Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Notable instruments

Can we just get rid of the "notable instruments" field? I've never seen it used properly. It seems that people just use it to say "notable instruments -- keyboard, guitar" and not for even individual models of instrument. Especially not for its intended use of distinctly iconic instruments like it's supposed to be. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that it should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, agree. I've always wondered about this field. I can't ever remember seeing it used. Very few musicians have independently notable instruments.--Auric talk 22:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
From what I've seen, it's not a case of incorrect usage (i.e. I've not come across the likes of "keyboard, guitar" under Notable instruments); more that this field gets filled to the brim with models of guitar etc that the artist happens to have used, particularly when they've enjoyed a long, illustrious career. Paul McCartney, for instance. There, I'd agree that the Hofner violin bass and Rickenbacker 4001S have that "distinctly iconic" quality you mention, and as a step down from that, Epiphone Casino and Martin D-28 probably merit inclusion also – but the rest are a surprise (to me anyway). I'd favour keeping the field, but ensuring that it's used correctly. Either way, it would probably be wise to post notification of this discussion on the relevant project pages. JG66 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Many classical violin players use truly notable instruments, but I can't think of one where the infobox actually mentions them. At Hilary Hahn, it is covered under |instrument=, at Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin, David Oistrakh, Itzhak Perlman and others there are dedicated sections (these articles often don't have an infobox), others, like Joshua Bell, have neither, only a paragraph in the article. In short, there could be useful application of this field for some classical musicians, but the sky wouldn't fall in if it were removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favor of removal. The parameter is far more often misused. Truly notable instruments ought to be described in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Binksternet. There are so few musicians out there with truly notable instruments, the potential for misuse outweighs any benefit. Does anyone know the easiest way to go about removing that parameter where it's in use? Can we request a bot task for it? --Laser brain (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
You can file a request at WP:BOTREQ, but they'll want to see firm consensus for removal first. It would help your case if it was removed from the template code (thus causing non-display everywhere) before asking for a bot to go around the articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Laser brain:, @Redrose64:, the consensus seems to be there already. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it should be removed, but only because it's rarely warranted, not because it's often misused. If that were a reason to remove a parameter then we'd also have to do away with associated_artists.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

background field not working?

In Ciara the background field is declared in template:infobox musical artist which is embedded into template:infobox person but the required heading: "Background information" with the desired background color (for solo_singer) doesn't appear. Can someone have a look at it and fix if possible? Jodosma (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The heading "Background information" only appears if there is an image. For an embedded Infobox musical artist there is (almost?) never an image, since the image is (almost?) always placed in the enclosing infobox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

I added the 'image upright' parameter. I tested it, and mission accomplished. If added, the doc subpage should be updated by adding info about that parameter. George Ho (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Don't forget about the template parameter check at the bottom! — Train2104 (t • c) 05:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Years_active decay

In several cases, musical artists are only notable for their activities during a certain period of time, such as Eurovision Song Contest artists. As a result, no sources are published later to state whether the artists are still active. Supposing the last mention of an artist following their début in 2008 was in 2012, should we say that they were active from 2009 to 2012, or 2009 to present (using en-dashes, of course)? — Tuxipεdia(talk) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have wrestled with this in the past. If they are still performing or releasing music, and that's supported with a reference or two, then the subject is still active. If an official announcement is made that the subject is stopping, even if it's a primary source, we should honour that. The in a complete lack of references to support ongoing activity or an end to activity, we cannot assume. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Thanks for the response. When you say we cannot assume, do you mean that we should leave out the years_active field altogether or should we only state the years that we are certain they have been active? — Tuxipεdia(talk) 20:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I am watching here so you don't have to ping me.
I'm saying that I would assume active to present without evidence to the contrary. Others may have differing opinions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

This infobox should have a Rock & Roll Hall of Fame parameter in the same way, Template:Infobox NFL biography, Template:Infobox baseball biography, and Template:Infobox basketball biography. --Flyguy33 (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting idea. But the template applies to musicians of multiple genres and there are multiple halls of fame for them: blues, jazz, country, Gospel music, all within the United States. There is also then there are other national halls of fame, and national genre-specific halls of fame, and sub-national, halls of fame, regional halls of fame. Which are valid for inclusion and which are not? How to we recognize or allow for them all? I have an idea, but I would like to hear from other editors before saying that we should proceed or that the idea is doomed from the start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's a wikipedia List of halls and walks of fame - Music. Can each of these be incorporated in some way, or certain ones of national or international level picked? There may be a way to do it similar to the NFL biography infobox that incorporates the Pro Football, College Football, and Canadian Football halls. --Flyguy33 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Size for landscape images should be 250.

Why is this the case? The comment is

The image size should only be specified if the image is smaller than 220 pixels width. Enter the width in pixels without "px", for example 150. Size for landscape images should be 250.

The first part is almost correct. It should be if the image is smaller then 200 pixels. But why are we specifying a size for landscape images at all. Registered editors can set the size for thumbnails in their preferences and we should not suggest forcing an override this way.

I am proposing changing 220 to 200 and removing the landscape sizing completely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The change was made by Wiki libs on 2008-08-28T02:50:32. Wiki libs' last edit was made on 2011-04-28T11:52:38 so I cannot ask for clarification there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The figure of 220 pixels is almost certainly because images that specify either |thumb or |frameless, and are otherwise unsized, are displayed at 220px wide for unregistered users (see WP:EIS#Type). Registered users may see them at a different size, if they have adjusted the setting at Preferences → Appearance → Thumbnail size:. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You will still find several templates where the landscape image format bloats the width of the box and makes it unsightly (the Devil Wears Prada page being a good example) When portrait images are inserted the box auto-widths to a very reasonable size.... keeping the landscape width as it is (250) maintains the consistency of Wikipedia.... which is one of the ultimate goals for the project. Consistent "cosmetics" or layout ... as opposed to having super-wide images that take over the symmetry of the narrow box and make it look like a fanboy page (see DWP example of unattractive ... when allowed to go full spread width) instead the an encyclopedia. Mr Pyles (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a problem with your settings then, because with mine, 250 width is larger than thumbnail. What are your settings? Mine are 250px for thumbnails. This can be found in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you still on a 1024x760 resolution? At 200px, the infobox makes landscape shots look ridiculously tiny. I'm on a 1080p monitor so I see no issues regarding width.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at 1024 x 768. At home I'm at 1600 wide and work is 2560 x 1440. If 200 pixels makes the infobox looks too small, change your thumbnail size in the preferences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Change "Instruments" to "Performs on"?

