Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 17

Current Members versus Past Members

This is my first attempt to initiate a discussion.

The recent deaths of two members of a Korean Pop group, Ladies Code, has highlighted what I perceive to be a desired change in the implementation of the template for the info box for musical artists.

It appears that the current policy is to list deceased members as “Past Members.” I believe the current implementation of this policy is being applied in a grossly inappropriate manner. In the this case, within a few hours of Miss Go Eun-bi passing away, her status had been changed from “Member” to “Past Member.” Several comments in the article history complained that this was cruel. I agree and believe that to change a member’s status in this situation is also wrong from a historian’s perspective.

In today's society many groups continue to list as members those who long ago passed away. In fact, it is common for various social groups to list their favorite people as members forever. In any event, *for an active group, it is the group itself that defines their own membership.*

The members of Ladies Code were and are bound by many bonds, not the least of those, grief. They are of the same age group, same industry group, same entertainment group, same likes and dislikes. To say that upon death all of these bonds are now broken is not reasonable. To say that someone is automatically ostracized from a group because they pass away is beyond any reasonable jurisdiction of those who are not the decision makers of that group, i.e. the members themselves. In other words, the decision of who is a member belongs solely that of the group itself.

From a historical perspective, to split the membership of Ladies Code, especially as has been done in the article, does not have any source reference that I can find. Polaris Entertainment, the group’s management agency, has given no indication that the group has been changed. Their website still shows all “members” as “members”. No one has been summarily dropped. Their Facebook also shows all “members” as “members”. I can’t imagine that will ever change but if it does, it should be initiated by the Group, not by a Wikipedia author.

I do believe it is appropriate to show that EunB and RiSe have passed away. But that should be done in the body of the article, not in the Member’s box.

Perhaps the answer is to put a moratorium on inventing history for a two year period in the event of an artist’s death. Perhaps it would be to wait for an announcement from the group itself that the group now considers its membership changed. Perhaps a mixture of these two concepts or something else.

Whatever the answer is, it should not be to jump into the documented history of a group within hours of a tragic event and say, “Oh ho! You are now a *past* member.” The pain and suffering such an action can cause to the family members, loved ones and other members of such a group is uncalled for and totally unnecessary. It is especially callous to do so to members of an Korean/Asian group who are extremely sensitive to such kinds of family-like relationships.

One comment was, “Without wishing to be brutal, unfortunately, these two girls are dead, and cannot, therefore, be a "member" of anything,” is incorrect. People who have passed away often remain on the member lists of all kinds of social and historical groups. For example, such lists include Presidents of the United States, Famous Generals, Wikipedia Authors, and more.

I see no reason that Wikipedia’s policy for this topic cannot include consideration for respect and courtesy to the members and fans of a musical group. It is inappropriate to declare a change in the status of a young lady who meets a tragic end without such change being announced by the group itself. Making the change arbitrarily is to invent history, not record it. Enkelisiipi (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with whoever said "Without wishing to be brutal, unfortunately, these two girls are dead, and cannot, therefore, be a 'member' of anything." Comparing this situation to List of Presidents of the United States seems rather odd, because no one is claiming that all 44 of these men are currently the President of the United States. I also don't believe anyone is claiming that the List of Presidents of the United States is insensitive because most of them are dead. It's not insensitive nor is it "inventing history" to say that someone who is dead is no longer a member of a band, and I think that belief in the opposite boarders on a fringe theory. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You're asking this question on the infobox template's talk page, not in the albums project. I think that's a problem by itself.
The second is confusing the fact that a living person cannot be a member of a band and so is automatically a former member of the band, and respecting the person. The two are mutually exclusive categories.
In short, they cannot be a member of a band because bands only include living individuals. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I still disagree and believe it is inappropriate to change deceased members to "Past Members" without some type of acknowledgement by the group itself. Are you saying that you would override a group's specific wish to list all members as members? Enkelisiipi (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's sensitivity and then there's overkill—listing a dead band member as a currently active member is definitely the latter. Per WP:WBA, "The tone [of Wikipedia articles] should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." What you're suggesting seems very personal and passionate. Wikipedia editors need to remain unbiased and neutral when contributing to articles. This is an encyclopedia after all, not a blog or a memoir or another form of writing where passionate, emotional writing is acceptable. Also, band members really don't have a strong input on how their Wikipedia pages turn out. So, even if they wrote a book titled "101 Reasons Why Wikipedia Should Include Our Recently Departed Members As Current," I would still hold the same stance. In fact, I recently did hold the same stance when Grimes went public about wanting all drug references removed from her Wikipedia profile. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that perspective; I appreciate it. I agree with your perspective on Grimes. And, for example, I also agree with documenting Kim Dahee’s (of K-Pop Group Glam) involvement in a blackmail scandal. However, I don’t consider these topics equivalent to the current question. To be clear, I am not personally involved in this group. I was not aware of them prior to the news item about the accident.

What caught my attention was after seeing the news item and going to Wikipedia to read about the group, I was shocked to find that EunB had already been listed as a Past Member. That struck me as highly inappropriate from a matter of courtesy within the bounds of Korean/Asian culture. In fact, the WP:WBA article you cite includes the following guidance. “Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions.”

I believe there are ways to ensure the correctness and consistency of Wikipedia articles within the bounds of internationally acceptable politeness. I will seek input from others with more knowledge about such matters and ask them to contribute to this discussion.Enkelisiipi (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In Reviewing Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution Process it appears that the next step is to create a Request for User Comments. I will attempt to do that now (this is my first try at this).Enkelisiipi (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
UPON further review, I give up. Enkelisiipi (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Death cause

Is there a reason that a 'death cause' parameter isn't in this template? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Because bands don't die, individuals do. If you want to embed this template into the infobox person, feel free to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. What is the cause of death for The Jimi Hendrix Experience (original members died 1970, 2003, 2008) or The Ramones (2001, 2002, 2004, 2014)? Only one band that I know of actually "died": because of a pact made some time earlier, Joy Division ceased to exist the moment that Ian Curtis killed himself. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This template is for bands or individuals. There are switches available, so that a parameter such as this one can be prevented from displaying, when the template is used for bands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Lady Lotus: Let me know the article in question if you'd like me to demonstrate how to use {{Infobox person}}, with this template as a module of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well actually it was for Jimi Hendrix but was told on his talk page that because he was solely a music artist and nothing else that his death cause doesn't need to be in there. But thank you :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
That's poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
On further thought, given how often such issues arise, perhaps it would be better to fork this template into, say, {{Infobox musical person}} and {{Infobox musical group}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I am opposed to forking the template, but I would be interested in discussing the pros and cons of the option. I am in favour of adding instructions for Embedding the template as it comes up so frequently.
As for "solely a music artist and nothing else", that's nonsense. Embedding is appropriate for all individuals. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Template:Infobox person

This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to {{Infobox person}}, which this infobox transcludes. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 17:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-roman script in |name= parameter

For musicians whose names are in non-roman script, I've noticed a trend of editors adding multiple lines in the |name= parameter. The first line has the subject's name in roman script, and the second and sometimes third line has the name in native script, such as Korean hangul followed by Korean hanja (Chinese characters). Or sometimes they're all on one line. There is a field in the infobox for native script. Is it appropriate to include native script(s) in the name parameter instead of or in addition to in the native name field? Examples: Cho Yong-pil, Wheesung

Additionally, many editors include native script along with roman script in the birth name parameter, instead of or in addition to using the native name field. Is this appropriate? Key (singer)

How about using various scripts to depict the same name repeatedly in the alias field? Junsu (it says "Xiah Junsu" in Korean and Chinese and "Junsu" in Japanese)

These things are all often done in addition to using the native name infobox below the musical artist infobox. Is it redundant? I realize the native name infobox has a slightly different purpose.

And finally a related question: the native name infobox is designed for names not in Roman script, yes? What about using it when the name of a group is English, but is written in native script only within the artist's home country's media? What I mean is, it doesn't make sense to me to show romanization of words that were English to begin with. Examples: Nine Muses (band), After School (band)

Thank you for any guidance! Shinyang-i (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Names in such scripts belong in |native_name=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

type for guitarist?

