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.

Most artists who are members of groups on WP tend to be listed under "solo_singer" or "non_vocal_instrumentalist". Barbra Streisand is a solo singer, and Yanni is a non-vocal instrumentalist. This leaves all other artists who both sing and play an instrument(s) without a proper category.

I propose adding "vocal_instrumentalist" to the template. I could care less what the color is... Doc9871 (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Instructions on which to use in this case, are under the table of colour bars. Considering that there are probably more singer/instrumentalists around these days, than purely singers or instrumentalists (I'm thinking of solo performers rather than band members, as the former is more likely to have an article), it wouldn't be much of a loss to combine the two existing categories. (Don't worry, I'm not proposing that.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history."

Don't like the current "instructions" after the Infobox anymore than I like my current shrubber (he's been a bit "uppity" lately). You're 93.7% right about merging the two categories, but there should be fringe allotments for the true solo singer (Streisand) and true non-vocal instrumentalist (Yanni). We both understand that this template will only expand in its descriptions as time goes on, so I'm certainly not worried about much except the price of tea. I say, let's keep the two existing parameters, and create the third (vocal_instrumentalist) to encompass the vast majority of musical artists on WP... Doc9871 (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, 'vocal instrumentalist' insinuates a person whose voice is their instrument, not a vocal/instrumentalist. kiac. (talk-contrib) 10:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. How about "vocalist_instrumentalist"? I don't care what the exact title is, just that there's a separate category... Doc9871 (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition quote, but we are no longer the knights who say Ni, we are now the knights who say... well, I could go on, but other editors would probably think I'm crazier than you are. Back to the topic, I'm thinking we will need complex instructions on what to do with someone like Jon Anderson who is mainly known as a vocalist, but does play guitar and other instruments. He actually played all instruments on his first solo album, a pretty good feat for someone who many people presume doesn't play any instrument. A revised write-up of "how to determine which parameter value to choose" would have to be part of the proposal. Another concern is how (or if) we are going to convert articles currently using the template. A bot can't accurately re-categorize articles all of the time, but we might have a bot go through all articles using the template with solo singer, and look to see if the "instruments" field is blank, or contains nothing other than the 4 voice-related values suggested by the current instructions, and presume that such an article should remain as solo singer, and change all others to vocalist instrumentalist. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up Jon Anderson, as he's a perfect illustration of why the third category should be created. As you pointed out, he's mainly known as a singer, but also plays instruments. Letting the average viewer know that he's not just a vocalist, but also an instrumentalist can only enrich the environment. Jim Morrison played harmonica, so he would be "vocalist_intrumentalist" for that alone. I think once the change is made, other editors will quickly catch on and things will work themselves out (more or less).

The genesis of this idea came when I was working on Journey bass player Ross Valory's page. He was listed as a "non-vocal_instrumentalist", and the picture on the page shows him singing live during a concert. I had already known he sang backup vocals, and was not merely an instrumentalist, so I got a little irritated with how the template was limited as it currently is.

As kind of an experiment, I had already changed all current and former members of the Eagles to the proposed category, as all are clearly both vocalists and instrumentalists. I did, however, leave the templates on the bottom of each page unchanged; this template lists, for instance Glenn Frey's solo efforts. The distinction between an artist from a band as a subsequent solo artist is another can of worms to be opened, but I think at a later date...

The issues you brought up regarding the challenges of changing the template are new to me, as I'm pretty unfamiliar with a lot of WP workings. "Bots" are not yet within my realm, but I'm always happy to learn from editors with more experience (such as yourself) on how to make the change possible. I absolutely feel it's worth changing this, and am confident that it will happen in the future whether the change is made now or later. I say we make the change now (with additional Admin help if needed), and we'll be celebrated as pioneers one day down the road ;>

"I feel...happy..." (WHACK) Doc9871 (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Before you get too happy... it's not a good idea to change a parameter to a value that isn't supported by the template. The Eagles members now have a template colour that is the default for when a non-recognized value is used. There used to be, and may still be, a bot going around looking for instances of unrecognized values being used, and flagging them for change. I also seem to recall discussion of a way to automatically categorize an article with a template in this state. This would be a "hidden category" with a name something like: templates that needs correcting. I just checked the Glenn Frey page, and there is no applicable hidden category, so either I'm thinking of another template, or it was an idea that never got implemented. Anyway, changing the template to use a non-supported value in a live article can get you a whack with a wet trout, so I advise undoing this change. As for my suggestion of setting up a bot to change articles after the template is changed, I didn't mean you (or I) should create a bot. There is a way to request existing bot-runners to do this for us. That's for the future.

As the next step, I recommend you rewrite the instructions for this parm, and present it here as a proposal. You said you didn't want to pick a new colour, but if it's your idea, you should pick one. Existing colours are pastel-ish, and pink is not being used. OR, presuming most articles using "solo singer" are going to change to the new value, we could do a switcheroo and make the new value yellow (the current colour for singer), and change singer to a new colour. That way, most articles will not change colour. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in here. I share Knight's concern; a major change like this, supposedly impacting thousands of infoboxes, shouldn't be rushed through, and I will strongly advice you to hold your horses until a consensus has been reached and some clear guidelines have been established concerning the application of this new value. You mention yourself Ross Valory as an example where you would apply it. Does that mean that you would consider every musician who has been shouting some backup vocals (like Keith Moon) and every singer who has been banging on a tambourine on stage in order to be occupied during the instrumental solos (like Joe Cocker) as "vocalist_intrumentalist"? If that's the case, I am afraid that there won't be many pure vocalists and instrumentalists back to populate the two existing categories. What I am trying to say is that I am not necessarily opposed to your proposal (and not wholly convinced either), but we definitely need some clear guidelines on how to use this new value. So I concur with Knight, you should put forward a proper proposal in this space that people can look at and comment. – IbLeo (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't attempt to make a change this radical without a proposal, as it would probably get me into trouble, and is not for one person to decide anyway. I appreciate the help from both of you greatly, and it only aids me in forming a proper proposal fit for submission; one that would succeed, of course.

A change like this probably would eliminate all but the very pure vocalist and instrumentalist from the existing categories, and that is one of the goals. Bother Cocker and Moon played instruments and sang, so they would certainly be moved. Simply because Cocker is known primarily as a singer does not exclude the fact that he also played guitar and harmonica (as listed in his Infobox). There is no importance placed on either parts of the proposed category; Moon was primarily an instrumentalist who sang sometimes, but it wouldn't be changed to "instrumentalist_vocalist" because of that. It would be a catch-all category, far superior to what is currently in place, that would keep "solo_singer" reserved for opera singers, pop singers, and all others whose sole instrument is their voice. On the other side, Kenny G, Yo Yo Ma and a host of others are pure instrumentalists who do not sing. All others would fall into the "vocalist_instrumentalist" category if they did both.

I agree that it's a little more complicated than I'm portraying (esp. when you bring up the tambourine <shudder>). Looking at someone like Madonna, I see where it would feel "uneasy" placing her in the proposed category because of her Infobox information. I appreciate more feedback before I craft a proposal that will aid the process of categorizing musicians more accurately than at present. Knight's idea about keeping the color the same as it is now is excellent, and would certainly be a crucial part of the proposal, to assuage the fears of those who loathe substantial and sudden change.