Renaming the "Instruments" field to "Performs on" would have several advantages. It's more specific about the field's intended purpose. It looks less awkward than calling vocals an instrument, particularly for performers who are primarily or exclusively vocalists. It might also make the infobox more appealing to WikiProject Classical Music—a whole other can of worms, I know—since it helps distinguish between composition, performance, and conducting. 192.251.46.111 (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not more specific. You might get people editing the article on Sandy Denny, say, to put "Performs on The Battle of Evermore". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Performs on could apply to a number of songs and albums, especially as a featured guest or cameo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
My point entirely. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Convert to wrapper

I would like to suggest to convert this infobox into a wrapper of {{Infobox person}} -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar proposals are at:
Infoboxes involve difficult issues and it would be better to deal with one at a time. Please pick one of them and put the others on hold. If a change is agreed, the change should occur and be fully tested before working on others. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Audio clip

Can / should we have a mechanism to include an audio clip of the artist? Several audio clips of Welsh artists have recently been posted to c:Category:Audio files by Sain (Records) Ltd, and I have added thee to Bryn Terfel and to The Hennessys. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 July 2017

Picture is 6 years outdated. Needs to be changed to recent photo to put inside the template requested. (photo will not have any copyright, only approved photo will be used to re-place out dated photo. kristen parker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kparker11 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kparker11: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox musical artist}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Deceased group members discussion

I would like to discuss adding the "(deceased)" tag after a member's name in the info boxes when they have passed away. The reason being is that a few articles already do this, and something similar is done in other language Wikipedia articles too. I believe that this should always be done, especially if their passing is the reason they are no longer in the group. It maintains consistency and it is quick and factual as such would cause no harm at all. Please also note that some people do actually consider "(deceased)" as a part of a person's name, in the sense of any qualification suffixes, etc. Cexycy (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The docs read, "with no other notation than names". It should never be done. Leave that information for the article itself or, if necessary, in the membership section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Where is "(deceased)" considered part of someone's name? "Julius Cesar (deceased) was born in ..."? Really?
I'm not particularly moved by what some wikis in other languages do. For all we know, they are currently discussing the wikis in other languages that don't do this. They are not bound by our conventions and we are not bound by theirs.
I'm also not sure why this is apparently a consideration for members of bands, but not for other infoboxes. Should the infobox for Abraham Lincoln indicate that Hannibal Hamlin, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, John Henry, Thomas L. Harris, Mary Todd, Robert Lincoln, Edward Lincoln, Willie Lincoln, Tad Lincoln... are all deceased? How is this any less meaningful than the deaths of various band members?
It's "quick and factual"? So is the year they were born, the instument(s) they played, the years they were in the band and dozens of other details.
As to whether or not it does any harm, lack of harm is not a reason to change something (though presence of harm would be a reason not to do it).
At present, the infobox parameters specifically exclude including this information and I see no reason to change that. If the notation is used in any articles now, it should be removed. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested provisos

I can see this working on two or three conditions:

  • it is limited to bands that are currently active
  • death daggers (†) are used
  • perhaps |death=y adds a note ("(† = deceased)") below "Past members"

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggest rather that we do NOTHING. There should be no flag in infoboxes or navboxes to indicate anyone is dead. The text of the article should make it clear enough, as should the article on the person themselves. Any marking clutters things up too much. --Jayron32 13:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I know this convo is fro ma while ago, but as one of the people who originated this template, I felt I should add one thing to this. The note in the instructions that "no other notation" is to be used is specifically to prevent people putting "(deceased)" next to names - it was something discussed during the development of the infobox. It breaks the formatting of the box, it can be considered to be in bad taste, it isn't encyclopedic in tone (_most_ of the people covered by an encyclopedia will be deceased), and it will inspire scope creep towards adding dates of joining and such. Whether or not a member is living or has passed can be notated either in prose or in a list at the bottom of the article, where there is more room for such text. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2017

Trying to begin the process of creating a wikipedia page for Sugo Music Group/World Collective Recording Artist Mr. Sawed-Off. trying to use the template to simplify the process. CEO Sawed-Off (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox musical artist}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 22:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "Notable instruments" field

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to remove the notable_instruments parameter. Nihlus 19:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So in this discussion from January, there seemed to be a loose consensus to remove the "notable instruments" field as it's rampantly misused. Every instance I've seen of it in use was just "keyboards, guitar" or something basic, like this. Others, like at Paul McCartney, are overrun with instruments that the artist has only used occasionally. I just don't think there are enough proper uses of this field to warrant keeping it in the box, and everyone in the linked discussion above seemed to support its removal. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I think notable instruments, like McCartney's Höfner or Eric Clapton's various Strats, should be mentioned in the article text, with appropriate citations and evidence of notability. In those cases, the instrument is iconic enough that it's relevant information, but there are too many problems with the current approach:

  • Editors misunderstand what the field is for, as mentioned above.
  • Instruments get mentioned in the infobox, often without proper sourcing, but not in the article text.
  • The infobox has no room to provide context or support for a particular instrument's notability.
  • Listing an instrument might be seen as implying an artist endorsement or other such relationship, whether one exists or not.

Anecdotally, I've also noticed this field is mostly used in articles about guitarists and bassists, maybe one or two drummers as well. I don't see it used much for, say, keyboardists or saxophone players. Perhaps because those instruments are relatively more standardized, or the player cultures less gear-obsessed? Or is it just lack of interest among Wikipedia editors? Anyway, that's just my observation. 192.251.46.111 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Considering pianists don't bring their instruments with them but rent them when they perform, I can imagine why the field doesn't qualify for them (although some pianists insist on certain models when they perform). Other keyboard players (organ, synth, etc.) do, but don't grow attached to their instruments. Sax players are not known to name their instruments, but it's not unknown, as is the case with trumpet players, particularly in the world of jazz. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems that we have a number of editors who like the idea. Should we take this to an RfC or a town pump to get a bit more input, or should we just go ahead and make the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely support the removal of the field – as noted above it has been misused and leads to arguments like this one. Richard3120 (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