For a guitarist (or bassist or drummer or whatever) who is also a backing vocalist, though it is clear that their primary role in a band they are in is as a guitarist. (Take Eddie Van Halen and Michael Anthony (musician) for example.) They are both backing vocalists for Van Halen, but they are also always playing their instruments. If you asked who Eddie Van Halen was, people would say he is the guitarist for VH. But On Eddie's page, he is type "non_vocal_instrumentalist" and Michael is type "solo_singer". They both have equal credit for backing vocals, and have never released a solo album (Or any full album) with them on lead vocals. A further question is Vivian Campbell Who has been a guitarist for about a dozen high profile bands, and has released a single solo album featuring himself on lead vocals. How would he be classified? Thank you very much. — DLManiac (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on Record label

On Drake Bell's page, should "Drake Bell Entertainment Inc." be listed as a label in the Infobox? Because his EP, A Reminder was an independent release, but Bell called it as being under that name, as shown in his music video for the track "You're Not Thinking", it says "(c) 2011 Drake Bell Entertainment Inc." at the end of the video. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Spouse

Why no spouse parameter? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: A workaround is to use {{Infobox person}}, with this template as a module (sub-template). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
There was a discussion for this about Pink. The only time it's important to put infobox person is when they are notable for more than just music. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Associated acts (again)

Just for clarification: the line stating that an artist can be considered to be an associated act as a result of "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together"... does this include as a support act on tour? I have been having this discussion with User:Livelikemusic who believes that Cher Lloyd and Demi Lovato should be included as associated acts on the Little Mix article, because Lloyd and Little Mix both toured with Lovato. As far as I can tell, they were merely support acts to Lovato. I believe that to be considered an associated act it means that the acts would have had to appear on stage together performing as a single group, e.g. New Kids on the Block and Backstreet Boys could be considered associated acts as they have toured together as NKOTBSB. Could anyone please confirm this or not? Otherwise as I have pointed out, a group like the Rolling Stones will have had a hell of a lot of "associated acts" over the last 50 years of touring... Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, just being a support act on a tour is not sufficient to list as an associated act. --Michig (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
They would have had to have been an opening act on multiple tours over multiple years to be considered an associated act so that when a reliable source thinks of band X on tour they expect band Y to be with them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed removal of "associated acts" field

How would others feel about this field possibly being removed? More often than not, it just becomes a laundry list of acts who have any sort of association (however small) with the artist, despite the guidelines opposing this. I don't feel that the field adds very much - any relationships with other bands/artists that are significant will receive mention in the article body, anyway. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Yes, remove it. You have to ask yourself whether the parameter is more trouble than it's worth. It certainly is a lot of trouble! Assessing it's worth is a bit more difficult, but I think it's clear that we can better express the full complexity of interrelationships in prose in the article body than we can with a bare list in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
No, keep it. Local article issues are not best resolved by removing useful template parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm opposed to completely removing something just because it's causing trouble. I don't think it's controversial to say that the genre field causes more trouble than any other field by far, but there's unanimous support to keep that. I would, however, support either rewording the guidelines for what this field should include and/or renaming the field to "related acts" as a relationship is less abstract than an association — something I've wanted to propose to the project for quite some time now. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Opposed The Classical Music people have eliminated infoboxes all together because of arguments over certain fields. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It, unlike genre, doesn't offer anything to the infobox. Its rules are not followed. While genre is also problematic, at least it helps understand the subject at a glance more than associated acts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither support nor oppose. I think this could be eliminated from groups but left for individuals. It's extremely helpful to look at the infobox for some guitarist and then see all the bands he has played for. On the other hand, associated acts for bands are often so crazy with the endless lists that I think they possibly do more harm than good. —DLManiac (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case, create a new parameter something like "Member of bands". Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Per Fezmar9, the Genre field causes far more trouble (and from my experience, that's just as much down to those implementing the guideline on genres as anyone contravening them). I also think the solution regarding Associated acts could be to reword the guidelines; it's bound to create problems, with the current "two members" stipulation, when in fact an association between one act and another could be very strong with just a single band member involved. (eg, purely because of the notability of Eric Clapton: Blind Faith and Delaney & Bonnie.) JG66 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Unlike genre, "associated acts" are generally not one of the most core details about a musician or band. I would not be opposed to revamping the field as a "member of bands" field like Walter has suggested. The current "associated acts" descriptor is far too vague, and despite any best effort or wording, examples like Eminem will probably always exist. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • While genre does tell more about a musician upon first glance, band members should definitely have something about the groups in infoboxes, especially people like Paul McCartney who have been part of multiple different bands. I support Walter's idea as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal, but let's tighten up the standard for what qualifies. Kanye West and Jay-Z are associated, for example, but I don't really think Kanye and Rihanna should be listed as such. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Associated acts sounds like an act that is in a business-related association with another act, when sometimes this can be untrue. For instance, one example of an "associated act" is a group that has spun off from another group, but what if that group left on bad terms? They're not really associated, right? I think "related" sounds more appropriate. Maybe put "Associated/related acts"? Jacedc (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I fully support this. A relationship is far more concrete and less abstract than an association, which is what the field is attempting to display. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I cannot support this, as the parameter would then be filled with similar-sounding acts that have no other connection. If you're going to change the name of the parameter then it should be something like interconnected_acts. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say on this yet, but what about an artist that opened for another one several times? And I suppose associated should be changed as artists like Eminem have way too many and don't fall under associated. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The current term already is too vague. "Related" is even more vague. Is a relation a familial one? One through sexual relations? Geographic? Temporal? A business association is the connotation that we're trying to convey. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet, the parameter is already filled with similar-sounding acts on many pages. Well over half of the daily edits on my watchlist are either genre changes, timeline color changes or inappropriate associated acts additions. The infobox at Slayer for example currently lists Megadeth, Metallica and Anthrax as associated acts, but they are not "associated" by the definition provided at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts. However, it is technically true to say that they are associated by the literal definition of the word — they are all unofficially referred to as the "Big 4" thrash metal bands who all formed in the early 1980s and still perform today, so to say they are associated is not false. However, the way the documentation is worded — previous bands and spin offs — it looks like Wikipedia is looking to include bands that share direct linage, similar to a family tree relationship. In that sense, out of the Big 4 example, the only "associated acts" are Metallica and Megadeth as Dave Mustaine left the former to start the latter — Metallica and Megadeth are related, while Metallica and Slayer are only associated. Hence, by renaming the field "Related acts," the parameter will more closely reflect the definition provided here for what the field should include and likely curb inappropriate additions. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That's easily fixed. Just remove them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
While I haven't had an IQ test lately, I can assure you that it's significantly higher than a carrot's IQ and I'm more than well aware that I can simply remove them myself. But in my 7+ years of editing, I've come to learn that some things are just simply losing battles. There are 4.7 million Wikipedia articles, but at any given time there are only 1,000-2,000 core editors policing the entire website and enforcing policies, so that means each individual editor should be keeping a watchful eye on 2,400-4,700 articles on an hourly basis for vandalism. This is an impossible task (especially for someone like myself with a full-time job) and non-constructive edits slip through the cracks regularly. I could remove Metallica from Slayer's associated acts field, but an IP will simply add it back within a week and then this cycle will maddeningly repeat into infinity. Removing Metallica over and over again is not a solution, it's a bandaid for a cancer patient. Put yourself in the shoes of an IP editor for just at minute: you've never made a single edit before, you are not aware that there are other editors watching your every move nor are you aware there is an endless list of rules, policies, guidelines (each page with 50 more archived discussion pages you need to sift through). You come to the Slayer page wanting to contribute in some way, and you notice the associated acts field is way too short. You think to yourself, "Well, they're part of the 'Big 4' so that's an association, I'll add Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax. Kerry King played in that one Sum 41 music video, so that's an association. Paul Bostaph once played in Forbidden, so that's an association. Slayer was influenced by Black Sabbath and Minor Threat and even covered their songs, so that's an association. The guitarist from Cannibal Corpse filled in for one tour, so that's an association. Slayer toured with System of a Down a few times, so that's an association. Slayer recorded several albums with Rick Rubin, so that's an association..." All of these are good faith edits, and objectively true and valid claims to be making — these are associations by the definition of the word "association." They are only proven false when paired against § associated_acts, which the IP didn't and won't read. The problem isn't that I'm not removing these errors every time they pop up, it's that IP are making what they believe are perfectly valid edits based on the name of the field. But if it were named something that more closely resembled what § associated_acts is defining as "an association," such as "Related acts" in which the field is more clearly looking for acts that are in a direct relationship, or as Binksternet suggested "Interconnected acts" in which the field is more clearly looking for acts that are interconnected, it should curb the number of vandal edits to this field. It's a simple and elegant solution akin to how modern urban architects incorporate additional and more carefully placed street lamps into their plans to curb crime. We should also look into updating the archaic and confusing wording at § associated_acts and find out a way for Wikipedia to detect when an unconfirmed/new user is editing a field in the infobox and redirect them to this page before they are allowed to click "Save Page," but these are topics for other discussions. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It's working fine for many articles and the editors who maintain it. There will always be articles on the fringes and I would rather not change what is working for the majority of articles and editors for a small minority. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, so why not keep associated_acts as the parameter name, but label that field "Associated/related acts", so that it's more encompassing and more appropriate for a large amount (or what I'm assuming would be a large amount) of situations? Jacedc (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to put similar-sounding acts in the infobox. At best, such acts can be listed near the bottom of the article, the same way that you'll see at fighter aircraft articles such as Supermarine Spitfire, in the "See also" section. I certainly don't want to knuckle under to the hordes of casual users who don't read this discussion page or care about our format. If we start thinking that way then we might as well give up. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't quite suggesting we submit to new editors or simply give up, though I can see how what I said could be read that way. I'm saying there's a disconnect between Wikipedia's definition of "associated acts" and how a casual editor might interpret "associated acts." I'm suggesting we correct this disconnect to prevent pointless edits and endless reverts, not give up. Our definition of "associated acts" as outlined here is looking for a direct, familial relation between bands that share members and/or were born from or out of another band. However, while the definition of "association" is a link or connection, it also generally means a mental link or connection in the mind. But we want acts listed to be more tangibly related, not mentally right? I'm suggesting this disconnect is our fault as editors, not the fault of new users because of our imprecise word choice. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Then "interconnected acts" is the term which will prevent the casual user from being misled. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Right. As Fezmar said, we're looking only for bands that have a familial connection, and the word "associated" doesn't lend itself to that scope. I vote for "interconnected acts" or maybe even "sister acts". Jacedc (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2015