P.S.: Do either of you (or anyone else reading this) know exactly why it's called "solo_singer" and not just "singer"? The "solo" designation seems to confuse things further. Does this mean solo artist? I'd love to know the reasoning behind "solo_singer"... Doc9871 (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been around long enough to know the origins of "solo_singer". Looking through the archives is always quite instructive, you might find the full history there. I did a quick search on "solo_singer" and found that it is far from the first time this particular issue has been brought up. This discussion from 2007 is quite similar to what we are doing here and a proposal to bring in a new value for singer-instrumentalist was defeated, but then again, consensus can change. – IbLeo (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive reference; I've used it to try and recruit the two main proponents for the change in 2007 into the current argument. We'll see if they chime in... Doc9871 (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• chime*. As I said back in 2007, I think it'd be great to have a separate category, since there are plenty of artists who are not just singers or instrumentalists, but in fact are both. I don't care how this affects the colors; I leave that in your capable hands. In any case, I am sure that whatever consensus is reached will be just fine - it's not like this has been a constant frustration for me for the last two years. I hardly ever do articles on musicians anyway. Thanks for notifying me of the new discussion, though. Cheers. (and Ni!). LordAmeth (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(outside) i've always understood the "solo" part as meaning "this infobox is not for bands", but i'm just guessing. as for specifying exactly who fits into this new category: i'd leave it as open as possible and let "local" editors decide which infobox is suitable for the particular artist they're writing about - something along the lines of "performers who make notable professional use of both voice and an instrument or instruments" Sssoul (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just curious but what are the possibilities and logistics of creating some sort of link to separate discography pages? ONEder Boy (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A detailed discography can be a separate article, and the artist's article can have a short version with a hatnote to the discog article. See Pink Floyd#Discography for example. Is this what you are looking for? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What are the "exceptional cases" that a disbanded group's members would be listed as Current_members, rather than Past_members? Is it meant to be done when there were current members as well as former members when the group disbanded, or is it based on something else? I really think the description for this label should be clarified in the documentation. Eugeniu Bmsg 06:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want the truth (but don't tell anyone I said so), the box for The Beatles should list all members as "past", but the Beatles WikiProject decided they wanted to opt out of that rule. We got tired of being asked why one of the most popular artists doesn't follow the artist infobox rule (not that I'm complaining about you asking!), so we changed the rule to say there can be exceptions. Actually, that's the exception: consensus of an artist's WikiProject (or article talk page). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Knight on this one. "Exceptional cases" seems to mean "when editors of a particular article are very passionate about keeping certain members of a group listed more prominently than others". It's true of both The Beatles and Nirvana (band), and possible some other articles. While I'm sure we can all agree that the most well-known lineups of both these bands are certainly the most notable, the infobox isn't equipped to convey the idea of "highly notable vs. not-so-notable", it's only set up to convey "current vs. former", and obviously for a disbanded group all the members would be former. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Associated Acts" field is misused and abused 99% of the time on Wikipedia and really serves no purpose in an infobox. I implore anyone here to take a random sample of 20 different musician biographies and see just how poorly it is being handled. There are times when the best solution to a problem on Wikipedia is corrections through editing, but in this specific case the "Associated Acts" field is nothing more than a super-magnet for trivial and loosely related artists by the dozens, cluttering up an infobox. That is exactly what we're aiming not to do in the infobox. JBsupreme (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We did rewrite the instructions for this section earlier this year. It's not likely that many old articles were changed to conform to the new instructions, so that may be what you are seeing. At that time, we did not notice such a great abuse of that field that made it unusable. Please provide some examples, and feel free to change any that need fixing. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The current instructions are pretty mucky I feel... too ambiguously defined.  :( JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're not saying what is specifically wrong, or what articles are using the parm incorrectly and why. The rules were clarified, and show how the field should be used, with a list of do's and don'ts, so I don't see how it can be vague. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Test case: Take a sampling of 20 miscellaneous artists from various genres who listed Associated Acts in the infobox. Are they being utilized correctly or not? If not, why not. I'm interested to see what results you get. JBsupreme (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but notice no one is interested. JBsupreme (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry JB, but this is like when an editor objects to removal of uncited claims by saying we could probably find proof if we used google to search other websites (the point being, that's the job of the person who inserts the content). I haven't come across a big problem with the use of this field in the articles I read and edit. If you have, let us know which articles, and we can help fix those. If you can't provide examples as suggested, I'm not sure you are justified in thinking there is such a serious problem as to call for the parm's removal. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely should NOT delete the parameter. Abuse of a parameter needs to be dealt with on a "case-by-case" basis. Should we eliminate the "Genre" parameter because of the endless edit wars concerning that issue? Eliminating parameters "outright" is not the way... Doc9871 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, can you answer my question please or NOT reply below the part where I'm asking a question? Please refactor or move your non-response. JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Non-response" - The answer to your question is... "No, there is no chance of the incomplete pseudo-proposal (that you may be attempting to suggest?) passing." I don't really see the need to "refactor"(?) or move my "non-response" anywhere - interesting terminology. I suspect you may want only opinions that agree with you. That is not WP... Doc9871 (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm looking for feedback in general regarding the articles I just mentioned, as was requested earlier. Feel free to continue typing away, Doc. JBsupreme (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Last typing you'll see from me - seriously, best of luck eliminating the "Associated Acts" parameter. Seriously. Good luck... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Random sampling

(indentation reset)

Okay, interesting response. I'll take the bait. Here's a random sampling of articles which I believe are mis-using / abusing the Associated Acts field. What is the opinion of others who are reading this talk page? 40 Glocc, Bishop Lamont, Crooked I, C-Bo, Daz Dillinger, DJ Skee. I could go on, but I'd like some input first. JBsupreme (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't know why you're saying "I'll take the bait". It was you who wanted us to chase down some examples for you, but that's not what we're here for, and what Doc said is what I've been trying to tell you.

On to a reply: There may well be a problem with the field that is particular to rap artists. I have seen occasions in the past where a certain music genre goes off in a different style direction, and it happens because creators of those articles use similar articles as an example. The most popular articles in the genre become a "template" for the others. I recall some years ago when editors of "metal" articles claimed certain formatting standards were different for that genre, but the real explanation is that conventions just developed from article to article by editors who probably rarely worked on articles outside their genre, and did not have a broader view.

Just taking a quick glance at a couple of your examples, it seems the article subjects did do collaborative work with other artists such as doing remixes of each other's music, etc., and that is probably being used as the reason for the mention in "associated acts". Since that kind of cross-collaboration work goes on frequently in rap and DJ/dance music, this may explain why these articles have so many AAs, and in some instances they might be justified. But it's important for editors to remember the field is for collaborations "on multiple occasions", and not a "one-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song" (both quotes taken directly from the guidelines).

To prepare for correcting an article, you should consider each AA that you think should not be there, summarize what the relationship is between artists (as presented in the article), and then determine that it does not meet the criteria in the guidelines. If the AA isn't mentioned at all in the article, or if the work they did together is only vaguely described, it should certainly come out. This may sound like a lot of work, but you don't have to ask permission before taking out AAs. But you SHOULD be prepared to justify your actions if they are questioned. You could essentially reply to objections before they are raised by posting a message on the article's talk page at the same time you make the edits, explaining case by case why each AA was removed.

Why not try that with one article that gets a lot of editing traffic, and see what happens? If you're unsure about this, why not prepare an "article talk page" message on your own user sandbox page (not actually editing the article yet), and ask for us to look at it to see if it's acceptably worded? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point for me. This field is completely pointless and frequently subject to overly long lists of loosely "associated artists". Who cares if they have worked together on 3 songs? Do you not see how vague your definition of "multiple occassions" is? Do we really need to clutter up the infobox in this fashion? If it is truly important, document it within the body of the article. JBsupreme (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your "it's often cluttered in hip-hop articles, so we should get rid of it altogether" attitude really isn't helpful, and I doubt there's a snowball's chance of the field getting removed outright. For most artists it is quite relevant and not cluttered. For example, the infoboxes for All and the Descendents would be remiss not to note the two bands' association, as they share 75% of the same members. And for an article about a solo musician or single member, you need the field to list the acts that that person is or has been a member of. The infobox for Maynard James Keenan would be remiss it it did not mention Tool or A Perfect Circle anywhere in it. The problems you are describing are the exception rather than the rule, and seem to be based largely on a genre-centric problem. Sure, there's a lot of collaboration that goes on in rap & hip-hop, and listing every single act or person that a given artist has ever collaborated with would get very cluttered...that can also happen in rock, BtW: if we tried to list every act that Josh Freese has recorded for in the infobox, the list would be over 100 entries long. That's why we have some guidelines here on the template page, to keep it to the most relevant examples. In Freese's case that means acts he's actually been a full member of rather than just a session drummer. For rap/hip-hop artists this means other artists/acts that they've collaborated with on multiple significant occassions, for example Eminem and Dr. Dre. I would think the Method Man infobox rather remiss if it didn't mention Wu-Tang Clan at all. The AA field clearly serves a useful purpose when a little common sense is applied in its application, and we're not going to ditch it altogether just because it gets cluttered in a relatively small percentage of articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I lied - I'll take one more stroke at it. JB, you are getting excellent, realistic advice on an issue you, yourself, raised. The basic assessment of this small sample of editors (again, who are freely offering the advice that you sought) is that your undeclared proposal would not possibly pass. This is not to discourage you; in fact, WP:Consensus states that a small group of editor's opinions cannot preclude the greater WP community's opinion. However, for you to argue this point here any longer does not further the goal that you seek. Instead of dismissing the learned advice that you clearly disagree with, it would be best to consider compromising somehow to a more realistic proposal (if that's even proven to be warranted)... Doc9871 (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Doc, you're missing the boat completely. I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm trying to raise the red flag here that there is a problem. This field is pointless, attracts tons of useless drive-by edits, and could be handled much better in prose. This applies to ALL articles, although I do seem to notice that certain genres have more of a problem with this field than others. I am also pointing out that the criteria set forth for this field is extremely vague such that it would be difficult to argue on the talk page of each individual article why you couldn't have 50 artists listed as "Associated Acts" when plenty of musicians have worked with dozens of others "on multiple occasions". Get it? JBsupreme (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla, I thank you kindly for your response. My challenge still stands. If you believe this problem is affecting only a small percentage of articles, why not take a random sampling of your own. Let me know what your results are. JBsupreme (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just becoming arrogant, your argument has been shutdown, chill. Even this latest arguement - it "could be handled much better in prose"? The guidelines state that it must be handled in the prose for it to be in the infobox! The whole point of an infobox is to summarise certain aspects of an article; that's all this field does right now. If there's no explanation of artist's association in the prose, then they should be removed from the field (following some simple research). As for having an article which associates someone with 50 other artists in the article's prose, well you would need a very long, well-sourced article. Be realistic, you have an idea in your head which is just a quick fix. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee.. yes, I "get it", JB! Trust me, you've got an extremely rocky road ahead of you if you are actually serious about changing the parameter, let alone eliminating it. Have the decency to quit while you're behind, at long last, sir! Have you no sense of decency?! Doc9871 (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"If you believe this problem is affecting only a small percentage of articles, why not take a random sampling of your own. Let me know what your results are." Um, isn't that what I just did? I linked 10 musical artist articles in my above comment, all of which I thought of off the top of my head, and none of them seem to have a problem using the AA field or having it look cluttered. All of them seem to be listing the most relevant associated acts without much difficulty (except for Keenan, which had the unrelated problem of listing dates next to each act, but I fixed that). --IllaZilla (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me that people here on this talk page are in favor of the field, but I've just re-read my arguments, read the documentation for this template as of today, and firmly stand behind my arguments. JBsupreme (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's try another approach. You have said "the criteria set forth for this field is extremely vague". What would you propose as an update to it? (Before you reply, you may want to review the discussion that took place when we changed it before. Specifically, there were objections to using criteria that were too specific, and therefore not applicable to most articles. Also, a proposal to expand the rules to twice their current size would likely not gain support, because long explanations don't get read, and usually aren't necessary to give a feel for what the field is about, which is the real point.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the associated acts should be associated strongly enough to be included as prose in the text as well. Method Man is a good example of having too many that only appear in the infobox (e.g., LL Cool J, Keith Murray, ...). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Method Man has too many Infobox "associated acts". So that should be dealt with accordingly, as part of a "case-by-case" patrolling mentality. Don't erase the parameter for all - cull the abused pages of the contested few... Doc9871 (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I've encountered with this field is the tendency of inexperienced editors to add acts that in fact aren't associated at all. They find reasons such as one member in common or the bands played on a tour together to justify classifying the acts as associated. I've found this on a majority of the artist articles I watch. However, I tend to pay attention to the articles that are overall more subject to stubborn newbies than most; these same articles often have repetitive genre and OR problems as well. Although I agree there is a problem with editors adding non-associated acts, I don't think that's sufficient reason to remove the field altogether. Like the genre field, it is helpful to the reader and helps connect similar artists' articles. Timmeh 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem you describe (with inexperienced editors) could happen with any field. Look at it as an opportunity to educate new users by pointing them to the instructions, which they probably hadn't read. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This needs more guidelines than just "aim for generality". How much generality? East Coast hip hop seems like a bad example, because it's a regional scene rather than a subgenre. If an artist pioneered a subgenre X of genre Y, and rarely if ever peforms any other kind of Y, I think X should be in the infobox and not Y. There are a lot of questions this section could answer. If you do guest vocals on a reggae song are you a reggae singer? Is there a limit on how many genres can be on the list?