HI, I'm fairly new at this, but I did run across a problem with including several of Craig Chaquico's guitars in "notable instruments" that were immediately taken down. I argued for each one that I put up on the talk page of that article, and so far, so good, they've been left alone. Having been involved with quite a few "notable" guitarists in my career, I observed that guitarists have very strong feelings about certain guitars they have played throughout their careers, more so than other musicians. I think it's interesting to note the differences between the various guitarists and why they have such passion about the instrument. Also, notable is the guitar maker's passion for building their individual instruments, each one an individual masterpiece. Believe me, no two are alike. I vote for continuing the field in the info box at this time.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Per the discussions above and in January, please remove the following from the template: 

| header19   = {{#if:{{{Notable_instruments|{{{notable_instruments|}}}}}}|Notable instruments}}

| class20    = note
| data20     = {{{Notable_instruments|{{{notable_instruments|}}}}}}

After this is done, I will work to remove the parameters from the actual articles either manually or with my bot. Thanks! Nihlus 19:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Please update the documentation. Ping me when you're ready and I'll remove Notable_instruments & notable_instruments from the whitelist sent to Check for unknown parameters. Cabayi (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "Notable instruments" field and "extra music sample"

That lovely B-bot has been very generous in telling me that a number of audio clips I added have become orphaned (see my Talk page). This seems to be connected with the deprecation of the "Notable instruments" parameter since, as soon as I delete that parameter, the audio file once again becomes visible and non-orphaned. Is there a simple explanation for this? Do I need to take preventative action elsewhere? Does someone need to inform User:B? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: My bot (NihlusBOT) is actually going through these pages and removing all the deprecated parameters, so you don't have to worry about removing them if you don't want to. However, to answer your question, the line that you were adding to the page was not set as |module=; it was just spliced in at the end. The notable instruments line didn't know how to parse it, so it didn't show. Once it was removed, the other parameter it fell under managed to reveal it. Here is how it should look as code. Nihlus 11:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. So let's hope no-one else has omitted to set |module= for their extra music samples, or they might get bot alerts like me. I'll check my others. How long will that removal take to complete? It seems B-bot is only giving a week before the "orphaned" audio files are marked for deletion? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It's at about 30,000 pages in out of 90,000. So I would say a little under two days. Nihlus 11:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: It's one week because the grace period for WP:CSD#F5 is seven days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I can drawn great comfort from that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Singer/singing in occupation & instrument parameters

Often, if someone sings and plays an instrument, "singer" is included along with "musician" in |occupation=. This appears to be technically correct, since the definition of a musician is more limited: "a person who plays a musical instrument, especially as a profession", with musical instrument defined as "an object or device for producing musical sounds". However, |instrument= states "Include singing, rapping, beatboxing and/or scat singing if relevant." This goes back to when the template was created.[1] The voice isn't an "object or device", regardless of how it is used. Propose to remove this from |instrument= and add "singer" to |occupation= (and remove "singer-songwriter", which don't need to be combined). A problem is, where do rapping, beatboxing and/or scat singing fit? "Singing" usually involves words and a melody. Or just leave them out of the parameter descriptions and let editors decide what to do. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semantics. A singer is a musician (as opposed to a physician, politician or pressman). You can't rely on our definition to be complete or correct (as we all know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source).
Singer-songwriter was originally a genre, although it has become synonymous with musicians who write their own music. I still remove it when describing an occupation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
These definitions are from both the New Oxford American Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary of English. Many articles include both musician and singer (or "singer-songwriter") in |occupation=, if the artist is well-known for both. It seems that if singer is included, adding "singing/vocals" in |instrument= is duplicative. Plus, "singing/vocals" doesn't meet the usual definition of a musical instrument. Semantics – yes, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 October 2017

Adding a death_cause field for cause of death.

For example, 

 | death_cause: [[Colon cancer]]

Since this is used on other templates. Let me know if there already is a "death_cause" sorta parameter.
Thanks! :) Apap04 (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I would be opposed to its addition. This template can be embedded in {{infobox person}} and that template has that parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

merger with Template:Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor

You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_18#Template:Infobox_Chinese-language_singer_and_actor. Thanks Timmyshin (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Honorifics

Please change to match {{Infobox person}}:

  • <span class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size:87%">{{{honorific_prefix|}}}
  • <span class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size:87%">{{{honorific_suffix|}}}

To this:

  • <span class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size: 77%; font-weight: normal;">{{{honorific_prefix|}}}
  • <span class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size: 77%; font-weight: normal;">{{{honorific_suffix|}}}

Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 11:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Done StevenJ81 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Parameter for Band logotype

I think it would be great to have a parameter for a bands logo, so you can include the logo in the infobox. Kuriosatempel (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but would a band logo be a copyrighted design, and therefore couldn't be used on Wikipedia? Richard3120 (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The topic has been discussed before (use the archive search box above to search for logo). You'll need to establish consensus to overturn the status quo. Cabayi (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific genre

Is there a way to see all pages that add a specific genre to the infobox? — Zawl 15:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zawl: I think so, but I need to understand what you're talking about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I mean if a specific genre (e.g. Pop) is listed in the genre section of an infobox in articles (e.g. Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift), I would like to get a list of those. — Zawl 05:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's one way: hastemplate:"Infobox musical artist " insource:"|genre=pop|".[2] —Ojorojo (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Works great. Thanks! — Zawl 15:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Can the website parameter be updated?

The website parameter was updated/fixed on T:ITV and I was hoping it would be updated here too. The url displayed is distorting the infobox. Template talk:Infobox television#Website parameter. CherryPie94 (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Image size