Can we {{nowrap}} "Also known as"? I think the unnecessary line break looks, well, unnecessary. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why. If an individual article needs it, editors applying it there could easily apply it. I would argue that adding it where it's not necessary adds overhead to those articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
How would they? The label is not customisable. Alakzi (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi is right; the template cannot be customized on individual pages—unless you know something I don't. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

First, there's no also_known_as parameter. Second, if you meant alias, which displays as "Also known as" then you would do one of the following

| alias = {{nowrap|Alias 1}}, {{nowrap|Alias 2}}

or

| alias = {{nowrap|Alias 1, Alias 2}}

or

| alias = {{plainlist| * {{nowrap|Alias 1}} * {{nowrap|Alias 2}} * {{nowrap|Alias 3}} * {{nowrap|Alias 4}} }} Look at the code here for this last one, it's not formatting correctly

All will do what you need but will display differently based on your needs. 04:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the parameter is "alias", which displays as "Also known as". It's the "Also known as" that renders onto two lines, not the value. It just looks odd when it breaks across from a single word, as it does at Forte Tenors. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 05:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand. Restored. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Perfect, much obliged. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. Alakzi (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Baptized discussion

I didn't see a discussion for the addition for a baptism parameter.

  • Why was the parameter added?
  • Why was it added only with an option for the British spelling?

I am opposed to its addition. It's a person parameter and has no bearing on most musicians. This sort of parameter has been discussed and rejected in the past. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Walter. The edit summary suggests (or at least, I'm inferring) that this would be used in lieu of a verified birth date, but how often does it come up that we'd need a parameter for that? I'd say if and when it's an issue, use {{Infobox person}} as a sub-template, e.g. as has been suggested for Spouse. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
"It's a person parameter" So far as I am aware, almost all musicians are people. There may be the odd singing horse, of course. I'm sure other spellings can be added if required. Please link to the prior discussion Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Repeating my request for a link to the prior discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
there are thirteen archives. Multiple discussions in there support the discussions. Pardon the cynicism, and without looking, but I recall that you were involved in at least one of them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
So, no link to the claimed prior discussions, then? Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that a search of the archives finds no his for "baptism", "baptizm", "baptised" or "baptized". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Similar discussions to include parameters from {{infobox person}}:
Inclusion of "spouse" and related marital:
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
  8. [8]
  9. [9]
  10. [10]
  11. [11]
Inclusion of "signature":
  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]
  5. [16]
  6. [17]
No specific discussion of a baptism date though, but discussion about dates when birth_date and death_date were added. Baptism never came up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It came up today, for Johann Baptist Wendling, and before for a certain Beethoven, who was a person, a pianist, and a composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You know what I mean Pigsonthewing. There are many parameters for people that are not included in the musical artists.
The classical music project have elected not to use this template. See Ludwig van Beethoven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Johann Sebastian Bach along with other notable composers. Wendling is an outlier and should use follow the standard. If needed, use {{infobox person}} and embed this template. Remove the parameter now a show of good faith. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The members of that project can decide what they want; but they don't represent the totality of people who edit articles about classical musicians or composers, nor do they set Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes they can. I was responding to Gerda Arendt and you have confirmed my opinion on the classical music project.
Now address the actual issue: You have added a parameter without discussing and one that can be added using an embed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Like hell they do. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has been explained to you previously, I believe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It was explained but your answer was was essentially "because I wanted it" and is essentially fecal matter. As I stated, and you never responded, if that one parameter is required it can be accessed through {{infobox person}} and this module's contents can be accessed using the embed function. It's how we've dealt with almost all similar requests such as spouse and signatures in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 May 2015‎
Now - and not for the first time - you're claiming that I have said things which I have not. In other words, you're telling lies. Feel free to refute this with a diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You are correct this time. It was the essence of what you wrote. Not even you would be so bold. My apologies. I have corrected the statement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Your statement is still a falsehood. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion that my impression of what I read is in someway a falsehood is a misguided attempt at biasing the discusion. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear that it's my interpretation of what you wrote and not an actual quote.
However, I'd be glad to recant if you show me where the discussion of its inclusion. That's the key here. You, decided to add the parameter without discussion. It was Gyrofrog who believed that it would be used in lieu of birth_date.
You avoided the discussion by bringing up "singing horse"s.
You have steadfastly refused to discuss why it should be included or the merits of such a field.
You continue to make vague comments in relation to the classical music project that are wildly false: they prefer not to use this or any infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Change was added without discussion. Admin who made the change has not given a reasonable explanation as to why it is required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

arrow Reverted. Pigsonthewing: if you are going to make bold changes to protected templates without discussion (which is discouraged) then it is your duty to revert at the first sign of dissent. Otherwise you will be seen to be using your editing privileges to enforce your preferred version of the template, which is highly inappropriate. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Date when baptised is useful when the year of birth can't be established with certainty, on the assumption that they'd not have been baptised very long after their birth. What are Walter and Gyrofrog actually opposed to? Yes, we don't need it most of the time - and? Alakzi (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand why someone might want to specify it, but that's precisely the point, we don't need it most of the time, and there's already a workaround for when we do. (Or when we need spouse, etc.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Could you demonstrate the workaround? Alakzi (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
An example of how it should be used can be seen at Cher. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense for people who've had other careers, but embedding the infobox just for the sake of one other field feels like overkill. The "Musical career" heading is superfluous as well. It's quite far from the worst possible arrangement, but I can't say I can very much appreciate the resistance to adding |baptised=, either. Alakzi (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly how many parameters are we now expected to use this workaround? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I am expecting exactly none. I cannot not speak for you because you'll call me a liar. Until you present papers to the contrary, I don't believe you should use the royal we. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in your personal expectations. We are expected to use this work around for a number of parameters; not least spouse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Were you disingenuous in asking "Exactly how many parameters are we now expected to use this workaround"? I answered on my part: the only party I can speak for. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox musical artist}} {{Infobox person}}
Johann Baptist Wendling
Background information
Also known asJean Baptiste Wendling
BornRibeauvillé, Alsace
Died27 November 1797
Munich, Bavaria
InstrumentConcert flute
Years active1745–1797
Johann Baptist Wendling
Born
Ribeauvillé, Alsace
Baptised17 June 1723
Died27 November 1797
Munich, Bavaria
Other namesJean Baptiste Wendling
Musical career
InstrumentConcert flute
Years active1745–1797

