most known as...I'll agree that one is problematic. No. 6 can apply to ANY musician can't it? No. 7 also can apply to ANY musician, and certainly some classical musicians DO have single labels they have always or almost always recorded with (Yo-Yo Ma for instance); easy enough to leave composers out (though even Rachmaninov recorded only for RCA didn't he?). No. 8, skip it -- so what? Again, you don't HAVE to include every entry. No. 9, skip it too, though some dead composers still have official sites (Leonard Bernstein for instance). And 10, well skip it too? So that leaves exactly *ONE* of the ten that has a real problem, and a couple that might. Everything else are either potential problems will ALL people, or with any musicians. This is why people call you elitists -- because you're being ABSOLUTELY REDICULOUS in trying to justify your exclusion. Or am I just so dumb I can't see what a genius you are? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be ridiculous, but let's not edge into apoplexy. We can keep things calm and collegial, I hope. Powers ^T 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A question for the opera buffs in the room :) ... If I were to propose adding "This template should not be used for musicians who are primarily notable as opera singers", is that appropriate wording? I don't want to say "only" in place of "primarily", because that sounds demeaning ("she's ONLY an opera singer"!). But "primarily" may invite POV. If a person is, say, 60% regarded as an opera singer and 40% as a drummer in a rock band, and the drumming career is adequately covered in the article, I'm concerned that someone may say the word "primarily" means the opera career trumps the other, so no infobox for you. Sorry for the convoluted example. From our discussion of crossover musicians, I think this musician could have an infobox to cover the drummer career. Any suggestions on appropriate wording to put this point across? (You don't actually have to be in favour of the proposal to make a suggestion, and for myself, I may propose it without voting on it.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's precisely that kind of edge case which makes prohibition silly. Then you've got classical violinists who release pop albums. And classical pianists who compose film scores. That's three seconds' worth of examples which would require additional clarification. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Geez all this talk of prohibiting and enforcing and "should not" and who gets to prohibit and who doesn't. ;-) How about just a simple note to the effect that "this template may not be suitable for primarily classical musicians and singers" and leave it at that. It's just a heads-up to editors, especially novice editors and those outside the field. But really, if any mention whatsoever in the documentation to that effect is such a big deal. Well leave it out. The relevant projects will continue to make their own recommendations. I doubt if you (the collective Musicians Project "you") will get many other projects suggesting that this template should not be used for musicians who are primarily notable in their genre. The three projects who look after classical music subjects (including opera) look after over 20,000 articles in an area that most encyclopedias consider core rather than "niche". But if the Musicians Project wants to call it a niche area, and make no exceptions on that basis, well...OK... Voceditenore (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's more of a systemic bias than anything really. They may be more important to overall history, but far less people care about them so they are niche in the sense of popularity. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Musical artist is exceptionally wide in its connotations: players, group members, composers, even producers where they make substantial contribution to the sound of an artists/band/record eg George Martin. Also, every single genre under the sun is implied including every non-Western genre... Worse still, do we include Franz Liszt, Arcangelo Corelli etc, i.e. notable artists from previous centuries? You have to limit the scope. Modern Classical artists are being covered by this box, anyway, eg Alarm Will Sound, London Symphony Orchestra, Ludovico Einaudi, so the main issue raised above is irrelevent (unless all those articles are de-tagged...). However, the box needs to be applied in a sensible and consistant way that reflects the lead in the Template page. Hence, that lead needs to be rewritten to explain to scope intended (even non-classical musician includes folk singers from previous centuries) --Jubilee♫clipman 17:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And why, exactly, must this be in the template documentation? If it isn't appropriate for some purposes, it won't be used for them. This whole argument presupposes that by omitting a Grand List Of Permitted Purposes, that somehow we're mandating that this template be forced onto the biographies of anyone who's ever so much as whistled in key. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You know what, you have a point (one that has been made several times now I've had a chance to thoroughly read the discussion). Why not just accept that this template will be—indeed, is—used for an enormous diversity of articles and write the lead to reflect that. To clarify, the words non-classical must be removed per the actual usage of this template, unless anyone feels like removing the template from all classical articles that use it, including the numerous orchestras. Press What links here from the main page to see what I mean. (Hint: it could take weeks even just to find them.) The template will probably not be used to tag musical artists long dead or unknown it the West, so my other objections are probably not relevent. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To Jubileeclipman and Voceditenore who posted similar messages: this is an option I had in mind from the beginning. But if the instructions were to advise "this template may not be ideal for certain people, like classical musicians for instance, because..." - well, what's the rest? That's why I was asking for objections to be spelled out. I think we have some for opera singers, though I can't see how to put what I've seen into the instructions, and I'm not expecting to see much more after this time. I've gathered enough info to post some formal proposals. Thank you, everyone, for your input. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change

Consensus for 'non-classical'

Now we've had a cooling off period (of three days) to get this discussion in perspective after it was peremptorily closed (see here and here), many will agree that closure is good. (Repetitive debates are tedious.) It's clear there's a strong consensus for the words 'non-classical musical artist' to remain in the description of this box. There was also a 'majority' interest in changing the name of the box to reflect that. This may be worth returning to in the future. --Kleinzach 10:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the low participation, I don't see anything of the sort. On a strict head-count it's about 1:2 in favour of keeping, but half of them are zero-content "I agree" or the like. There's no consensus to remove the wording, true, but there is certainly no mandate for the agenda which got it added in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the results (to the "rename" proposal) as Chris does; 6 short votes in favour, and 4 detailed negative reactions, not really qualifying as a "majority interest". About the whole discussion, there was a lot of drama over what was merely an attempt to halt an edit war being done by people who were avoiding using the talk page at first. Eventually, that was no longer a problem! As this thing kept expanding, I was afraid of seeing a write-up appear about it in the Signpost "discussion reports and misc. articulations" page. If you have bad feelings about my closing the discussion (going by the use of word "peremptorily" which I had to look up, and the use of 2 diff-links), I have often seen discussions closed after one day, but was willing to keep it open as long as it was active. I closed it more than a day after seeing replies winding down, and thought I should have closed it sooner. I don't think I can be accused of jumping the gun.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who participated. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thumperward/Chris Cunningham and A Knight Who Says Ni: You two removed the words 'non-classical' (see here and here and here.) This long — arguably unnecessary — debate was the result. --Kleinzach 00:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe that should tell you something if two independent people agree, huh? Oh I forget, you own all of the things within your interest. Silly me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Darn right I reverted it when I saw it being changed without discussion, and others disagreeing with the change. If you think this sort of thing SHOULD be going on without discussion, and using the talk page to reach a decision is "unnecessary debate", I wonder why you even bother posting on talk pages. You have been around long enough to know how things work on Wikipedia. Bullying your way through when things don't go your way, and making accusations against others in the process, is not appropriate behaviour. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)