Why does this infobox force a non-default image size? Default is 220, but login-users can change it, but not with this infobox which forces 300px x 200px. I suggest to remove it. Christian75 (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to use Infobox:Person. Fixed image sizes should be a no-no, better use a parameter "image_upright" that adjusts to user preferences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The default width is 220 pixels when |thumb is specified, but infoboxes never use thumb images. For non-thumb images, the default size is the "natural" size of the image, which may be several thousand pixels wide. The MoS allows images in the lead section (which includes an infobox image) to be up to 300px wide. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Not correct Red. I don't know of any infoboxes that allow for this supposed "natural" size. They all use thumbnail size. I agree with the proposed removal of size, assuming of course that it does force a thumbnail. Also, this infobox allows for landscape use, which solves most of the problems with wide images frequently found with bands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The basic {{Infobox}} template, around which most other infobox templates are built, has no code to set the image size. It doesn't even have any code to handle an image - images are treated as if they were text; this means that if you don't specify anything other than the bare file name, that's what you get displayed:
File:User-info.svg
So most infobox templates built around this will take a file name and wrap it in sufficient code to make the full image syntax. The easiest way of doing this is with double square brackets:
But that's displayed at natural size (in the case of File:User-info.svg this is 48px wide), so to get another size, you need to specify that size:
You can easily demonstrate that infoboxes don't use |thumb since the result looks dreadful:
Most infoboxes set a size, and often provide a parameter to override that. For instance, Template:Infobox GB station sets 265px, and allows |imagesize= to set something else (see for example Reddish South railway station). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
SVGs are not a common format. The image used in the U2 article is a standard JPEG image. The native resolution is 3,641 × 2,290 pixels. It appears as a landscape image, 300 pixels wide. Meanwhile, on Aaliyah the image is 895 × 1,334 pixels, but it's rendered at 250 pixels wide. These are in Firefox using my profile. I didn't test in other browsers or other profiles. And for the record, when I remove the unnecessary image sizing on Reddish South railway station, it renders at 265px. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Redrose64, at least some (maybe most?) of the most common infoboxes do use/respect user-preference thumbnail settings (but I don't know where in the underlying code that is done). Set your preferences to 220px, and view The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (which has no 'override' size set) - you'll see the infobox image at 220px. Now set your preference to 150px and view (refreshed) the same page - you'll see the infobox image at 150px. Try again with preference set to 400px and you'll see the image at 270px, which is the jpg's native size. It's not displayed with the usual "thumb" borders etc, but it is sizing according to thumb preferences as far as it can, up to native size. I'm pretty sure mediawiki won't usually increase a 'thumb' size for jpg/png/gif above native size (although this link is 'interesting'), but, as Walter says, svg is a special case because of its inherent scalability, and mediawiki seems to allow for that. -- Begoon 03:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
frameless
You need to use the frameless size rather than thumb. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Et voila! That example does indeed change according to the thumbnail preference size I set. Thanks. Now I guess we just need consensus that this is a desired change, then someone who can adjust the template code accordingly. I, for one, certainly prefer that behaviour (as at the Spiderman page I linked above) -- Begoon 09:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It matters not one bit whether the image is SVG, JPEG or anything else. All images have a natural size. I picked that particular image not because of its format, but because it represented a generic person, was small and would scale up. I could have made the same demonstration using this thing.
I know full well that if I remove the necessary image sizing on Reddish South railway station, it renders at 265px wide - it was me that added that parameter more than six years ago. It's necessary because it's an upright image, and we want the image to have the same longer dimension as the landscape-format images that are more usual in that infobox. Hence |imagesize=x265px, i.e. 265px high. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Did you see our examples? The entirely refute your claims.
In short, setting a pixel size overrides a user's thumbnail preference and it should not be done whether for portrait or landscape images. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

To return to the original point - the question was (paraphrased) "why does this infobox force an image size rather than using/respecting the user's thumbnail preference setting, and can/should that behaviour be altered?". From the foregoing, I'd say it's clear that it can be altered to use/respect the user's thumbnail preference setting - and I personally support it being so altered, in line with other infoboxes which work that way. An override parameter, such as "|image_size =" could be provided for the rare occasions when there is a legitimate need to force a specific size, but that parameter's use where there is no demonstrable, legitimate reason should be strongly discouraged. -- Begoon 02:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The advice should be altered so that it's clear that an image smaller than 200 pixels in size may be used and set to be no more than 200 pixels in size. It should be made clear that using it to set a specific thumbnail size is not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter. The software doesn't upscale images. Christian75 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The formatting tells the reader's browser to present the image at the specified size. And setting the thumbnail size overrides a registered user's preference. If one user wants their thumbnails small for some reason, and we set it to 200 pixels, it override's their preference. The same is the case if they want the images large. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Definition of origin

Can someone clarify whether "an artist's residence at the time when they started their musical career" is a valid definition of their origin? For example, if an artist was born in Dallas, Texas, moved to Houston, Texas at age 4, and still lived there when they began their career as a teenager, is it correct to say their origin is Houston, Texas? Thank you! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the definition, but your explanation is correct. I would even say that if a musician was born and lived in Buffalo, New York and moved to New York City, then started performing, that musician's origins are NYC. It becomes cloudy when a group forms in one location, or if a musician was performing in one location, and they relocate to a second location, and it is in that second location that they "get their break". Was their origin location one or two? To define it using "artist" excludes a duo or larger band, and the question about "started" is also open. Ideally, source it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Sportsfan77777 is giving you incomplete information in an effort to gain an advantage at Talk:Grace VanderWaal. As noted on that Talk page, some editors believe that the "origin" parameter would not be helpful in the VanderWaal's infobox and would only add confusion, as the "origin" of her professional career was winning the television show America's Got Talent, and she has hardly ever performed in her hometown. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Walter, thank you for your reply! Can you please weigh in on the discussion on the Talk:Grace VanderWaal page. Specifically, does Grace VanderWaal need to have performed in her hometown for it to be considered her origin? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the question there is whether or not the "origin" parameter should be in the infobox, as you'll see from the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This issue has been a big one with the Bee Gees article, whose origin has been the subject of much debate, inside and outside Wikipedia. The solution has been to not display an origin at all in the Infobox, telling the more detailed story in text, and including in the template the note...
"| origin = <!-- PLEASE, DO NOT ADD ANYTHING IN THIS FIELD TO AVOID EDIT WARS = SEE ARCHIVES-->" HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
User:HiLo48, would you (and anyone else here with an opinion) also please weigh in on the discussion on the Talk:Grace VanderWaal page? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! Everyone's input there is welcome. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If this is the consensus, can we add to the template that an individual artist's hometown does not constitute their origin if they never performed there? The current wording is too vague. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The only consensus is that all of the infobox parameters are optional. None have to be included. If there is the potential for misunderstanding or controversy, the correct place to discuss the information that would normally be represented in the infobox is in the article's body and using clearly referenced prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Many Some musical artists are not allowed an infobox. For those who don't have one, I would have thought an early mention of their geographical, or national, origin is essential. With the appropriate internal link, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean composers, perhaps? There was a not-binding recommendation in 2010. - I always use {{infobox person}}, and keep it short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that very handy tip for those who might have a not-binding foot in both camps. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Martinevans123 followed me from a discussion at Arvo Pärt‎‎ where he's trying to grasp at straws as to why WP:OVERLINK doesn't apply in the lede. Aside from being completely incorrect about "many" in terms of musical artists and not being "allowed" an infobox. The classical music project prefers not to use infboxes. Pärt‎‎ is better known as a composer than a performer. And you're also incorrect about internal linking when it goes against WP:OVERLINK, in particular major geographic regions and understanding a subject more clearly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I'd follow you anywhere, thanks Walter. You do understand how watchlists work, don't you? But thanks for the publicity. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Education