Thanks. By the way, as I said, the classical music project does not prefer to use Infobox musical artist. I'm not sure why you're insisting on using it for this subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Although, if it's required, it requires two changes.
  1. The ability to have it displayed as "Baptized" for American subjects that need the parameter.
  2. It should only be displayed only if birth_date is not provided. I can see it being abused.
Is that possible? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made these changes in the sandbox: 

{{Infobox musical artist/sandbox|birth_date=1981|baptised=1982}}
Infobox musical artist/Archive 13
Born1981
{{Infobox musical artist/sandbox|birth_date=|baptised=1982}}
Infobox musical artist/Archive 13
{{Infobox musical artist/sandbox|birth_date=|baptized=1982}}
Infobox musical artist/Archive 13

Alakzi (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to have both birth and baptised parameters: We know that Beethoven was born in December 1770 and baptised on 17 December 1770, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that it is reasonable.
You have chosen a poor example since Beethoven doesn't use this template and is one of my points: the classical music project prefers not to use infoboxes for composers or musicians. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on occupation singer-songwriter

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Does_being_a_singer_and_songwriter_equate_to_being_a_singer-songwriter AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

The doc now advises use of {{birth date and age}}, which requires a full date. However, as per WP:DOB the exact birth date should normally not be inclued in articles unless it is widely published already, or has clearly been published with the approval of the person. Many editors seem to be automaically following this documetation and insertig full dates of birth where they should not. I have now included a warning about this in the doc. DES (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Associated acts, again

  • Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together

I just had an edit war because a band was added because their label released a split album with that band. Because the editor felt this work is a "collaboration ... on an album". I tried to say it has to be multiple time and the two actually have to be recording together for it to be considered a collaboration. See As I Lay Dying/American Tragedy. So the question is, should this be considered an actual association or not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A split album definitely should not serve as eligibility for an associated act, unless maybe they did it as some sort of a tour promotion. — DLManiac (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Even if it was for a single tour, it they didn't work together on any of the songs so how can it apply? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Associated acts" was designed to link acts who have long-standing music-professional relationships with other acts: for example, Eddie Kendricks, Jimmy Ruffin, and The Temptations are all associated acts of David Ruffin: Ruffin toured extensively (for at least a decade) with Kendricks and they recorded together multiple times, same with Jimmy Ruffin (also David's brother), and David of course was lead singer in The Temptations. Van McCoy produced two David Ruffin LPs in the 1970s: as of the current edit, he is not listed as an "associated act", nor should he be. I think the problem is people try to overthink the field, or have it in their heads that every single last artist, band or producer someone work with should be listed there (this happens a lot with hip-hop acts, who tend to have featured artists on multiple tracks per album, though in about 70% of the cases these collaborations are financial/favor exchanges often done without the artists ever even meeting). It should really only be reserved for a few acts where, in casually speaking about a certain act's most important works, these other names will come up easily and therefore are important to an encyclopedia article on the subject. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The previous discussion about the parameter came up with four suggestions: the parameter could be dropped because it's too much trouble—too often misapplied, or the parameter could be renamed "related acts", "interconnected acts" or "sister acts". I favor removal. Binksternet (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
"Related acts" is a better name for it. Removing it will probably be more disruptive than renaming it and strengthening the guidelines (setting a maximum number of entries, etc). But I wouldn't miss it too terribly if it's gone, because it is hard to regulate and I see a lot of abuse, especially in infoboxes for hip-hop artists. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Labels

Should we indicate that labels should not be added for solo performers unless they have released solo works? I have seen instances where the labels of the bands they have played in have been added, however, the bands and not the individuals were signed to those labels. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Range?

This template has a parameter supports instrumental musicians' instruments (i.e. piano, guitar, trumpet) Shouldn't it also have a parameter to support vocal musician's ranges (i.e. baritone, contralto, tenor)? pbp 15:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It might cause too many problems. First, the classical project, one that might use this parameter, prefers not to use this infobox. Second, when I have seen range it has not been reliably sourced. Can you should me articles for vocalists where it is supported in the article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that it is usually supported in articles that are "classical", particular opera; though I've seen it supported in other articles. After all, we have whole categories of musicians by range where most or all of (an easy one that can be sourced is Johnny Cash as a bass-baritone, for example). I'd turn your argument on its head and ask you this: would classical/opera be more willing to use the template if it had range and other parameters not currently in the article? I'd also ask you this: what harm is there in having another parameter? pbp 17:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Autograph parameter

Can we add the signature parameter? For many musicians there are available their autographs, and, as most signatures are below the threshold of originality, they can be added here. --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 22:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Producers as associated acts

The instructions for the template currently disallow listing producers as associated acts, but aren't there instances where producers have a deep working relationship with an artist, and thus warrant inclusion? The best example I can think of is the Beatles with George Martin, who produced all but one of their albums. A few other examples I can think of are the Ramones with Ed Stasium, the Rolling Stones with Jimmy Miller, the Ronettes with Phil Spector, and George Harrison with Jeff Lynne. All these artists, and most likely many more, are heavily associated with these producers, some probably more so than with the acts currently listed in their infobox. The associated acts field should be broadened to allow producers with which an artist has a longstanding history. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more of a one-way listing, The producer or agent (e.g. Scooter Braun) can list their musical act (Justin Bieber) as associated, but the musician does not reverse-list the producer. Not unless they have collaborated as an on-record/on-screen act on various projects (Justin Bieber and Usher (singer)). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Presumably you would have to specify a minimum number of records or a minimum period of time for a producer to be regarded as long-standing. Also there would be no reason to stop at producers - in the case of the Beatles, you could argue that Geoff Emerick was just as long-standing and as important to the Beatles' sound as George Martin. Richard3120 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Also the producer doesn't have to be long-standing to have a profound impact on an artist's career: Trevor Horn was only with Frankie Goes to Hollywood for one album, but arguably he is the most important contributor to it, even more so than the band itself. Richard3120 (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Issue with the name being wikilinked

I discovered an issue with the template. The name parameter, at the top of the infobox, is apparently wikilinked. Or at least, that's what the system believes as the name doesn't show up as being wikilinked. The problem is that the name will quite often be ambiguous, and the article will show up on the list of articles to be disambiguated. I've just fixed it in a roundabout way for David Marks and the article is off the disambig list, but it would be best if the template were to be adapted so the name is no longer wikilinked. --Midas02 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Former members, again