Pwrong (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion. If noone objects I'll go ahead and replace the old guideline with this.

Genre

The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for accuracy first and generality second. The list of genres can usually be limited to two or three. Subgenres should be included if the artist has one or more albums (or a large number of songs) where they play the subgenre exclusively, or if the artist is considered influential or significant in the genre (reliable sources must be provided for this). If the artist is already covered by subgenres then the higher genre can be left out. For example if a band plays only [[Heavy metal music|heavy metal]] then [[Rock music|rock]] can be left out. If they play only [[Black metal|black metal]] and [[Death metal|death metal]] then [[Heavy metal music|heavy metal]] can be left out. One song, a few songs, or a piece of a song in a particular genre is not sufficient to say that the artist plays that genre. The list of genres can usually be limited to 3 or 4, except in special circumstances. Genres should be separated with a delimiter, either a comma or a line break (<br/>). Genres should be linked (piped linked where needed), for example, "Rock, pop" should link to rock music and pop music respectively. Note that most genres aren't proper nouns, and shouldn't be capitalized, but the first word in the list should be.

Pwrong (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, "special circumstances" includes bands that have repeatedly changed their genre (e.g Clutch), individuals that play in several bands or do solo work in different genres (e.g. Mike Patton, Hank Williams III), and bands that are often labeled with many genres by the media because it's not clear what they play. I think this new guideline more accurately reflects what most articles say anyway, so there's no need to go change every article. People only look at the guideline when there's a disagreement anyway. Pwrong (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think a replacement of one sentence with eight (or more, if your appended section is to be part of it), is going to be accepted. Or read, if implemented. While I appreciate the work you put into this, it is far too long for template instructions. It would do better as an essay article. The current instructions are delibarately short and non-specific, and while I do agree there should be a greater guideline for this subject, a write-up half the length of yours would not be read or followed, and a write-up twice the length of yours would probably not be enough to cover the whole topic, which is why I recommend an essay article.

Near the start, your text says "the list of genres can usually be limited to two or three", and later it says "the list of genres can usually be limited to 3 or 4". In many (most?) cases we don't need more than one genre, and the instructions seem to suggest there should always be at least two or three. I am against encouraging the use of more than one, but your text only talks about using multiple genres.

The current instructions do not demand citations when adding subgenres for certain reasons. In the past we have discussed whether citations are requred for any genre in the list, and decided against it. Your instructions state that citations are required only if the subgenre is being inserted for a certain reason, and there is a glaring loophole here. An editor could say, "I didn't add it for that reason, so it doesn't need a citation". I would advise against demanding citations in whole or in part, and although we have discussed this before, the fact that the current wording doesn't say anything about it, suggests there is no consensus for it.

You said "East Coast hip hop seems like a bad example, because it's a regional scene", and I think that's what the author of that statement was trying to imply, but anyway it (kind of) works as an example whether it's a real genre or not. I wonder if either the current example or yours would be fully understood by people not familiar with these genres. Perhaps a less "cult following" example such as blues-rock or jazz-rock could be considered. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S., a need for more general examples applies to artist names too. It's best to stick with names everyone knows, i.e. Beatles and Beethoven. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, I'll write a bit more and make it an essay. What if we leave the guideline as is, except replace "aim for generality" with "aim for accuracy first and generality second", and perhaps include a link to the essay, or some other longer guideline?

Sorry, I don't know how that happened. I get confused editing with my iPhone. I had a limit of 2 or 3 originally, but I meant to change it to 3 or 4 when I realised a lot of artists have 4. Maybe something like "the less genres and subgenres that can be used to accurately describe an artist, the better".

Ok, I wasn't aware of that discussion. I'll leave the citation bit out. I've seen citations used in some cases where the genre is controversial.

Maybe. I just picked an example I know. In the essay there'll be room for a few examples. Pwrong (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy is something that is almost unheard of when it comes to deciding a genre. I can only see that amounting to even more original research violations in the genre field, it gives them a reason to try to be specific, which isn't going to help. It really needs to encourage people to write it out in the prose and then summarise what is sourced inside the infobox. kiac. (talk-contrib) 15:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the genre field should be inaccurate? The way this currently works is: people put genres and subgenres in using common sense, and usually get it right. Whenever there's a disagreement, someone has the bright idea of looking at the guidelines. They then decide that generality is the most important thing and insist that subgenres shouldn't be allowed. This is nonsense, but it follows directly from the guidelines. Is there any reason why generality is so important and subgenres shouldn't be allowed? Pwrong (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your logic. But who decides what 'accuracy' is? The sources? They're so conflicted it is impossible to withdraw an 'accurate' reading out of them. Generality is in a sense more accurate - just not specific. Specificity can be covered in prose - it would be hell trying to accurately summarise some bands' overall style within four specific 'accurate' genres. kiac. (talk-contrib) 08:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Genre is far from an exact science. Our sources are often music critics who have a propensity to make up new genres as they write to keep their own "art" alive. If there are a majority of critics (or pop historians) sourced for an article using the same categories then specificity is probably fine; otherwise "generality" ie. "country", "rock", "jazz" or etc is the easiest guidance to reduce the haggling -- which is nearly hopeless anyway as it seems to be a favorite edit. The genre edit is quick, non-prose and subjective; who could ask for more of an invitation? Unfortunately, for the encyclopedia's sake artists are ever more so blurring genre lines. It will always be impossible to contain creativity in a small box with third party research. BTW this also was the subject of a long indepth unresolved discussion a year ago during which the field was temporarily deleted: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 9 It begins with this link and spans 7 archived pages (it could be made into a small book). - Steve3849 ^talk 10:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I intend to read it all when I have the time (probably some time in january). I suspect that the discussion never really finished, or that the result wasn't implemented. I understand the idea of "aim for generality", but it's not always necessary. The idea seemed to begin with "when in doubt, aim for generality", which is a much better guideline. Nearly every band article would have to be changed if we were to take "aim for generality" literally.Pwrong (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it might be possible to add a "Style" field to the infobox. My concern stems mainly from Phish, where the term "jam band" is repeatedly inserted and removed from the "Genre" field. I have personally not taken sides, as, strictly speaking, "jam band" is not a genre. However, the omission of this phrase from the infobox is glaring, as that is mainly how they're known. I realize that this field might not have much use on the majority of articles and may have potential for misuse and OR, but I'm not sure what else to do. — MusicMaker5376 17:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We discussed this during the big genre debate last year. Consensus was that one field for genre/style is enough. Adding another will not solve edit wars. There's nothing wrong with listing "jam band" in the field as long as that term is discussed and properly sourced in the article body. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the big genre debate?Pwrong (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.8.232 (talk)

The bulk of it is in archives and 9-14 and 16 of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music (yes, 7 pages of archives...). Here's an earlier discussion that's actually about exactly what you're proposing. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we please have an optional field added for an artist's religion? It would be valuable to know what religious views have influenced an artist's work or what music a particular religion has inspired, and AFAIK there's no other place on Wikipedia where this info is organized. NeonMerlin 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please no. That information does belong in the article but not in an infobox. Garion96 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a chance. See the numerous other suggestions for additional fields in this talk page's archives. This has little bearing on an artist's musical career in most cases, and "what religious views have influenced an artist's work or what music a particular religion has inspired" is not something that can be reduced to a bullet point in an infobox. It needs to stay in the prose, with context, explanation, and sources. Simply not appropriate for an infobox presentation. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with IllaZilla. J04n(talk page) 23:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above responses, if more support is needed! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How come musicians are not entitled to have spouses the way that actors do?
Varlaam (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason the musical artist does not contain a spouse parameter is because who an artist is married to is often not part of the person's notability. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the majority, marriages can be discussed in the prose if it is even notable. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But this is an encyclopedia. It's fundamental personal information. Why is it significant for overpaid actors, but not musicians? It's a fact(oid). It's one data point in a big article. I don't see a compelling reason for exclusion. People in general won't be noting this information when it is not noteworthy. I got onto this in the first place after learning that Miles Davis's wife appears on the cover of one of his LPs. Interesting, albeit minor, information. But there shouldn't be an artificial hurdle to documenting it.