Is there an easy way to add educational institution, Alma mater etc., e.g. for Burt Bacharach. Is there any criterion for adding? Or is it simply not allowed? Simply changing the template to Infobox person, just to be able to include Alma Mater, doesn't seem to be the best option as a number of music-only parameters are lost in the process. But this is what seems to have happened at e.g. John Legend and Irene Cara. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't all rush at once, now. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You could embed {{infbox person}} in this infobox or vice versa. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. So I added the Infobox person template as a module at Burt Bacharach, just to enable addition of "Alma mater." Will that parameter always appear at the bottom of the infobox? Ideally it should be higher up, e.g. after birth details. I couldn't see anything about that at embed. Many thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: The way you embeded them yes, it would. I've switched some items around to move the Alma mater up. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, dude. Coolios. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Years active

Years active parameter for bands is understood as the year the group formed, but what is the criteria for individual musicians? Is it the year they began performing music, regardless of when they were signed or began writing/recording a first record? Lapadite (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist states "Period(s) during which the act was or has been active." What does "active" mean to you? To me it means when they started performing music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I recall some also saying elsewhere that "being active" should refer to when an artist begins writing or recording music, or is signed, as artists who, say, had a musical background (e.g, studied music) may have been performing music since childhood. Hence I'm seeking clarification for solo artists. Lapadite (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I usually do not fill the parameter, or even user {{infobox person}} instead. Fill only what's relevant and certain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Residence

For the solo artist template, has it been discussed to add an parameter of residence? Some artists don't live where they were born. For instance, Del Barber resides in Inglis, Manitoba. Yes, I added a personal life section, but what about in the infobox? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at other discussions, it could be embedded in from infobox person rather than adding another parameter. Not sure how to do it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 08:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Instruments

Hi. There is a doubt in Talk:Camila Cabello#Instruments. There is two users (Alolanle and Basilosauridae) who decides on his own that the sources provided are sufficient to introduce these changes (the sources point out that the singer used the guitar for a same song "Never be The Same", and the piano also for a same song "Consequences") and both users claim other articles to defend their position WP:OTHERCONTENT when we are discussing specifically about Camila's article. Three users have argued that these changes can not be made due to Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument: "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using". The changes have been reversed by different users and still: diff. diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. What should we do? I think would be helpful if someone provides clarity on the guidelines for the instruments section in the infobox. Thank you! --Miaow 01:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this the same argument we had at Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 14#Removal of "Notable instruments" field about not including notable instruments in the infobox at all? Richard3120 (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Richard3120: That parameter has a different name "notable_instruments". The current parameter is called "instrument" and is available. --Miaow 01:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, we are discussing whether the instruments Cabello has played are relevant or not in the artist's career. --Miaow 01:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Visible bullets at Limp Bizkit

See Template:Infobox musical artist/testcases#Limp Bizkit problem. There is a problem with Limp Bizkit: the past members list is shown with bullets, but should not be. Examining the page source shows that the <ul>...</ul> tags are absent: the three <li>...</li> elements are directly inside a <td>...</td>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Redrose64 looks to me like it was caused by changes in the backend software or HTML tidy or something. if you put your example through Special:ExpandTemplates with the "show raw HTML" you will see the problem with the last <li>...</li> incorrectly closing. we could probably fix it by inserting a newline at the end of the list, but it seems like the hack/fix should probably be in Module:Infobox and not here. Frietjes (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've set up the sandbox so that the current and past members are exchanged. The visible bullets have stayed where they were, so that they now precede the current members instead of the past; hence I believe that they are associated with the parameter |data18= in {{Infobox}}. This uses Module:Infobox, so we're now in Lua territory, which is where I hit a wall. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Redrose64 it looks like this hack will fix the problem per last test case in the infobox testcases. Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Before hacking the core module to fix this (I'm not entirely sure that's the correct place to do so--or if there is something wrong in the musical artist infobox), I want to see what SSastry (WMF) says. --Izno (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The example we have in the docs, Audioslave, doesn't seem to be affected. Tread carefully. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Audioslave doesn't have a |current_members= parameter; but if you add one, containing at least one item beginning with an asterisk (such as |current_members=*Foo) and preview, the problem then appears on the Past members list. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Frietjes indicated as much above, but if you want to see the pre-Remex version and today's version side by side, here's a link. I see no bullets in the pre-Remex version and bullets in the second list in both the current and sandbox versions. Is this happening at other infoboxen? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
After playing with {{Infobox NFL team}}, which has a similar problem, I wrapped the current/past band member sections in div tags in the sandbox, and the test cases render fine, FWIW. This may be a terrible hack, I don't know. [edited to add: the test cases with empty member sections now show an empty "Past members" or "Current members" section in the sandbox that does not appear in the live template, so my hack is not good enough to go live.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Izno, Frietjes's diagnosis is correct. The module needs to close the lists by adding a newline. It is generating * [[DJ Lethal]]</td></tr><tr><th colspan="2" style="text-align:center;background-color: &#35;b0c4de"><nowiki /></th></tr><tr><th scope="row"><span class="nowrap">Past members</span></th><td>. That fix is not a hack, but the correct solution. Parsoid handles this properly unlike the PHP parser, but Parsoid is not going to replace PHP parser just yet, so this should be fixed. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
the fix is now live. please revert and let me know if there are any unintended side effects. if/when there is a parser that doesn't need it, we can remove the hack (and possibly the other childbox fix hack). Frietjes (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Much better, Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Spouse / partner?