So, I've been reading through the archives and feel that the issue of giving undue prominence to current members has not been resolved at all. I understand the problem here - we don't want to be assessing notability in an infobox, and it's easiest just to say "who is in the band now / who was in it before" but ultimately this is avoiding a real problem. By constructing the infobox in this way we are imposing a recent view as the only correct one - and this choice is reflected in the navbox, where current members are bolded and listed on the first line. When people come to Guns N' Roses, Commodores, Yes, Sugababes, Queen, The New Seekers, The Troggs or The Tremeloes they are looking for a "classic" lineup, whether we like it or not, and sticking Lionel Richie, Slash and Reg Presley down there amongst people who were in the group for a week just doesn't cut it. Yes, it's going to be a problem determining which lineup was most notable, but right now our infoboxes and navboxes are just not good enough, and something simply needs to be done. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would it be a problem? The article itself would go into better detail regarding the lineups, especially with those graphs. One can then look at the top-level discography, see when their most notable albums were released, and then look on the graph to see who was a member back then. If they're full members and it was a big deal they were in the group, then yes, but generally studio/touring-only members/staff are not listed in the infobox. Lineups can also be highlighted as with the Van Halen article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Also choosing which one is the most notable or most classic without some sources is pushing original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we have to be suspicious of "readers just have to do this, this and this to find out the information" - as an encyclopedia we should be presenting information in a logical, accessible manner, not as a manual. Like it or not, these boxes are giving undue prominence to recent lineups of groups. Yes, this does prevent probelms re orignial research and sourcing, but I think anyone who has worked on articles on musical acts from more than a decade or two ago has encountered similar problems many times over, and we've dealt with it in the best way we can. All I'm saying is that we have to look for a better way, even if it's more difficult. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Please provide the proof and/or evidence you have, that "When people come to ... [[a music article]] ... they are looking for a "classic" lineup" ? - I most frequently look at a music nav-box to see who is currently in a band, especially when listening to their latest release on the radio, or before buying tickets.
I'm glad you accept that trying to determine which line up was most notable is "going to be a problem" - it is a problem we don't need, and can very easily avoid, simply by not doing this. The Nav boxes have enough problems with edit warring over genres and associated acts, without trying to determine a "classic" line-up. - Arjayay (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What you say is true for some bands - however other groups often continue under the same name with only one or two of the original members long after they've finished having hits or even recording new music, usually because one member has retained the rights to the name and knows it will help them sell tickets. The ones I've highlighted are quite famous, but others readers may be finding out about for the first time. All I say is that we can find decent sources saying "this is the classic lineup" and use those. We don't need to pretend that it's the current lineup. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
You're right in that users should not engage in a scavenger hunt to find information, but that's why the band articles with many different members have a members/personnel section/article to showcase lineups, and why prominent members are often listed in the lead paragraph anyway. The band's album, single, and tour articles would also have the respective lineups; that isn't considered a hunt to click on those as with Guns N' Roses "Sweet Child of Mine". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I just don't like the idea of "this might not be good enough, but the information is available elsewhere." This doesn't apply to the majority of musical groups, of course, but as it is now we have many infoboxes which are misleading people and presenting unduly recent views. Compared to determining genres, this should be easy to deal with, we would just need a couple of good sources in each case. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Spouse(s), parents, children?

I searched an earlier discussion (there have been many), on why "spouse" is not a permitted parameter, to find: "Basically it boils down to the fact that for the vast majority of artists, the members of their family are not notable & have no relevance to their career as a musician." This might be acceptable if all musicians were not also people, and seems quite overly restrictive to me. No-one's interested in who is a musician's spouse (or parents, or child), just because they are a musician? How bizarre is that? And this rule, of course, also excludes spouses and children who are themselves notable, and even notable musicians. This seems quite a paradox to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If they're people, as opposed to bands, then the following can be done:
{{Infobox person
| name = 
| image =
| alt = 
| caption = 
| birth_name = 
| alias = 
| net_worth = 
| birth_date = 
| birth_place = 
| relatives = 
| occupation = 
| spouse = 
| website = 
| module =
  {{Infobox musical artist|embed=yes
  | background = solo_singer
  | genre = 
  | instrument = 
  | years_active = 
  | label = 
  | associated_acts = 
  }}
}}
Cheers Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. That's very useful. I've come across a few boxes where the parameters have been added, even though they don't appear. Is there any kind of automated script that could integrate them into the form you give here? Or does it have to be a manual process? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It's essentially the "infobox musical artist" form but with the embed=yes part. But filling in parents, siblings, children, religion, or whatever, would still need to meet general notability for the general "infobox person" form. If the father isn't Wikipedia-notable, then their name doesn't get listed in the infobox, but stays in the Personal life or Biography/Early career section. Example in siblings section: "Names of siblings or other relatives; include only if independently notable or particularly relevant. ". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
What about this guy's husband? Or this guy's wife and son. Or this guy's father and sister, etc., etc. Musicians often come from musical families, don't they? And yet these very basic parameters are missing. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
If changing their infoboxes to "infobox person", despite having a legit reason to put in the notable family members and spouses, is getting reverted then yes, it should be added to the template. The spouse part is tricky. In "infobox person", the spouse does not need to be notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: there will be several names in the Wainwrights' infobox, but that will be nothing compared to the list for the McCarthys/Watersons... ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
If it's that elaborate there's always the option like Jackson family. Notice in the individual family member's infoboxes, they don't bother with naming all the siblings and parents, but just the spouses. Same with Damon Wayans. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Voice type (soprano, alto, tenor...)

I found something about this in the archives, but in current template this parameter is not available. Was it removed? -andy 2.242.155.168 (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that it's usually WP:OR. I'm not sure why it was removed though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Agent param

I came across several articles (like these Admit One, Janella Salvador, Jun Toba} that contain an |agent= field. Rather than have to remove them one by one, would it be better to add an agent field? This would remove them from Category:Pages using Template:Infobox musical artist with unknown parameters, a category that I am currently working on depopulating. With over 10,000 articles in the category, this could be a big help. --Auric talk 17:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No. The agent is almost always promotional. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I see some articles also have an |album= field. Would that be useful, possibly for most known album? Some have |albums= with a number.--Auric talk 18:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
In the album it doesn't even make sense! What does a booking agent have to do with the recording of an album? If the agent is important to the recording of the album, they're usually listed on the album as an executive producer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I replied and rather than start a second section, I mentioned another field that I've been seeing.--Auric talk 20:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You're right. The parameter for Album makes sense only if there are a few, but not if there are many. Most notable bands have more than a few albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Image_size

Isn't the "image_size" parameter deprecated these days? The instructions already say only to use it if the image is less than 220px in width, since the default display width is 220px. For wider, shorter images there's the "landscape=yes" parameter. But in the case of an image that's less than 220px, wouldn't we not want it to be stretched to a larger size, since that usually affects the resolution? I'm thinking of an example like Vic Bondi, where the image is smaller than 220px; if I apply a larger image_size, the image gets distorted, which is no good. So for smaller images, shouldn't we just want them displayed at their full size to retain resolution? It's possible there's a useful application of image_size that I'm not thinking of; if so, just point it out. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought the idea was to use this for files less than 220px wide to prevent them being scaled to 220px? Or has it changed so that small images now don't get scaled up? --Michig (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
That's my understanding as well. And registered users can choose their own thumbnail size in their preferences. I tend to remove it when I see it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that images less than 220px in width "scale up" to 220px automatically; they'll display at their normal full size unless an image_size is specified. I don't know if that was always the case...maybe some years ago small images did scale up automatically, and image_size was meant to prevent this. That doesn't appear to be the case these days, which leads me to believe that the image_size parameter is deprecated. So, could image_size be removed from the template altogether? I don't think it serves a purpose anymore. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Alma Mater

Could we add Alma Mater like so many infoboxes include? Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean biographic infoboxes? It's not usually a main feature for most musicians. My gut feeling would say it's not needed and if it were, could be handled with embedding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Not sure how to embed. Is there a tutorial anywhere? Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
See the side-by-side comparison in #Baptized discussion above. :-) Alakzi (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I could see this being useful for classical music individuals (covered by the embedding method), but am concerned it would be uselessly filled in for group_or_band articles where the individuals of the group redirect to that article. Similarly, for the majority of musical artists where their school has little to do with their notability. Even if the group was formed at a school, it is more informative to have that discussed in the history section rather than in the infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, the classical music project prefer not to use any infobox. Besides, what was Bach's Mozart's or Beethoven's alma matter? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking more of current classical music performers where someone might want to see if they went to Juilliard or some notable music school. Still, a very narrow case that wouldn't require the infobox tweak. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

K-pop group sub-unit parameter?