Varlaam (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd say it'd be better to take it off the actor one, but that's a discussion for there. There's no hurdle to documenting it -- if they were ever married it'll almost surely be there in the article. But it's just not relevent to the infobox. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's even not well-used for actors - look at, for example, Kevin Costner. Under "Spouse(s)", there's no mention of his first wife, whom he was married to for 16 years and had three children with! Their divorce was somewhat publicized, and only Costner's spouse as of 2004 is listed is his Infobox. Again, this is just one example, but why include an already poorly implemented and admittedly "fact(oid)" and "minor" parameter on a whole new slew of Infoboxes? Keep it in the body, even for actors, I say... Doc9871 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your argument cuts the other way. Rarely used, so little overhead, except when it matters. Lennon's marriage to Yoko has a huge impact on us as listeners. So why disguise it? Dylan has a secret marriage to a black lady. In some instances, it's worth featuring, either for musical import, or human interest. Androgynous Bowie -- the guy with an LP actually called "The King of Gay Power" -- marries a sexy model. That's one of the most notable things about the guy. I see no downside to making it available.

Varlaam (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I... certainly never thought of it that way... I guess. I don't think anyone could "disguise" the fact that Lennon married Yoko... really? The next two sentences you state are even more interesting, and yet I find still very unrelated to Infobox parameters. It's all still "available" - just read the body of the article. "Secret marriages" and "androgynous" are things that need to be backed with references in articles, as otherwise they are "original research"... Doc9871 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with adding any fields unrelated to the majority of musical artists. If it is relevant in a particular case (such as Candice Night) it should be written within the text. J04n(talk page) 05:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as superfluous. For the vast majority of musical artists who even have a spouse, the spouse is irrelevant to their career as a musician. Infoboxes should only contain parameters that apply to the majority of articles that will use the template, per WP:IBT. Spouses can of course be discussed in the article body. Not every potential detail about a person needs to have its own field in the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion in the main body implies contributors who can compose coherent English sentences. Have you ever actually read anything in WP that you did not write yourself? The Infobox contains data points. No grammatical skills are required to make useful contributions to the project where warranted by circumstances. Varlaam (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So we should dumb-down Wikipedia, reducing all salient information to bullet points in a colored box, because you assume all of our readers and contributors are either too stupid or too lazy to read or write complete sentences? No thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am building an article and I like the infobox I'm using, my subject is within the realm of the box I'm using, it lacks some parameters I need.. ie.. Spouse(s)... Children. Can anyone hepl me add some parameters to the box I'm using ? Mlpearc (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need these parameters, and numerous proposals to add them to this template have failed to gain any consensus. If you really feel they are necessary for the article you're working on, you can use the more generic ((Infobox person)). 99% of the time a musical artist's spouse or children have little or nothing to do with their career as a musician, so we have elected not to add these superfluous fields to this infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See also my reply to the same question posted here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

""Rock, pop" should link to rock music and pop music respectively." - why?

If this is for the lesser known genres, I would understand. Given the unlikelyhood that there is anybody on this planet visiting an article on a group/artist who doesn't know what 'rock' or 'pop' is, is it necessary that these two terms be linked...? I propose that it be modified to read: "Genres other than 'Rock', 'pop' may be linked, but linking to same is likely to be considered overlinking." Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What about Pop, rock? Doc9871 (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My general view is that the infobox is the one place where overlinking is ok. Plus (and I know this isn't a valid reason to do anything BUT) we would be constantly de-linking or disambiguating pop and rock. J04n(talk page) 11:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

in fact i think the point of the sentence you've picked out is that those two terms require piped links, since "[[rock]]" and "[[pop]]" don't lead to "rock music" and "pop music" – it's just that the sentence isn't worded/punctuated very clearly.

but besides that: as noted in the discussion on the WP:Linking talk page: sure the terms "rock" and "pop" (and "rock & roll") are widely used, but with various meanings, and the articles on these genres do offer useful insights that can deepen a reader's understanding of how the terms are used, what the differences are, etc. Sssoul (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

and as long as we're here ... can we reword/repunctuate that bit? it now reads:

Genres should be linked (piped linked where needed), for example, "Rock, pop" should link to rock music and pop music respectively.

i believe what's meant is more like:

Genres should be linked. Use piped links where needed; for example, "rock" and "pop" should link to [[Rock music|rock]] and [[Pop music|pop]] respectively.

Sssoul (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Genres should be wikilinked. Use piped links where needed; for example, [[rock music|rock]], [[pop music|pop]].

...would be simpler. Looks like a good idea; I'd say go ahead. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rock, in particular, has many sub-genres - such as 'grunge'. My comments here were meant to target the linking of the term which seems to me to be too generic. Whilst it may be correct to Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop) - because that genre may be too specific, I would say that a link to 'rock music' doesn't exactly create value for the reader. It seems however, that the editors of Nirvana have got it about right by not taking the guidance at its word. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

... i'm an opponent of overlinking, plus which i'm one of those who would happily eliminate the genre field from this infobox altogether – but as long as genres are being listed and linked, there's no (0) reason i can think of to make an exception of rock and pop. maybe editing the rock, pop and rock & roll articles gives one an inkling of how misunderstood these terms are, which is an excellent reason to link them.

OhConfucius, it would make more sense to me if you were suggesting that genres should not normally be linked at all. but why would it make sense to link (for example) jazz and not rock? meanwhile, the idea of linking to more specific subgenres seems to overlook the phenomenon known as "genre warring" and how heated (livid, even!) it can get, as well as the fact that many artists work in multiple genres/subgenres, and the fact that genre/subgenre boundaries are usually pretty fluid. as far as i understand it, those are the main reasons for the "aim for generality" caveat, and it works better than "sea-of-blue" links to every subgenre someone perceives. Sssoul (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If anything, I'd remove the Genres links, as the article of any genre which would be included in that field would have a link to Music genre right in the first sentence. In the list of articles with most incoming links (which I can't recall where was), Music genre was among the top 20. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 12:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) okay, since there seem to be no objections to the proposed rewording ("Genres should be wikilinked. Use piped links where needed; for example, [[rock music|rock]], [[pop music|pop]]") i'll make that change. now what about unlinking the [[Music genre|Genres]] link in the field name, as User:A. di M. suggests? that makes sense to me too. Sssoul (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Does everyone (i.e. the general public) know what a genre is? (Some people who edit the genre parm don't seem to know! :) ) That's the criteria for deciding if it's overlinking. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A "genre"'s for fighting! For re-inventing! For mass-changing! The Doors called themselves "Acid Rock"! That's the ticket... Doc9871 (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Does that decode into a "support" or "oppose"? :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a "disammer"! Piped, of course... Doc9871 (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify. As someone who fixes disambiguation links (you can help!), I automatically support piped wikilinks. Will this stop (or even "stem") mass-genre changes and endless genre confusion and re-invention? Heh... Doc9871 (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you've gone off topic without realizing it? The current question is whether the word "Genres" itself, as it appears in the infobox (to the left of the list of genres) should appear as Genres, or Genres. I was presenting an argument in favour of keeping it as is (linked), but that doesn't mean I'm voting that way (yet); I haven't decided; waiting for other responses. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did go off topic a bit; my mistake! Sorry, folks... Doc9871 (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the logo of the Boston Symphony Orchestra has been removed from the "Infobox musical artist" on that page. To me this doesn't look nearly as good as having the logo in the infobox itself (see here), and I do not understand the rationale for this change. The template documentation currently states that logos should be avoided in the "name" field (for the very good reason that screen readers will not be able to read the "text" displayed in an image), but the documentation does not recommend against the use of logos in the "img" field. According to WP:LOGO: "Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity." I would suggest that they are particularly appropriate to the "img" field for large groups, e.g. an orchestra, where a small image (photo) of the group itself does not provide enough detail to be useful. I do think there was a problem with the implementation of the infobox at Boston Symphony Orchestra in that the logo image was not accompanied by "Img_alt" and/or "Img_capt", which is a violation of WP:ACCESS, but this problem could be easily remedied by the addition of either one, or both, of these fields. If other editors agree, we might consider adding something about the possibility of using logos for large groups in the template's documentation for the "img" field. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. This seems to be a case where our standard practice, which tends to be geared towards popular music genres, may fall short. One could make the case that since an orchestra is a group of musicians, one could take a picture of the orchestra performing and that would be a more appropriate image for the infobox (per the parameter's explanation here: "An image of the act"). However, I'm also conscious of the fact that orchestras are not like pop music acts: they are more of an entity in which the players regularly change. In this sense an orchestra is a tad more like a corporation, so I think the case for using a logo instead becomes stronger. In the end I'd be more comfortable with having an actual photo of the orchestra in the infobox and the logo being in the article body, with some explanation of its creation and significance, but I'm not as adamant about this as I tend to be in the cases of pop/rock acts. On a side note, I see that File:Bogo.PNG is also used in the article and is claimed to be their logo. Which is it? The second one's use seems to be strictly decorative, so it should probably go. One logo seems to be sufficient whatever its placement may be. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the logo that was previously in the info box (File:BSOColophonJL.png), which has been updated with the name of the current permanent conductor, is essentially the logo the orchestra used on its program covers for decades. (I'm not sure whether they still use it for that particular purpose. I haven't lived in Boston since 1979.) But personally I find I have a very strong attachment to it. It doesn't bother me that the newer logo you mention is also included in the article, although I certainly would not object to its removal. BTW, the New York Philharmonic article also uses a logo, which seems appropriate. The Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra uses a photo, which seems alright, but suffers from the smallness of the image. The San Francisco Symphony article has a picture of an empty hall, which seems inappropriate (perhaps better for an article about the hall). --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are reading the wrong parts of both Template:Infobox musical artist and Wikipedia:Logos. The relevant part of the template reads that the image should be "An image of the act, sufficiently clear for display at 220 pixels' width." Since a logo is not an image of the act, the documentation does not recommend the use of a logo in the "img" field. The relevant part of logos is actually listed under Wikipedia:Logos#Band logos where it states their logos are not like company logos and the only acceptable place is in a prose section. An image of this orchestra could easily be found so we should not be using a non-free image to represent them. RTÉ National Symphony Orchestra is a good example of how these pages should look with an image of the act in the infobox and the logo in a prose section. Aspects (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My browser may not be positioning images the same as yours, but to me, it looks like the logo image in the RTE NSO article is deliberately positioned under the infobox, as though attached to it, and therefore not really part of a prose section. (Sorry if this is quibbling over your example, and irrelevant to your point.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the very few infoboxes that capitalizes its parameters, both in the template itself and in the documentation. As a result, typing a parameter with an initial lowercase letter will cause the field to not be displayed. Is there any way to modify the template so that it accepts parameters starting with both upper- and lower-case letters? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Programming this would be awkward and unconventional. A better change would be to have it use lower case only. But this would require a bot to change all articles, and coordination would be tricky. I suspect we'll have to leave it as is. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I belive Black Falcon is suggesting adding support for lower case, so that the fields will display whether they are capitalized or not in the edit window. I'm not sure if this is possible; I did a few test cases with ((Infobox album)) and ((Infobox film)) and neither displayed when I changed the case. I think it's got to be one or the other, in which case we may as well leave it capitalized. I don't think this is a widespread or significant issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