Hi there, is there any reason why there's no |spouse= or |partner= parameter in this infobox? If there is no clear reason, can we get one added so it's somewhat parallel to {{Infobox person}}? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Bands don't have spouses or partners. The topic has been discussed before. Check the archives. Instructions for using either this infobox as a module in a person infobox or vice versa are provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: What about a solo musician or artist? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
How often is a spouse notable? HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: A lot of articles have spouses mentioned or in infoboxes even if they are not notable themself. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Sadly. Let's start the revolution here. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: Looking at other discussions on the talk page and people are embedding items from infobox person, that could be an option without actually adding items to the template. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 08:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: I strongly second this original poster! I edited musician Jason Isbell's page to include -- with all three pieces of info having cited/ref'd backup articles -- his two (2) spouses (lifetime) and that he has one child. The preview page complained about misuse of the template! Urrgh!! Sometimes Wiki(m|p)edia truly reeks of fascism/nazism; I mean, just allow spouse, partner, children and if an editor misuses the InfoBox tag their change will happily be reverted, hurray. Vid2vid (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Bands do not have spouses, only individuals do. Misuse is not always caught. Use this infobox as a module for infobox person. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

IPI name indentifyer

I started to fill in the identifiers on the wikidata, property 'P1828 and the ISWC identifyer P1827 too. Please see the article Interested Parties Information. I suggest to make new line in the Artist Musical Infobox somewhere where it is usable. ZJ (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Genre parameter

"Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop)" should be removed. That directly contradicts standard practice. If community consensus is to leave it general in the infobox, that's one thing, but this type of thing is generally reserved for the lead. If this were the actual case, We'd be listing things like 5FDP and Metallica as just "heavy metal". It sounds ridiculous, right? dannymusiceditor oops 18:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Parameter duplicated, Past_members and former_members, co-exist?

@SMcCandlish:: re your committed change I am not for the life of me seeing the use in Template:Infobox musical artist having both parameters Past_members and your edit today, former_members, co-exist. Perhaps you or someone can explain how they differ please? Also renewing and reboubling my interest in a "spouse" and/or "famous family members" parameter .. perhaps there's a Template InfoBox for musical artist **VS** musical act or musical band? Cheers mates. Vid2vid (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Same reason we have |past_members= and |Past_members=: not everyone's brains worth the same, and parameter aliases are "cheap". (It's not a duplicate parameter, and they do not differ; it's another name for the same parameter; we have about 10,000 templates with that feature.) I've been here over 12 years and I still can never remember that this template wants "past" instead of "former", because "past" doesn't seem to be quite normal English to me (it's not what most people would say in my dialect, which mostly uses "past" as a noun or preposition – "in the past I drove past that house"). So, I just fixed it. Another way of putting it: if it didn't break anything, don't worry about it. :-)

I'm not sure why you're asking me about spouse/family stuff. But since you are, the consistency person in me starts to say it should be fine to import matching parameters from {{Infobox person}} code, but the pragmatist in me shouts that these parameters are misused all the time to present names of non-notable individuals (if mentioned at all they should be in the article body only). So we should not perpetuate the problem, and should maybe propose either removing these parameters from all infobox or disabling the original ones and creating new ones named notable_spouse, etc. The latter idea would "force" the scope to be limited, and would require people updating the templates to newly include these parameters with names that belong in them, and that would be a Good Thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

My opinion: the infobox should just contain summary information about the musician's career as a musician, and the spouse/partner is rarely related to that... possibly you could restrict it to partners who are bluelinked notable, but as noted by SMcCandlish, it would require some changes in order to police it. Even if the partner is famous enough for a Wikipedia article, it's not always relevant to the subject... it's hard to see the impact Lewis Hamilton has had on Nicole Scherzinger's career, for example, or Daryl Hannah on Neil Young's. By all means include it in a "Personal life" section if it can be sourced. Richard3120 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Label paramater

Can we add to the documentation that, not only should things like "Records" be omitted in cases like "Columbia Records", but also things like "Entertainment" and "Music" in things like Warner Music and SM Entertainment. Especially the "Entertainment" one, it's very common for Asian record labels in particular to use "Entertainment" in place of "Records": SM Entertainment, JYP Entertainment, YG Entertainment, Big Hit Entertainment, Cube Entertainment, FNC Entertainment, Woollim Entertainment, etc. I feel like that creates the same redundancies the removal of "Records" seeks to avoid. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I have followed that practice so would support expanding the documentation to include that sort of wording. Could you propose new wording? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: This is the current wording: "Drop the word "Records" from the end of any label's name (e.g. use [[Universal Records|Universal]] rather than [[Universal Records]].)" Maybe we could try something like this?
Drop "Records", "Entertainment", "Music", or similar words from the end of any label's name. For example, use [[Universal Records|Universal]] rather than [[Universal Records]]. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 19:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Genre in infoboxes RFC

There is an RFC on removing genres from infoboxes at WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Request for comment on removing genres from musician, album, and song infoboxes — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Closed with "strong consensus against removing and prohibiting the "genres" field from musician, album, and song infoboxes". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Convert to wrapper

I propose to convert this template to a wrapper of {{Infobox person}}. The code draft has been prepared at {{Infobox musical artist/sandbox2}} {{Infobox musical artist/sandbox}}. For testcases, see {{Infobox musical artist/testcases}} Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 05:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Ping @Zackmann08: @Frietjes: @Pigsonthewing:

Spouse

Is there no spouse field to put in husband or wife? Govvy (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Also can we add a children counter parameter to put this inline with other info boxes, cheers, Govvy (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This question has been asked before - see Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 14#Spouse / partner? Richard3120 (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
But that doesn't really cover the issue, would be helpful for quick information for solo artists, Govvy (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue with a solo artist, would be glad for updated info. I see the musical artist Mariah Carey (the example used in the "Template:Infobox musical artist: "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist ) does not use 'Infobox musical artist' in the actual Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariah_Carey ). 'Infobox person' is used for Mariah Carey instead, and includes spouses and children. If 'Infobox: musical artist' is going to continue to be viable, it appears some changes need to be made for solo artists.Beth Timken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think some editors would believe that family members are not a key feature of the musical artist, and that in fact this parameter should be removed from other infoboxes, rather than added to this one. The manual of style for infoboxes states that they are "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". It's much better to include information about family members in a "Personal life" section in the text, where it can be properly referenced – the spouse (even a famous one) is rarely relevant to the subject's musical career. Not including spouses hardly renders the entire infobox non-viable. Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for the time and input, Richard!

I can appreciate that some editors believe family members are not a key feature of a musical artist or some other public figure's lives and would wish to exclude these parameters from some infoboxes. This may be a good way to go.

I suppose it depends on several factors including the general public's perspective.

Though spouse and children are certainly not key to the music itself, they are key to the musician being profiled. What are the basics included in a person's obituary which sums up a person's life? A prominent feature is spouse and children.

.....

I did a cursory check on solo musical artists (including some from Nielsen 10 most popular music artists of 2018) and found all but one of them, Tom Jones, included spouse and children in the infobox and/or used 'Infobox person':

Mariah Carey • Celine Dion • Pavarotti • Sting • Cher • Engelbert Humperdinck • Ella Fitzgerald • Beyoncé • Eminem • Drake (musician) • The Weekend • Taylor Swift

.....