Hello, I don't know if it has been asked before but I was wondering if it were possible to add a parameter or two to the infobox? In K-pop and J-pop there are groups that have spawned off sub-units, I think they would be a little bit different than just associated acts. So maybe a Parent Group and Sub-unit parameter would work well for those that have sub-units such as the case of Super Junior in Korea and AKB48 in Japan. Alicia leo86 (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I could see it being used in other instances. There have been a few bands from seventies whre members had an acrimonious departure and each has formed their own touring group. How would you suggest the wording appear in the documentation? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to the definition of subunit then. Does it mean any grouping spun off from the band that is not a solo act? Do they have to have stayed with the band to be considered a unit? Would the listing have natural groupings such as EXO-K, EXO-M, AKB Team A, K, B? What about temporary groupings such as After School Red? Or temporary non-notable groupings such as AKB48 Under Girls or Baby Elephants? That gets to be a real mess. Also many of the subunits do not have their own articles (After School Red redirects to After School (band)) so they might act more like aliases for the main group. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Walter, are you referring to groups which have split up and then there have been two or more versions of the band continue touring, each with one original member and some replacements... e.g. the Beach Boys nowadays? I could be wrong, but I understood Alicia to be referring particularly to boy bands/girl bands where when the original members get "too old", they are replaced by a new line-up with a slightly different name, which isn't quite the same thing. Richard3120 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it would apply to sub-units who have their own pages like VIXX who has a sub-unit of VIXX LR, Super Junior with Super Junior-Donghae & Eunhyuk, Super Junior-Happy, Super Junior-K.R.Y., Super Junior-M and Super Junior-T and like After School with Orange Caramel. Sub-units who have members that are still apart of the main group. Only promotional and notable sub-groups with pages of their own would be listed under that parameter probably not so much AS RED of After School for example but not temporary ones as that would get to be too much. Alicia leo86 (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes Richard3120, that exactly the kind of group I was thinking about. It doesn't seem to fit into what Alicia leo86 is discussing though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: yes, I had a feeling that you and Alicia might have been thinking along different lines, so I wanted to clarify. The "sub-unit" idea is one that is mostly going to be confined to J-Pop and K-Pop groups I think, although a British example springs to mind: S Club 7 and S Club Juniors. Richard3120 (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sub-units are more of a K-pop and J-pop group concept. But S Club Juniors is a spin-off to S Club 7, they don't have the same members. Are we trying to make it more universal not just confined to Korean and Japanese groups? Would it be too much of a headache to include these extra parameters? Alicia leo86 (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking at Category:K-pop music groups and Category:J-pop music groups that would be about 500 articles of which, what fraction would use the subgroup concept? Probably the ones already mentioned in this thread, plus Hello Project and Morning Musume. There isn't even an article for subunit or subgroup, so I'm wondering if the cases are too specialized? Perhaps what needs to be added for the musical artist is some ability to make custom parameters as with infobox character? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Associated acts

Talk:'68 (band)#Associated acts 208.81.212.224 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hidden error message displayed by Google

The template adds a hidden error message for unrecognized parameter names but the message is displayed in Google searches. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"Under Title" issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Spouse

Why no spouse parameter? Many other biographic info boxes allow it.--agr (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has come up before – see Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 13#Spouse(s), parents, children?. Richard3120 (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
And bands don't have spouses. Imbed this infobox in the person infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

Hi, please apply the "nowrap" directive to "Occupation(s)" (and any other labels ending in "(s)") to prevent incorrect line breaks in some browsers. I.e., to prevent

Occupation(s)

appearing as

Occupation
(s)

This problem occurs fairly commonly throughout numerous infoboxes. Ideally a global fix needs to be applied. I don't know whether that is feasible.

109.145.182.132 (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently not seeing the problem. Do you have an example page of where this is a problem? What device did you use, what dimensions, etc? — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 21:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Done — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 21:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that ... The page at which I noticed it (now fixed) was Ian Paice. It is browser specific though. For example, it happens readily with IE and 'Edge'. It does not happen with Chrome, as far as I can tell. You may be using a browser that doesn't try to line-wrap at a bracket, or your combination of screen size, resolution, window size, font size etc. may conspire to prevent you seeing it. As I say, it happens throughout all Infoboxes, potentially. In a sense it is a browser bug/stupidity, but since it can be worked around at the Wikipedia end it should be, in an ideal world. 109.145.182.132 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Net worth

I suggest that the parameter net_worth be added to this template. It should be similar to the parameters in Template:Infobox person.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe the name of the parameter should be "revenue" or "income" or "annual_income" to account for musical groups. Maybe that would be a more appropriate name.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Bazj (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on the above proposed changes

I'm not in favour of the new parameter. Only the wealthiest of bands would have such a determination. Also, how would it apply to "former" bands or musicians? Do we take the current value or the peak value? Do we adjust for inflation? I understand that would have to rely on reliable sources, but I would like to see some of those sources before I even think about accepting such a parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Walter – surely the annual income/revenue/net worth changes from year to year, so it would be very hard to keep track of these things. Wouldn't it be easier just to add a line in the text saying something along the lines of "In 2016 Band X was listed at number 64 on the Forbes Rich List, with an estimated worth of $xx million"? Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The nature of how bands make money implies no such steady income. It would also not be public as with business executives and groups. I agree the details such as Forbes Rich List can be explained in the article itself and a business ventures section can be added. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Let me re-state this. While bands like U2, the Rolling Stones and artists such as Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift have very public earnings, the vast majority of bands do not and I would be afraid to see what this parameter might hold for such bands and performers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable artists under associated acts

One important issue that is not specifically addressed in this template's documentation is the issue of whether or not non-notable musical artists (as in, those not notable enough for their own article) should be listed in an artist's infobox under associated acts. For example, TobyMac's article currently lists his son, Truett (who apparently goes by the stage name "TruDog") as an associated act in the infobox, despite Truett not having his own article, and only being briefly mentioned in Toby's article as someone who appears on some of Toby's songs. If Truett is not notable enough for his own article, I do not see the point in listing him as an associated act of Toby. However, this is just one example, and I'd like to see how others feel in general about non-notable artists being in the associated acts field. Since this began as a dispute between me and Walter Görlitz, I welcome him to explain why he feels that non-notable artists should be listed. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As a regular here I know that we don't want it restricted to notable individuals. We want it to allow any repeated, or important associations to be listed. Most recently discussed (See Archive 13's Associated acts (again) and Proposed removal of "associated acts" field, etc.). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Looking through those past discussions, it doesn't seem like the specific topic of non-notable artists in the associated acts field was ever addressed. The closest thing I found when doing a Ctrl+F search for the word "notable" was a discussion about non-notable spouses/children being in an artist's infobox, but associated acts is a bit different from that. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. I pointed to the wrong location. I'm sorry for misleading you in my confusion. That was not my intention. I was thinking of this addition where @FuriousFreddy: stated that it "was designed to link acts who have long-standing music-professional relationships with other acts". While his example was for bands and musicians who have articles, it was the wording about "long-standing music-professional relationships" that was the key. There is no wording to suggested that it only needs to be notable musicians or bands. So in this case, where the subject's son has recorded a song on each his father's six solo albums. The exceptions are the live album, the Christmas split EP with his band, and one of his four remix albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Record labels

For record labels, the template guideline says to list the "record label or labels to which the act has been signed." I have noticed inconsistencies in that some articles list much more than just labels to which they were signed. Also listed sometimes are parent companies, distributors, licensees and foreign subsidiaries. Should the guideline be more specific about what to list? Piriczki (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

In my view it should be limited to labels for whom they recorded. Many infoboxes also list labels who have reissued recordings, in some cases after the performer has died - which seems absurd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Only labels that the artist was/is signed to in my view. And even then, limit to the primary ones associated with the artist. Some reggae artists have released hundreds of singles on dozens of different labels - listing them all would be going way beyond the purpose of an infobox. --Michig (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I certanly wouldn't add companies like the distributors – I would guess that they fail notability for companies, and I doubt many readers would find that interesting or useful information. But even on the release of one single several record companies could be involved: for instance, a band signed to the Phonogram record group could find their single released on Polydor, Mercury, Fontana, Vertigo and other labels, depending upon the territory where the song was released, as they all came under Phonogram's umbrella. Richard3120 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