that's basically it Givememoney17 (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Can you even imagine the POV-warring that would ensue? Just...no. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with IllaZilla. The selection would be original research and the subject of endless edit wars. J04n(talk page) 11:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is all the coding defined? Notable instruments transcludes to a headerbox with text below it: why? Where are background the colours defined? Why does alias suddenly become Also known as when the box is transcluded? This box is way too confusing. Everything is hidden. Anyway, shouldn't it be either ((Birth date|YYYY|MM|DD)) (if they are dead) or ((Birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD)) (if thy are still alive)? Using the latter on someone that died 80 years ago aged 85 will make them appear to be still alive at 165 years of age... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Most coding is in the main page, and becomes visible when you "view source". It is a protected page, so you can't edit. Some coding is in subpages, for example, Template:Infobox musical artist/color.
• Notable instruments: Probably anticipating it will use more than the usual half-line of space provided.
• Colors coding loc shown above; note it also has sandbox and testcases pages, although they have been deleted, but you can create them using the link from the color subpage. Template:Infobox album/color is very similar and has nicer documentation.
• Alias: I think you're saying the parameter name is "alias" but it displays as "also known as"? Nothing wrong with that.
• "This box is way too confusing. Everything is hidden." Templates work like that. The template is complex, but no more so than for other infoboxes, as far as I know. If you are interested in the coding, you are proably familiar with this kind of thing. Most programming code isn't rubbernecker-friendly. :)
• Birth date and age: Already covered in documentation.
• Hope this covers what you wanted to know; also hope these weren't rhetorical questions! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks A Knight Who Says Ni! I forgot I had asked this... Your explanation was extremely useful and my questions certainly were not rhetorical: I was trying to create a box for WP:Composers but found the coding way too difficult to get to grips with. . I think I'll steer clear of editing any infobox coding, though, as it is obviously horribly complex... I stil don't get how "alias" is made to display as "also known as", but I guess that's defined in one of the subpages somewhere. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 19:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose we add something to the "Associated Acts" section which would allow supergroups to have their most notable (or recent) bands listed as associated acts. The rationale being that they are called supergroups due to the members being from famous bands. Angryapathy (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

For a proposal, it's best to give some examples, and proposed wording of the change. I would be against using "recent" which is a word discouraged at Wikipedia, since we are supposed to avoid giving weight to recent events, as well as the problem that recent events may not be recent after a while. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Example: Them Crooked Vultures. The band is made up of three artists who are very notable: Dave Grohl, Josh Homme, and John Paul Jones. Homme is currently in Queens of the Stone Age and Grohl is currently in Foo Fighters. Jones, on the other hand, is best known for his work in Led Zepplin. I guess the proposal could be for bands each member is best known for. This could get a little hairy, however, since Grohl was in Nirvana, albeit a decade and a half ago, and Homme and Grohl have also been in bands which have WP pages (Eagles of Death Metal for Homme and Scream for Grohl). It just seems a little silly to have a supergroup listed and not have the significant acts that they departed from for the band to be listed, since the nature of the supergroup is that the artists are notable in their own right before forming the band. Angryapathy (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

At the very least Queens of the Stone Age would fit in that example, as both Grohl and Homme performed in that band concurrently (see Songs for the Deaf). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the musical artist infobox is missing an entry for spouse, whereas the actor infobox has one. Given thet many actors and musicians are married to other famous people, I suggest to add this field to the template. Example: I was surprised to find no link to Nicole Kidman in the infobox of Keith Urban, while the reverse link exists. --Hypocryptickal (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be against the inclusion, see past discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#All musicians are celibate. IMO would lead to cluttering of the box. If the pairing is sufficiently notable it should be included in the text of the article. J04n(talk page) 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Whoops, edit conflict) Indeed. What's the point of having it there in ANY infobox, really? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well indeed. It could get horribly complex! Do we include "living together as if married"? What about those that have been married 7 or 8 times? How does one define the word "spouse", anyway, these days...? Would not links to exes be politically sensitive? (Not too sure if the link to Cruise on Kidman's box is a great idea, for example...) Perhaps only link to the present spouse/partner/etc, if at all, and only then if that person is actually notable enough to be on WP? Maybe in a "notable family" field or whatever? Again, if at all... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been brought up in the past discussions, who a musician is married to (if they are married at all) has little to nothing to do with their career as a musician in the vast majority of cases. The vast majority of musicians' spouses are not notable, so a spouse field is not particularly pertinent to an infobox about someone who is primarily notable as a musical artist. Fields in this infobox are restricted to those relevant to the person's career as a musician. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed, I actually agree with Melodia: why have the field in any infobox except, perhaps, ((Infobox person))? Or why even there...? That's a decision for others elsewhere, though. "Spouse" should resolutely remain out of this box, however, I quite agree (per previous discussion also) --Jubilee♫clipman 18:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of standardisation, and all the benefits that that brings; it should be included here - or an RfC called to agree for its removal from all biographical infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll never get agreement on standardization. Every WikiProject has different opinions about what should be in "their" infoboxes. Consider the classical music project, which doesn't like infoboxes at all, and will remove them from articles about "crossover" musicians who do both pop music and classical. As for the "spouse" field in the musicians box, it's been shot down strongly, and raising it again is flogging a dead horse. I can't speak for other boxes and projects. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects do not trump wider consensus. As for "dead horse", please read the latter clause in my earlier comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is this "wider consensus" you speak of? I know of no consensus which says that all infoboxes must have the same or similar parameters. WP:MUSICIANS is the widest that consensus gets, really, with respect to this infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we please change the "default" color (i.e., the color that it displays when the background field isn't filled in) to something other than blue? Every time I see a blue colored infobox, I think "oh, look, another n00b who doesn't realize what the background field is for." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is kind of confusing that the default color is the same color as for "group_or_band". I think the default should be grey, since the documentation gives grey as a "temporary" color (unless "temporary" in this case doesn't mean what I think it does: I read it as "placeholder"). --IllaZilla (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm in favour. Do we have some kind of automated list of boxes with blank or invalid value in this field? I vaguely remember this, but don't see it in the project's sub-pages. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• It used to show without a background if the field wasn't filled in properly. I propose we go back to that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am more in favor of no background color when the field is not filled in properly instead of the grey because I have seen the temporary color used correctly although I would have to search for them since it is not used that frequently. Currently, the only way I know if there is a wrong color without looking at the code is if an individual has the blue color. There could be numerous group articles that are incorrect now, but I would not automatically check for that. I also would love to have an automated list so we could fix it easier, rather than randomly coming across an article that was wrongly changed months earlier.