The public holds many different perspectives and a varying hierarchy of values. Some may have little interest in a subject's personal life, while it may be the first feature others will read.

It may be worth considering that 'Infobox musical artist' would better serve the broader public and have a wider use within Wikipedia if it allowed for spouse and children with solo artists.

I guess we'll have to see! Thanks again for your experience and perspective! Beth Timken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings on this personally, but I understand the objections made in the past. Firstly, you'd have to split the infobox into two, to accommodate single artists and groups. But what happens when a group effectively becomes a one-person vehicle? Would you include long-term but non-married partners? How long would a relationship have to be to be considered long-term? And how would you summarise the "Personal life" section of Liam Gallagher's relationships in an infobox, given that several of the relationships overlap, and that both his children were effectively born outside of whatever relationship he was in at the time? I only mention these things to show that you could open up a whole can of worms here, it's not as simple as it looks, and the parameter is open to interpretation and abuse. Richard3120 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I imagine it would be best handled in the same manner as in 'infobox person' -- brief numbers in the infobox, details in "Personal life." Hopefully applied with sound judgement and finesse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Timken (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If was handled the same way as Mick Jagger, who have similar relationships and subsequent children ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger ) then it would be:

Spouse(s): Patsy Kensit  (m. 1997; div. 2000) Nicole Appleton (m. 2008; div. 2014)

Children: 4

Beth Timken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

For those who don't want to link to the mobile page directly: Mick Jagger. For the record, that uses {{Infobox person}} and includes {{Infobox musical artist}} as a module. Check the source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Walter. I'm new to this. How would one go about changing a page from {{Infobox musical artist}} to {{Infobox person}} with {{Infobox musical artist}} as a module? Beth Timken (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Check the wiki markdown on that page. Most of the fields are shared, while those that are not can be added in a module with the required infobox musical artist fields. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Would {{Infobox musical artist}} need to be completely deleted first before putting in the {{Infobox person}} (subsequently adding the 'Infobox musical artist' as a module), or can they be switched out without having to re-enter the musician's information? Beth Timken (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No. Try it. Use preview and it will show you what is not recognized in infobox person. Simply add those to the module, which you will have to add. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

required field - background

Categorization for a missing required |background= is not always working correctly, see Jaap Reesema where the text is appearing at the top of the article. Frietjes. MB 17:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

User:MB, probably fixed at Template:Infobox musical artist/tracking. it looks like Primefac forgot to account for blank or other bad input since [[Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field|]] doesn't work, but [[Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field| ]] does work. also added urlencode which should take care of other bad input like brackets. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; been a while since I've done cat sorting and I did forget that issue. Primefac (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Teacher and notable students

Are there templates one can embed which would show a musician's teachers and notable students? Like Template:Infobox martial artist but proper for this use. Timmyshin (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would happen if you added that as a module, but for which subjects are you thinking of using this feature? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • For Chinese opera singers, but this could conceivably be used for a much broader spectrum of subject matter. The master-disciple relationship in anything traditional (e.g. martial arts) is fairly strong in Asian societies, not just in China but also in Japan, Indonesia, etc., always involving solemn ceremonies and a firm degree of piety. This is probably observed worldwide in traditional (or primitive) societies, perhaps to a lesser or more degree. Notice how this template currently has "alma mater" - "teacher" is basically an "alma mater" for pre-modern societies. I also looked at Infobox person but could not find any relevant parameter. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Timmyshin (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Instrument

I noticed that the explanation here for instrument says: "Include singing" However, the wikipedia article on musical instruments explains that a musical instruments excludes the use of the human body. How to make this consistent for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligens (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW Madonna and Emma Blackery have "vocals" as instrument, and Madonna is a GA and former FA. –84.46.52.75 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "good articles" are "perfect" articles. Reviewers have a limited set of criteria with which they concern themselves. Knowing what does and does constitute an instrument, or what every project has come to consensus on is not a high priority for many of the reviewers. They generally concern themselves with having reliable sources, proper grammar, correct manuals of style for headings, bold, image and template use, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
On Emma Blackery (nominated for GA) only guitar+ukulele in this infobox instead of vocals+guitar+ukulele would be rather misleading. It's a kludge inspired by Madonna, also see #Infobox singer. –84.46.52.75 (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox singer

Maybe a stupid question after converting one {{Infobox YouTube personality}} to {{Infobox musical artist}} on Emma Blackery: Some no-nonsense parameters are apparently missing in the infobox here, e.g., education=, or maybe require the slightly convoluted (for folks who never did this) embed method.
For a singer I also miss a vocal range= and a voice type= here. Even Madonna listed as an example on the /doc subpage doesn't have this, would that be some case of embed (singer info) within embed (musical info) within {{Infobox person}}, and if yes, could it be simplified by a new Template:Infobox singer distributing all known info parameter names to various embedded templates by name, and recording everything else in a maintenance category? So far I only managed to add "soprano" on d:Q15994935, but the reference there (a fan video) wouldn't be acceptable here. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Most supposed vocal ranges are not sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Most vocal ranges change with age as well – it's very obvious that Paul McCartney and Elton John don't have the vocal range now that they did in their younger days. Not just men, either – Madonna's voice is deeper now than it was on her first two or three albums, likewise Kate Bush. Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
True. I've got a recently recorded live album where the lead vocalist bails on a high note that he regularly reached when the band was in its prime 25 years ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I anyway can't judge "vocal range" (no absolute pitch), but voice type might be a slower moving target. A "soprano" should stay a soprano for some decades, and even if that's not the case it could be relevant for an infobox used on BLPs of opera singers (also after they died.) Actually that wasn't my question here:
I only wanted to tell you that my experiment with this infobox worked to some degree, but not as good as I expected. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile… I tested the embed-feature, it works as explained for "musical artist" embedded in "person", and is ugly like hell, the nice colour scheme of "musical artist" doesn't survive the procedure. Sadly, the workaround "person" embedded in "musical artist" doesn't work. –84.46.53.95 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2019

Can you add a spouse and children to the templete? 68.42.89.190 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please gain consensus before making such requests.
This has been discussed multiple times and bands do not have spouses or children so it makes no sense for them. For people, a different template may be used and this template may be included as a module in it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Documentation contradiction regarding sentence case of associated_acts band names