Why not add "class = hlist" to every parameter that could potentially contain multiple values? Then there would be no need to add {{Hlist}} or {{Flatlist}} templates every single time the infobox is used. Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear what you want done. You should probably gain consensus before making this request. That will take a discussion. But as it stands, the note clearly states that hlist is acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The request is simple, change
 | label8     = [[Music genre|Genres]]
 | data8      = {{{Genre|{{{genre|}}}}}}

 | class9     = role
 | label9     = {{Nowrap|{{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|Occupations|Occupation(s)}}}}
 | data9      = {{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupation|{{{occupation|}}}}}}}}

 | class10     = note
 | label10     = Instruments
 | data10      = {{{Instrument|{{{instrument|{{{instruments|}}}}}}}}}
into
 | class8     = hlist
 | label8     = [[Music genre|Genres]]
 | data8      = {{{Genre|{{{genre|}}}}}}

 | class9     = hlist
 | label9     = {{Nowrap|{{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|Occupations|Occupation(s)}}}}
 | data9      = {{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupation|{{{occupation|}}}}}}}}

 | class10     = hlist
 | label10     = Instruments
 | data10      = {{{Instrument|{{{instrument|{{{instruments|}}}}}}}}}
There wouldn't be any perceptible changes, would there? It just removes the need for a {{hlist}} template.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
So if there wouldn't be any perceptible changes, why would we want to make it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It removes the need for a {{hlist}} template.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
And just to be clear, what you're suggesting would actually have a perceptible change: there would be bullets for all list items, and I am opposed to that formatting change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
But that's already the standard. The same thing was done for {{Infobox music genre}}, which also used to recommend {{flatlist}} or {{hlist}} for multiple items. The only time that bullets are not supposed to be used is when there are less than 3 items, which is rare.
In cases where commas are used, nothing would change. In cases where {{flatlist}} templates are used, nothing would change. The only difference is that editors will not have to keep using {{flatlist}} every time they want to add more than 3 values. Which is almost every time.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not standard and should not become standard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, if you think so, then go ahead and remove the bulleted lists on The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the Who, Aphex Twin, Frank Zappa, Michael Jackson, Paul McCartney...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not that they may not be used, bulleted lists should only be used in some circumstances. May I ask if you understand when they are to be used and when they are not to be used? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
What are those circumstances? And please link to the relevant consensus or guideline (WP:FLATLIST says nothing about this matter).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
When the list is longer than three items. It's clearly defined in the note. The discussion here made it clear that the bulleted lists are for longer lists. That's why it's not the standard and should not become the standard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Support – The {{hlist}} template does NOT create a bulleted list. The hlist template creates a horizontal list that puts a middot (  · ) between each list item instead of needing to put a comma between each list item. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You've missed the point. Lists are only appropriate when there are more than three items. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
No you have missed the point. The proposed change would only affect things that are already displayed as bulleted lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
No you have missed the point. I understand how it will affect current entries, but what I'm saying is it will be misused in the future. People will start using this for all entries adding bulleted lists where there should be none. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
This will only matter with artists with exactly 2 genres listed, which is so rare anyway. It's already being "misused".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Then you (Walter) are simply inventing objections, with no evidence to support them. Furthermore, you wrote, above, "what you're suggesting would actually have a perceptible change: there would be bullets for all list items, and I am opposed to that formatting change.". I repeat: The proposed change would only affect things that are already displayed as bulleted lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Two or three as is shown below. Not invented. Sorry. And it will affect all lists once editors start to use it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether it's two or three, it doesn't matter. There is no standard for horizontal lists except that they are preferred for 3+ items. The Who (GA) and Pink Floyd (FA) both use hlist for 3 items. Editors have already been using it. And it's not exactly so aesthetically displeasing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling to understand a couple use cases. If there is only one genre, or if someone has entered something like "Pop, rock, punk" in the genre field, this would produce no change, correct? But if someone has "{{hlist|Pop|rock|punk}}" then they would be able to remove the template and still get the same display? How would it be communicated to everyone using hlist in this way that they can remove it? I'm pretty confused. --Laser brain (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
1) Yes, it would be the same display. 2) A bot could remove every instance of {{flatlist}}/{{hlist}}. If not, infoboxes using the templates could be automatically added to a maintenance category.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a benefit then, unless I'm missing something. Walter Görlitz, I'm not sure I'm understanding what your objection is. We may not be correcting anyone's incorrect usage of hlist, but we're definitely making it easier to use the template. Someone please trout me if I'm not getting the point. --Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
People will default to the bulleted usage and that's the problem in my eyes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
You mean like on AC/DC (FA), John Lennon (FA), Nirvana (FA), and Metallica (FA)?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why editors like you insist that feature articles are the paragons of all things good and right on Wikipedia. Two of the feature articles incorrectly used flatlists for only two items in the infbox and one incorrectly used the size parameter when they should have used the landscape parameter. I won't argue it again, bit you know that they don't look at correct template guideline use as it's not a a criteria for making it to feature article status. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nirvana (band) and show me what was discussed about it. I have been part of many feature article discussions and template guideline compliance is never raised, unless I raise it.
So now to address Laser brain's question, it fear that it will cause an incorrect use of flatlists where they are not required. As I said in one discussion, I'm all for using automatic formatting, as is done in the members section, but those are vertical lists, not bulletted lists. People will become lazy and use the incorrect bulletting of short lists, which I will remind you may make it easier for those with screen readers, but make it look terrible for those with eyes. It's a typographic maelstrom of ugliness. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are still arguing that "people will become lazy and default to flat lists" when I've repeatedly demonstrated that they're already going out of their way to use horizontal lists anyway. The only other argument you can make is "I don't like how it looks". Uh, OK. That's not what this edit request is for. If you don't like horizontal lists for less than 4 genres, then start a consensus to ban that practice. People generally do prefer hlist, as those FA articles show.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Have you? I missed that. Please show me again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Almost every article I linked! Pink Floyd, The Who, AC/DC, John Lennon, Nirvana, Metallica...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh. I fixed those. No wonder I missed them. You've really got to pay attention. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it does appear that I'm in the minority here, and if this is implemented, as I suspect that it will be, I just want assurances that I won't be warned or disciplined for removing the lists when there are fewer than three items in them and I replace them with commas instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't return sooner, but I've actually come around to your way of thinking on this. I think I didn't have my head around the whole issue previously. It's being presented as an innocuous change (in good faith) but I think it will have a side effect of making improper use of the lists more widespread. --Laser brain (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
This is tangential to the request at hand, but such usage is not "improper", but merely disliked by some. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I see that now in looking at the template instructions. Well, I don't have any further concerns about the change then. It seems beneficial to the template. --Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break editreq

@Ilovetopaint: Looks like you re-opened the request on 5 Aug 2016. Is your suggested change simply in the template sandbox? Would you mind making a new testcase at Template:Infobox musical artist/testcases for the new syntax? Just one that shows the new bulleted syntax because of hlist (if I'm understanding this correctly). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Done, I think. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ilovetopaint: Thanks. FYI, the PERTable service seems to be down right now, so these requests have less visibility than usual. Hope you don't mind leaving this open for a few days (possibly) before a sync happens. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • no Declined, as invalid. [NAC] The code simply does not do what the requester seems to think it does. See User:SMcCandlish/sandbox17 (permalink), and view source to see the difference between using the class and the template. The class is simply a label (tagging material on which CSS can operate, if and only if it is given input pre-formatted in an exact manner, which cannot be expected here); just putting a class on something doesn't magically parse input as separate values to format as flat-list items with CSS. As to the idea behind this: Maybe a Lua module can be used at some point to parse infobox parameter contents and determine if they have multiple entries, but even this is dubious and would constrain how data is entered, and thus be error-prone, because editors won't always do it correctly (same goes for expecting people to input content into these parameters in *-list format, on which CSS could operate; probably 99 times out of 100, people input plain text with commas). Not everything that could possibly be automated in theory should be. And the request in this case would not automate anything.