On a side note, should we get rid of the "cover_band" since that color is now the same as "group_or_band"? Aspects (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I will go for any default color, as long as it's different from the standard ones. – IbLeo^(talk) 06:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support a change in the default color. I would suggest white since none of the other fields currently uses white. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just asking the question here - I was adding content to a Musician's Info Box and wanted to add the Artist's Music Publisher ie "|Music Publisher = Universal Music Publishing Group". I have since discovered that Music Infoboxes are protected. I was just putting this forward as a suggestion - would it be a good idea to have this as a piece of information in the infoxbox like with "Labels"? Cheers --Diane (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Performing artists don't have publisers; song-writers do; but for those who are both, yes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Songwriters often copyright different songs with different publishers. Publishers are not like record companies; their artists are not under contract to work for one corporate boss exclusively. So I can't see the connection from songwriter to publisher as being notable. Furthermore, the majority of song publishing companies aren't notable enough to have an article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree; just as we don't add "publisher" information to authors (only to individual books, sometimes). The entity that printed or distributed or marketed a person's or group's creative work, isn't usually that important. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of the articles I work on are about punk rock or other independent artists who self-publish their work and just make up all kinds of crazy publishing names anyway. They would never link anywhere, and they change from album to album on the whim of the artist. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. (First off, I'm a new editor, please let me know where I'm off base.) Andy, that seems like a false dichotomy. In "non-classical music", artists can be performers and/or writers. The term "musical artist" implies no such information. "Non-classical artists" often have strong associations with the original music they perform (solo or as part of a group). Knight - songwriters certainly have exclusive contracts as do labels; many of the best known songs in popular music were (and continue to be) written under such contracts. Quiddity - Given your criteria, how is a publisher less relevant than the label? IllaZilla - Many of the artists you right about may self-publish their work, but this infobox is for all musicians. The rosters of EMI, Universal, SONY and Warner publishing are a testament to this diversity. Also, why is it important that publisher names be links?

(Interjection The above post is by User:Bill G. Evans who forgot to sign, and apparently a bot isn't going to fix it.)

Bill, I have an answer to every point you raised, but please don't think I'm being stubborn in shooting down everything you said, it's just working out that way! :) Okay then... technically you're right, "artist" could mean more than "performer", but usually when someone asks "who's the artist", they're asking about the recording artist name as stated on the label or cover, or in the case of a live performance, the name of the "act" as billed, and that's how Andy was using the term. Taking that into account, your response isn't disagreeing with what he said. "Songwriters certainly do have exclusive contracts as do labels" - that's news to me; I often see songwriters publishing songs for different publishers within one album, and if some have the freedom to do this, why would other writers tie themselves down? I really don't know about the inside of the publishing business, but the point is, there is evidence that writers do not always work for one publisher exclusively, and I suspect it's the "norm" that they don't get into a contract which demands it. "How is a publisher less relevant than the label?" That's a real POV question; I guess the answer is that record label management often plays a major role in steering, making, or breaking an artist's career, while a publisher rarely has that influence. When you say "the rosters of EMI, Universal, SONY, and Warner publishing..." it sounds like you are thinking of publishers as being big corporations tied to labels. I usually think of publishers as being small companies catering to a few clients. For example, the Beatles wrote most of their output for MacLen Music and Northern Songs, companies not run by the labels they recorded for. (MacLen stands for McCartney and Lennon; a company they set up for themselves.) When a big label also runs a publishing company for the use of its (performing) artists, the label name is already mentioned and wikilinked in the article, and I'm not sure why the publishing arm of the same company is so important as something to add, especially to the infobox, which already names the company as the "label". By the way, I do acknowledge there are big publishing companies, some of which are not connected to label names, such as Boosey & Hawkes. "Why is it important that publisher names be links?" Because if most publishers don't have their own articles, it demonstrates most publishers aren't notable in the way labels are. (I believe that was the point being made.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered response. I should first mention that I'm not arguing for publishing to be included; I think you guys are right (though I don't have enough experience here to judge). I was simply having an academic discussion. I would like to note that that publishing contracts with major publishers can be exclusive. One (sometimes) unfortunate thing that can happen early in an artist's career is that s/he signs away all their future publishing to a company in exchange for an advance. The artist ends up owning none of their music, and publishers don't really do much these days (in my opinion) now that sheet music sales are not significant. Publishing and record contracts can be flexible sometimes and allow writers to write/release certain material with other companies under specific conditions. Sometimes you will see (on the album credits) that the songs go to the artist's own publishing company, when they actually don't. (It can get complicated.) Publishing royalties are often referred to as "mechanical royalties" as opposed to "master royalties" for the recorded music. (It's sometimes more complex than that, though.) Whenever a recording is used commercially (and sometimes under other circumstances), be it the original master or a cover (or a performance) then mechanical royalties must be paid to the publisher. There will then, often, be a split with the writer. This is big business, even today (e.g. sync licenses). Sometimes, though, the publisher just serves to collect money and doesn't promote the music. This can be understandable, though, if the publisher has paid an advance. One of the results is that people will see a well-known artist's song in a commercial, and (understandably) feel that the artist has "sold out", though the artist may not only be able to approve this, but is unaware. (We once discovered that one of our songs had been used in a national advertising campaign while on tour; we were in New York and saw it show up on the huge screen in Time's Square.) The more I write about this, though, the more likely it is I will make a mistake, so I'll stop here. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill G. Evans (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add the parameter to ((Infobox song))? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place at WP:MUSICIANS about the appropriateness of the "current" and "former" members distinction in this infobox. Anyone watching this page may be interested in participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Current and former members of bands. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's say I want to have an infobox with a custom tag. I don't think it's a good change for infobox:musical artist because it's not relevant in most instances. Yet, there's just no other place to put in the information.

Several people have described the infobox as an at-a-glance resource, but it contains items that sometimes would require a lot of text to work into the page's copy narrative. For example, if I wanted to add a publisher (as per Diane's suggestion), there's no place I can just plug that in (with most articles). What is the standard way of handling this?

I'm tempted to create a custom infobox that has additional fields. It makes no sense for me to suggest adding (for example) an "influences" tag for the standard artist infobox when it's only notably relevant to a few articles.

Thoughts?

Thank, you

Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill G. Evans (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. Such an act would create extra work for future template maintainers; and it is likely that the forked template would be deleted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Suggestions, then? Bill G. Evans (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell us which article you would like to apply this to? (Even if it's a draft article, you can link to it.) If we could see why the publisher is central to a certain article's topic, we could make a suggestion for that article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't asking about that, specifically. I appreciate your attention to it. I was just speaking in general, in that regard, as I'm looking to add various information to some articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill G. Evans (talk • contribs) 20:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a tag for spouses (for individual artists of course) like in Infobox Actor? --Beware the Unknown (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times before and always shot down. See the above thread "Comparision with Actor Infobox" for the most recent. Consensus is that it is not a relevant field for this infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this suggestion not only has been "brought up several times before", but continues to be raised, suggests that there is no consensus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it has been brought up several times, roundly rejected each time, and never implemented, suggests that consensus is against its addition. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with IllaZilla. True, this is suggested from time to time, but I never see any convincing arguments to why it should be added. If someone has a really strong case, yeah, then consensus could change. – IbLeo^(talk) 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the addition of 'Spouse(s)' and 'Domestic partner' fields, as are in ((Infobox person)). Isn't this template based on that one anyway? Here are some articles which use this template and for which either of the above fields would be relevant: Anika Moa, Jay-Z, Beyoncé Knowles, Usher (entertainer), Simon Cowell (especially note Jay-Z and Beyoncé Knowles will have wikilinks to each other). Adabow (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The primary rationale for a "spouse" field in a musical artist article, is for instances where one's spouse is also one's collaborating partner. (It can be full-time or occasional.) But we already have a field, "associated acts", which would be appropriate. Creating a spouse field would invite editors to enter the name of any artist's spouse, even if that person is not a musician, as a "factoid". If the spouse is relevant to the artist's musical career, use the existing field. I'm sure a lot of editors don't read infobox instructions, and just go by "intuition". And we should be accomodating to that situation by making the fields intuitive (and, in a case like this, avoid making fields that are "suggestive" of a purpose for which they are not intended). It's also clear that a lot of editors don't really understand the purpose of the infobox, which is to summarize the article, not present a list of statistics in a box, some of which may not actually be in the article. If an editor thinks the box is supposed to be a collection of factoids, then adding the spouse for every artist would make sense. That's why we've decided to steer clear of it, in the past. The situation is a little different for actors, because most actors are celebrities (sometimes even more so than they are actors!) so their private lives play a greater role in their careers. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Agree with A Knight Who Says Ni, IbLeo, and IllaZilla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J04n (talk • contribs)

The main problem is that, as Knight Who Says Ni implies, is that a spouse is very very rarely related at all to them being a musician. Even if the person's spouse is on WP and a musician too, even then it's rarely relevant to their professional career, which is the whole point of them being on WP. I think the reason it's in Actor is because of the whole Hollywood marriage concept, which doesn't apply here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we please make this template emit an error message; or at least a tracking category, when an invalid |background= is entered? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Further up this page there is a section called "Color" where a similar request was asked and got support (and I made a comment about a tracking category, too!) but I don't believe a change got implemented. Guess we all forgot! Or maybe we couldn't find a coding expert to do it. Since the idea of changing the background colour to something obvious seemed to get consensus, there's probably no need to debate it again. Can someone please offer to do this now? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S., I'm going to request this WP:Editor assistance/Requests. We'll probably need an expert if we're going to create a tracking category. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed a fork of this template for deletion, at the same time suggesting an additional option for the |background= parameter. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be ok to add subheaders to the template documentation? I find it hard to believe I'm the first to ask. I searched through the archives for subheader. Found nothing. Argolin (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you mean changing the format for existing section headings from the semi-colon method to the surrounded by equals signs method, I'm in favour. I've never understood why we have that alternate method which prevents headings from appearing in the table of contents. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that change makes sense to me also. The semicolon heads are used in Books, BTW, Knight, though they have been around for a long time. Probably some sort of artefact from ye olden days of yore when Wikipedians wore pointed hats and sported long beards :) --Jubilee♫clipman 14:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