    It might be feasible to change the site-wide behavior of infoboxes to look for list formatting in any given parameter and output such flat lists when one is found, but not output list markup if one is not found; and then redocument all these templates as supporting the new auto-list-generation functionality. That's something to take up at WT:WikiProject Infoboxes and propose, when the details are worked out, at WP:Village pump. Short of that, it won't be practical to insert unexpected behavior randomly into this template here and that one over there and expect editors to format things a very different way in this or that particular infobox. I suspect there would be resistance to such an all-infoboxes proposal, because flat lists do not produce properly reusable content and are an accessibility problem: A flat list with the values "Foo", "bar", and "baz" copy-pastes as "Foo bar baz" in many if not most browsers, with no separation between the items other than a space. Until that problem is worked around somehow, comma-separated genres, instruments, etc., will produce more consistently useful and correctly parseable output. As two examples, consider the implications of "Gothic, rock, opera" and "Bass, guitar" missing their commas (the little bullets do not copy-paste in most browsers, and many screen readers ignore such special characters even if they're preserved); the resultant text would be directly misleading. This and other templates' suggestion to use {{Hlist}} at all should probably be revisited, especially since the advice is almost always ignored anyway (an instruction virtually no one obeys is WP:CREEP and usually deleted). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Expanded: 07:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: So basically, nobody should be using {{hlist}} or {{flatlist}} until it has correctly parseable output?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably not for important content; I'm not sure anyone cares about navboxes (which would probably not be WP:REUSEd much, anyway). There should at least be a broader discussion about it. It's possible there's some way around this problem. We'll need to look at the CSS and see what exactly is being done to generate those mini-bullets and whether another method would be more effective. This general class of problem is something I have not looked into in detail since around 2011, when I created the copy-pasteable list template series; perhaps Frietjes and some other Wikipedia CSS regulars know more about the current state of the art when it comes to list-related copy-paste problems.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really a CSS expert, but Redrose64 and Edokter could possibly help you. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Both {{flatlist}} and {{hlist}} produce the mini-bullets via the content: property, which "is used with the :before and :after pseudo-elements to generate content in a document" and "generated content does not alter the document tree", so although it has the visual appearance of being there, it isn't actually present. This means, among other things, that you can't copypaste it. Consider the following alternative list formats: 

*Foo
*Bar
*Baz
  • Foo
  • Bar
  • Baz
{{flatlist|
*Foo
*Bar
*Baz
}}
  • Foo
  • Bar
  • Baz
{{hlist|Foo|Bar|Baz}}
  • Foo
  • Bar
  • Baz
{{plainlist|
*Foo
*Bar
*Baz
}}
  • Foo
  • Bar
  • Baz
{{unbulleted list|Foo|Bar|Baz}}
  • Foo
  • Bar
  • Baz

Now try marking two or more consecutive entries in the same list, and copypaste them to somewhere else. You'll just get the three words "Foo", "Bar" and "Baz", with either a space or a newline between them. So regardless of the appearance, if it's marked up as a list (whether that be one of the above forms or something else), the list separator will not copy. There's nothing that can be done in CSS to add a copyable separator. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

years_active inquiry

For the years_active variable, the template documentation says to include "[p]eriod(s) during which the act was or has been active." If there are reliable sources that a group formally disbanded in XXXX year, but still come together for concerts maybe once or twice a year, are they still "active"? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen that argument play out at many band pages. Generally what I've seen is that groups are considered active if they are still performing together. A good example is The Police, who disbanded in 1986 but reformed in 2007–2008 for a tour. Their years active reflect that. If there is a disagreement, you'll have to try to find consensus among editors on the page, or seek a third opinion, RFC, etc. --Laser brain (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Fairport Convention between 1979 and 1985. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm editing the page for a band whose official website is dead, but is present in archive.org (and would probably be useful to anybody interested in the band). I just pointed the link to the last valid page on archive.org -- is that OK? The Wiki guidelines for dead links is mostly focused on references, but the one for link rot says dead external links should generally be deleted or replaced. I couldn't find anything on dead links for official websites, which seem like they should have a different policy. —Torc. (Talk.) 23:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Add "YouTube" channel parameters?

I believe this template should contain "YouTube channel", "YouTube subscribers" and possibly "Total YouTube views" parameters similar to Template:Infobox YouTube personality. YouTube has become an integral part of the music artist industry, with labels and individual artists releasing music videos--old and new--onto YouTube all of the time. Yet I doubt many artists would consider themselves to be "YouTube personalities" even when they have a million subscribers, and obviously article editors do not consider it either when this template is chosen over the YouTube one. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it. What's the official YouTube channel for The Doors? What about Blind Willie Johnson? This assumes recentism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
...then the fields can be left blank for both of your examples. I am not asking that it be a required parameter, just available for artists for which it is relevant. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 14:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
See q:Talk:Rock_and_roll
Videos destroyed the vitality of rock and roll. Before that, music said, "Listen to me." Now it says, "Look at me."
Billy Joel. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
For the Doors, it would be https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYgJ2M1mq8Ae0QOm_VQU4VQ (user: https://www.youtube.com/user/thedoors ) as listed on their official website (the website we link to in the infobox on their article). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I realize that they could be left blank, but to paraphrase what Andy so eloquently wrote above, what encyclopedic value does it offer that their official website doesn't? What's next Facebook, Twitter and Instagram feeds? And why YouTube and not Vevo? Many bands have the latter and the YouTube feed pick up the Vevo content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Walter here – I don't really see what encyclopedic value it adds, and it could lead to further problems... as Walter says, you could just as easily argue that we should add Facebook, Twitter, etc. based on number of followers, and then all you really have is a list of the artist's social media sites which is free promotion for them (I don't agree with having even the artist's official website in the infobox – no print encyclopedia would include that information). Plus it would make every artist's infobox a dynamic infobox, because the number of followers/subscribers/views is constantly changing – who has the time to patrol every artist article on Wikipedia to make sure the infobox is up to date?
Oppose per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. On the flip side if infobox youtube personality can be a module then you can use that anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

death_cause redux

Once again, we have a solo musical artist whose CoD can't go in the infobox. Since the infobox specifically allows for solo artists, the omission of this parameter continues to make no sense. 🖖ATS / Talk 03:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think CoD should be implemented in this parameter specifically. Using {{Infobox person}} with this template embedded in it would be a better alternative. I've boldly done so with this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChamithN (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 June 2016‎ (UTC)
Looks good. That said, I believe it should be addressed here as well. Cheers! 🖖ATS / Talk 21:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Any reason why this was never followed up on? I attempted to make the change myself, but lack the necessary authority. DonIago (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Try neutral background when embedded

Could we change the "Notable Instruments" to neutral background when embedded? See John Lennon. --Dabao qian (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you need a change to Template:Infobox musical artist/color. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Reply: @Redrose64:No, just change abovestyle and headerstyle to {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes||background-color: {{Infobox musical artist/color|{{{Background|{{{background|}}}}}}}} }}--Dabao qian (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

module, module2, module3

I just can't quite get this, which Modules does this Infobox use for embedding? Can someone please put them in here? Thank you.—‎Lost Whispers talk 21:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lost Whispers: The following templates are suitable for use as a "module" in this one:

--Dabao qian (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dabao qian: my point was, when you embed the infobox musical artist with infobox person, you get this "musical career" writing, what is tge source to that?—‎Lost Whispers talk 12:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Associated acts

There's an editor who has had a difficult time sourcing info and has until recently added associations with bands where there is only one member in common between bands. That member is often a touring musician, or in the case of Austrian Death Machine, performs only on a single song. Do we need to clarify the documentation to help editors avoid such things or is that sort of thing acceptable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_13&oldid=1144276166"