At first, I had no idea what you two were talking about. I see now. A TOC with headings appearing in table of contents section seems like a logical thing to have. Are you two enough for a consensus? Argolin (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Give it 24 hours after your original post, and if there are no objections, consider that an adequate wait for a simple formatting change. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. – IbLeo^(talk) 10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done the subheaders appear on documentation. Argolin (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Headings should have a minimum of 2 equals signs on each side. I've fixed it, and also converted headings near the end of the article which were still in the old format. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Knight, Thanks for jumping in! Glad I asked here; it's done properly now. African or Eurpoean? Thanks again. Argolin (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying to create this template over at cy (cy:Nodyn:Gwybodlen cerddor cerddorol Saesneg) (please do not use the template that is currently linked to this template, use the above one), but I keep getting style="text-align:center;" class=" and colspan="2" | errors. You can see an example here. Could someone take a look at it? The above template is all in English for the time being (it's easier to work it out in English then translate it into Welsh), so there should be no problem with the language barrier. Thank you. -- Xxglennxx ^★talk_{contributions★} 16:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries - sorted now! -- Xxglennxx ^★talk_{contributions★} 17:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently the template documentation indicates the proper format for the URL parameter to be [http://www.example.com www.example.com]. It seems to me that this format is a bit outdated by today's common usage and I would propose to drop the "www", i.e. [http://www.example.com example.com]. Examples: mariahcarey.com, audioslave.com. Thoughts? – IbLeo^(talk) 17:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree that the use of "www" is outdated. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this as well, though I have to wonder why there are inconsistencies with out infoboxes. For example, why does this infobox use the [http://www.example.com example.com] format, while infoboxes like ((Infobox actor)), you simply add the URL and automatically converts it to [http://www.example.com Official website]. — ξ^xplicit 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Standardisation is good; but displaying "Official website" instead of the URL is not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that some sites don't work, or display a different page, without the "www". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Going by the example, "www" is only being removed from the text for display, not the actual URL. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but the display is what we're presenting to the user; and it should be valid Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, what we display to the users is a link with a meaningful name. As long as that link brings you to the right place then it is valid. Ref. the examples I provided in my first entry. It's the same with ((cite web)), you never see the URL in the text that is displayed to the user, but you are taken to the right place when you click on the link. – IbLeo^(talk) 04:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And what use is that if someone prints the page? The infobox - unlike citation templates - is for a summary of essential data, not mere links. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you lost me, Andy. For someone who printed a page, what would be the extra value of reading "www.audioslave.com" rather than simply "audioslave.com"? – IbLeo^(talk) 11:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In the case under discussion, the former would work when typed into a browser, the latter not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In all browsers that I use (Firefox, IE, Chrome), if I type "audioslave.com" in the address field I am taken to http://www.audioslave.com/ – IbLeo^(talk) 18:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote above was "Bear in mind that some sites don't work, or display a different page, without the "www"". That's some, not all. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In this day and age, I don't think that's too common anymore. If some websites don't work with the "www", make them exceptions. Overall, most websites without "www" work just fine. — ξ^xplicit 18:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It may not be common; we need to cater for the uncommon occurrences. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I would think anyone using an old browser knows about this situation, and routinely adds "www" when manually typing in URLs. WWW-less format is the current standard, so we should get with it. Also, I find it hard to believe anyone uses older browsers than I do (I'm embarrassed to say which, but let's just say, I can't use Wikipedia's new skin because the pages load too slow on my creaky old computer, and cause it to freeze up... BTW I am shopping for a new one), and on the 3 browsers I use, I can enter URLs without the www. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that we have any grounds for making that kind of assumption about other users' knowledge. This is not about browser (or user) behaviour; it's about the behaviour of the sites' web servers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I get what you're saying. Would it would be practical to state the www should be omitted except in cases where it's needed for the URL to work? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Andy, I didn't notice until right now, but I believe you recently settled the issue to everyone's satisfaction by recommending the usage of ((Url)) in the documentation (these edits). Thank you. – IbLeo^(talk) 04:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot seem to find a non-free image for a band I'm writing about that disbanded a few years ago. Is it alright if I upload a non-free image and use it in the infobox, or is it restricted? Thanks. Sorafune +1 00:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a few questions regarding using this for a member of a band

1. Regarding labels, should they be listed for any bands the person was in, or should only labels that were used as a solo artist be listed?
2. If someone sings and plays guitar, what should the background be? I'm guessing non_vocal_instrumentalist, even though it's kind of a misnomer (of course, so is solo-singer for a singer in a band).
3. Here's one not specific to a band member, but can a myspace page be listed as the URL?

-Joltman (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can field these:

1. Include labels for bands the person was in. The artist still signs a contract with the label, whether it is for themselves individually or as part of a group.
2. According to the instructions under "Background": All singular vocal performers (including lead and background singers, singer-songwriters, and singer-instrumentalists) should use solo_singer. Someone who sings and plays guitar would be a "singler-instrumentalist", so use solo_singer.
3. If the artist has no official URL of their own, but has an official Myspace account, use the Myspace.

--IllaZilla (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the current statement for genre "Aim for generality" is neither what is done nor should it be. Where detail is required, this should be given and this is the way things are done. It seems from previous talkpage discussions that this was this way to discourage OR but I feel an improved version would be "Stick to subgenres supported by reliable sources. Where there are many (sub)genres or (sub)genre is disputed, aim for generality in the infobox". Any comments? Who supports this change? Munci (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the subgenres supported by reliable sources should, in my opinion, be discussed in the text not in the infobox. Adding subgenres leads to clutter and constant edit warring. If an artist/band have been around long enough one will be able to find reliable sources saying that they are several sources, this is due to the evolution of the band and also the music media's predilection to continuously create new labels (and call them genres). Let's try to keep the boxes succinct and neat. J04n(talk page) 14:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that the current "aim for generality" guidance doesn't reflect actual practice, by and large. Almost every musical artist article I've observed uses subgenres in the field, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Our goal, of course, is to have the infobox reflect the content of the article, and that's really the guidance that we should be giving editors. To that end I suggest a rewording somewhere along these lines:

• The genre or genres of music performed by the act. These should reflect the genres discussed in the article proper. Genres should be separated with a delimiter, either a comma or a line break (<br/>). Genres should be wikilinked. Use piped links where needed, for example: [[rock music|rock]], [[pop music|pop]]. Note that most genres aren't proper nouns, and shouldn't be capitalized, but the first word in the list should be.

I'm trying to avoid instruction creep, but the idea is that the infobox should reflect the article prose, and of course the prose should be sourced. Ipso facto, the infobox will reflect the sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you're discussing the (Obvious) Importance of Citing genres in the Infobox, maybe you/we should also discuss the Importance of citing the Order in which they are displayed, or by what rule(s) they should be arranged. Are there any particular Rules? If not I'd wish to propose a rule such that:

Any displayed Order of genres that can be considered Encyclopedic must be sourced. Otherwise (and preferably) a system must be used that does not enable any Point of View or Original Research to appear.

For example: If A system is used that arranges the genres in "Order of Significance" it will enable an Editor to suggest that a certain artist (ex. Led Zeppelin) played significantly more of a certain Genre A (ex. Hard Rock) than another Genre B (ex. Folk Rock). This could help him support a POV claim like "Led Zeppelin are a Hard Rock band much more than they are a Folk-Rock band."

If there is a rule that the Order of Genres must be Cited if Encyclopedic (Order of significance is Encyclopedic because - as noted in the example above - it can be used to support a Biased claim) this will be avoided. By Cited I mean that the order must have been used (according to the system in use) by a reliable source to describe the genres played by thye artist. Alternatively (and less preferably) multiple reliable sources has provided facts as to what genres the artist played the most.

Better still is that the system used must be of such a kind that it does not enable OR or POV - for example alphabetization. Whith this system, all genres must be aranged in alphabetical order, which disables that an editor deliberately puts one genre as "superior" to another.

The reason i chose "Led Zeppelin" as an example is that the article (and I'm sure it is also present on other Pages) has seen a Hell of an edit war and disscussion about the order of genres in the Infobox. The problem is that there are two proposed solutions:

• The First (the older one) is to organize the genres according to an unkown and much debated system, which no one can explain how works. This system has by all visible evidence been generated through Original Research, and has not been sourced.
• The other solution is to use Alphabetization of Genres, as it is a Neutral Option, but this is dismissed by the supporters of the first solution, who say that Alphabetization is not allowed because of rules established on this Page. On behalf of the supporters of the second solution I therefor wish to ask:

1. Is there such a rule?
2. If Yes, Can that rule be changed?

And if there is no rule I wish to establish - with your permission of course - the Rule mentioned above. Let me know if this is possible, or if I need to express it in more detail. CentraCross (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This looks like way too much instruction creep for something as trivial as the order of genres in an infobox. If there's a dispute at a particular article, hash it out on the talk page. If edit wars continue, request page protection. I agree that if no consensus can be reached regarding an order of primacy, alphabetical is a good compromise. But that should be settled on a per-article basis, by involved editors on the article's talk page. It's not for us to start dictating one-size-fits all "rules" here at the template page. Remember these are simply instructions on how to use the template; they're not rule mandates. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and that's what I've tried to tell them. Of course they didn't agree and said that it had to be supported from this Page, hence the Post above. It's Good that you have suppplied these suggestions - after seeing them now maybe they will stop bitching around. Thank You. CentraCross (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Illazilla's opinion is most respected. But it is only the opinion of a single person. And the project is built on the dialogue of many. Be patient. Wiki libs (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is also only One, It seems you're forgetting that. CentraCross (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone is trying to fix something that isn't broken. Putting the infobox genres in alphabetical order would require changing thousands of articles. Considering the many disputes already surrounding genres, such an undertaking would be as untenable as it is unnecessary. Even on a per-article basis such a guideline would do nothing but foster disputes. As far as the Led Zeppelin article goes, there have been disputes about genres before but I haven't seen any real dispute over the order in which they are listed, at least not until this new user appeared, one who writes volumes on talk pages but hasn't contributed a single complete sentence to any article. Piriczki (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting observation. I think at one time the genre field guideline actually stated, in support of the whole 'generality' thing, that only the genres that the artist is known best for should be included. Which would be an automatic oppose to alphabetic order over on the Led Zeppelin article since it would result in hard rock and heavy metal being listed last instead of first-being that is what they known for best. But I think the line about 'known best for' was removed from the guideline since 'aim for generality' pretty much covers that anyhoos.(as does common sense) On the LZ article there has always been an issue over content (mainly IP trolls trying to remove heavy metal) but never any sort of personal vendetta to place it last in the list just to try and lessen its significance. Wikipedia must be consistent. Alphabetical order for one article = alphabetical order for all of them. And that is just too much 'creeping' Wiki libs (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to know how the alpha debate began? It was SabreBd, Scieberking and Myself amongst others who started it up as an extension to the Extremely Durable and tiresome Genre Debate (which has cooled down now, possibly becouse of the Alpha debate) saying that we could use alphabetical order to stop the fighting of which genre was the most important. I have emphasized many times That is the reason why I support it. The Genre debate was not about order of genres - It was about what genres were to be overall included, which is a much more important issue. But that hasn't been brought up anymore in those threads, instead it has been brought up by us discussing the simple "Rock" Lable. The alpha debate didn't start just because "I appeared" - it started because we wanted an alternative solution to the Genre Debate, One that didn't allow POV or OR. I don't see that you were part of that debate.

My interest is not (although you might have made it seem that way) to establish Alpha as a general rule for Wikipedia - It is to prevent POV and OR to shine through in the Genre field, and if there is a better way to do so, please tell me and the rest of the community, instead of just being conservatively negative to everything. It's A small Goal, but it is a very delicate matter, and thus it is causing a large War. CentraCross (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate that the object of this debate was not to prompt a movement to re-arrange all the genres in infoboxes, far from it, but the issue is whether this can be adopted as a solution in one article (i.e. Led Zepelin). Wiki libs feels that this cannot be done in just one article, but would have to be done in all of them. Others, myself included, feel that, since there is no guideline (that we can find) indicating that the genres should be ordered by significance, that consensus on the talk page of the article should allow it to be done there. In fact all the regular editors want the same thing, to stop the order and genres from being constantly changed. So the only issue is whether there is a guideline over order of genres and if not, whether this is a matter for individual article talk pages. We do not have to debate changing all the articles or even changing the guidelines. I do not think anyone involved wants to do that.--SabreBD (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

((editprotected))

The perfectly valid entry:

   | Spouse = Andrée Paty (1931-? divorced), Phyllis Sellick (1937-death)

is used in the Cyril Smith page, but does not appear in the article as it is not a valid parameter.

Can you add this one to the 'Template:Infobox musical artist'. Clearly it should only be recommended for individual musicians.

Stuffed cat (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. This has been discussed. We don't add spouses to musical artist infoboxes as often their spouses aren't notable to their person nor their career. You can use the prose or if you want to contest it again, feel free. BOVINEBOY2008 10:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur 100% w/ Bovineboy. This proposal has been discussed and rejected numerous times. See the talk archives. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

((editprotected))

i want to change the image of cleopatra stratan, the romanion child singer, but i'm unable to do that. what should i do?

117.196.218.171 (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You need the talk page of that article- that's not something that's affected by this template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the sandbox with some general code cleanup which will help migrate this to an ((infobox)) eventually. There are very minor tweaks to the presentation (a slightly larger caption and more consistent line spacing) to match other music infoboxes. One big change is to the image size code; presently the code concerns itself more with minimum sizes, rather than ensuring that images aren't upscaled. I've changed this as follows:

1. If an image size is specified, it is always used;
2. If no image size is specified, but Landscape is, the image is scaled to 1.5 x user thumbnail size;
3. If neither a size nor Landscape are specified, the user default thumbnail size is used.

This should never upscale images, so small images will not be distorted under any conditions.

Please have a look at / poke about with the test cases to verify that I've covered for every eventuality. If there are no problems I'll get this synced.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. J04n(talk page) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Greetings - I am looking to inquire and hopefully correct what appears to be an issue with the format for URLs in the artist infoboxes. In the text of template it is indicated to display the URL in the following format: ((URL|example.com)). This results in an improperly formatted web page address, and is in contrast to WP:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Syntax which indicates "The URL must begin with http:// or another common protocol, such as ftp:// or news://". Not having the linked address properly formatted looks out of place, and does not indicate that it is linking to a source outside WP. Thanks for your input, attention, and consideration. Srobak (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need for that template, the address can be added individually without problem. Hekerui (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My edit to that effect were reverted claiming they had no consensus: 1) there was no discussion about it, just a mention that the format is deficient and my fixing this, 2) if it's the goal to create consensus, starting a discussion and presenting arguments is the way to go. I'd like to hear why one should revert to the revision we consider deficient. Hekerui (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I disagree. Firstly, if there is no need for the ((URL)) template, surely it should have been deleted? Also if this infobox is changed, then surely all the other infoboxes which use URL need to be changed as well, e.g. ((Infobox record label)),((Infobox_dot-com_company)), ((Infobox company)), ((Infobox_software)), ((Infobox non-profit)), ((Infobox user)), ((Infobox organization)), ((Infobox cooperative)), ((Infobox institute)) to name just a few that I have come across. Why should this template be any different to the other infoboxes which use the template? With regards to it being simpler, surely ((url|example.com)) is much simpler than [http://www.example.com www.example.com]. Also the ((url)) template adds http:// if it is not included already so I don't see any reason to change this from how it is already, which would mean all the articles which use the infobox would need to be changed (as well as changing the other infoboxes above and the articles which use them). How is this deficient? The template works perfectly well and does not produced "malformed" URLs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhiji (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also ((Official website)) seems to say that the ((URL)) template should be used in infoboxes.--Mhiji (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Several things: 1) that a template exists doesn't mean it has to be used, and the use on here had issues identified, 2) that it's used on other template descriptions has no bearing on whether it has issues and also ignores that these templates are by definition for different cases, otherwise they would all be the same template, and indeed I think their descriptions should be changed too, 3) there was no discussion at the time (that I can remember) that it's a wise thing to introduce the template, it was just done without any consensus building - they were boldly added and can be boldly removed, 4) that ((Official website)) links to it has no bearing at all, none of these links have any obligatory meaning, they were simply added when someone started using the template, and lastly 5) using templates takes resources from the servers - every time a template is used the server has to do additional work - one can argue that they should not be used for simple links. Hekerui (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The usage of ((Url)) was actually discussed before implementation here. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Srobak's statement and my argument about over-templating? Hekerui (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Srobak has a different interpretation to the MoS to me. We have two distinct parts of a link to a webpage the actual link which must begin with the protocol and the displayed text which need not. From the MoS

Therefore, in cases where you wish to display the URL because it is intrinsically valuable information, it is better to use the short form of the URL (host name) as the optional text: [http://www.example.org/ example.org] produces example.org.

((URL)) correctly produces a valid link and a displayed short form of the URL so ((URL|example.org)) gives example.org.--Salix (talk): 22:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But no one is so silly not to use [http://example.org/ example.org] if they don't want the www. Hekerui (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was not referring to "www", the type of browser or what their behaviour was, nor the validity of the template itself. My entire point is that as a reference source - WP should accurately reflect valid URLs. I already quoted the relevant portion of the MoS regarding this - specifically the protocol portion of the web address, such as http://. "short form" is not at all "better", nor is it proper. Srobak (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see—and I agree entirely with Salix on this point—the MOS that you quote does not state that 'http://' has to be displayed to the reader; rather, several examples are given where this is not the case. As long as the link is a valid URL, I don't think there is any issue with the MOS. And ((Url)) achieves exactly that. Or do you have a counterexample? – IbLeo^(talk) 16:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the fact that this template is totally redundant and wikitext can accomplish the same without replying on a template? Hekerui (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not helping. Srobak (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I am not fanning the flames, but I too agree that the template is not necessary, and I am the one who wrote the first version of the current URL template :) The main issue I have with the template is that it is a bit fragile, and depends heavily on fragile parser functions. The examples of this template breaking are not numerous, but also not entirely trivial. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)