Either the guidance for the use of |associated_acts=—As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and WP:Bandname, use sentence case for lists of band names. Example: The Rolling Stones, the Beatles, the Who—is wrong, or the example using |associated_acts= is not following the guidance. I'm pretty sure it's the later, although WP:BANDNAME talks about sentence case in running prose, not (albeit flat) lists and I'm tired. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

I am requesting adding a death cause information box, to use if a person is a singular artist or a particular artist in a band. Gavinxps (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done to use a template edit request, please work up your change in the sandbox (Template:Infobox musical artist/sandbox) and test it first. If you just want to discuss a change, that discussion can continue below. — xaosflux Talk 00:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on naming countries in infoboxes

A RfC which may affect this infobox's |origin=, |birth_place=, and |death_place= parameters has been opened at WT:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

Young Donar (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Donald Kente Rwebangira (born April 10, 1996) professionally known as Young Donar, is an African rapper, singer &songwriter As an artist, he’s always been focused on creating epic music and composing songs in more than a genre. Basically he started composing music when he was on eight grade where he also participated in school’s music competitions such as freestyles, dancing and lip syncing


Career He released his first single “24 Hours” on April 26, 2017 which was produced by “Everything’s Ghost” also known as Lindo Da Vido who also executively took action in the production on his debut EP titled “Travail” released on September 16, 2017. Working as an independent artist “Young Donar” went on and releasing another single titled “Enamored” on Oct 8, 2017. Without a doubt hes working hard to gain more people loving his music, he went on and released “See It All“, a single off his untitled project coming soon. Recently he released a heartfelt single titled “Wipe (Your Tears)” which is available on all music stores worldwide & more is expected to come.

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox musical artist}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@ElHef: there isn't an article to make the request at, that's why the editor has written it here... this is someone trying to get an autobiographical article uploaded onto Wikipedia, but without any sources. Richard3120 (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Pronoun infobox field

Could a pronoun infobox field be added for use on pages dedicated to individual musicians? With more people using neutral pronouns it would be a helpful reference point for both future editors and readers of the page. Lewishhh (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not even present in {{infobox person}}. It's not a key element of bands and not a key consideration for most musicians. I don't think it's needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding Spouse details

is it okay to add spouse details to the template, as it will be relevant while reflecting their profile. Qowa (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before (see the request above on May 3, for example) and it has never had any support. It isn't really relevant, as the infobox is supposed to summarize key points regarding the artist's musical career, and marrying someone is rarely relevant to their career. It can quite easily be mentioned in a "Personal life" section in the body text, if it is supported by reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if it should be removed from person too then? Surely musician is a subset of person and should inherit all those attributes? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, knock yourself out petitioning for its removal from person.
In short the arguments to date have been
  1. Bands do not have spouses.
  2. The spouses of most solo musicians do not have an influencial role on their careers.
  3. Infobox musical artist can be used as a module inside of the other infobox.
So unless we spit this into {{infobox musical artist}} and {{infobox musical group}}, we're not going to reopen the debate, and that isn't going to fly either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz and Qowa: Thanks, I didn't know about the ability to include 'Infobox musical artist' as a module. I've used this feature to add spouses to Liam Gallagher article see, diff. It seems best to us fields in the 'infobox person' template in preference to those in '... musical artistic'; where fields are present in both. Jonpatterns (talk)
Liam Gallagher - is a good demostration with all details, is it possible to make it as a template, Like Musical Personal, So spouce also will be there, As many spouces are connected to their personal profile (both musical artist) - Qowa (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
You can either have 'musical artist' as a module in 'person' or vice versa.
For the former. Add the lines

| module = {{Infobox musical artist|embed=yes

... musical attributes ...

}}

Put all the non musical attributes in the 'person' outside the module. Hope this helps? Jonpatterns (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

What about touring band members?

Radiohead, for example, has Clive Deamer as a frequent member during live performances, and he is on The King of Limbs: Live from the Basement, an official live in a studio album. Is there a way to list members such as this one in the infobox? Should there be? DemonDays64 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Native name

So Infobox person had an extensive discussion about moving the native name up to the header of the infobox, so I wanted to bring it over to here as I feel much of the points made there apply to musicians. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 07:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

Change all use of "he or she" to "they" 143.167.28.80 (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Where does this template use "he or she"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a request to edit the /doc page under this section. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done This is supported by MOS:GNL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
MOS:GNL cautions against generic he and she, not against "he or she". For further details, MOS:GNL refers to WP:GNL which explicitly condones "he or she". IMHO, nothing here needed to changed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The third person here is fine as it is also about band members. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Please change the native name parameter as discussed on Infobox person per BLP policies... I started a discussion on this topic for this template over a month ago with no opposition. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 15:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you be explicit about what the change is? Ie from what location to what location? Most people probably don't understand what you're proposing. --Laser brain (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
So the template would change to add a parameter, "native_name_lang=" and so when used, it would change what is displayed from "Native name" to "Native name language name". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I have copied over the code from {{Infobox person}} into Template:Infobox musical artist/testcases. Is the native_name displayed in a reasonable way in the sandbox? Should the native name be displayed inside the yellow background? It doesn't look quite right to me, and since the requester here has not specified how it should look, I don't feel comfortable moving forward. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for not being clearer, as shown here, based on reasoning in the linked discussion (mostly weight and BLP stuff) that the native name parameter should be added to the title of the infobox, so yes, it would be in the colored heading. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


Insufficient options

In "For articles about individuals", the **Mandatory** options are only: "solo_singer", "non_vocal_instrumentalist", "non_performing_personnel", or "temporary". A huge percentage, if not a majority, of individuals whose notability is as members of small to medium sized musical groups would fall under something else, such as "instrumentalist_and_vocalist" or "harmonizing_instrumentalist" or"instrumentalist_and_backing_vocalist". As examples, all four of the Beatles, in their individual articles, are listed as "solo_singer". While all were sometimes solo singers, especially on their own albums, they were all also instrumentalists at all times, with George Harrison and Ringo Starr usually being much more important as players than as singers while in the Beatles. Also, Lennon and McCartney were multi-instrumentalists, but that's another kettle if fish. An addition to the options needs to be made. GWFrog (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that an additional option is needed. There are a lot of "guitarist, backing vocalist" or that sort of player. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree as well. The use of "non_performing_personnel" or "temporary" must be almost non-existent, while there are a large number of performers who are as notable for their instrument playing as for their vocals, whether it's John Martyn or Elton John or Lindsey Buckingham or Jeff Lynne or James Hetfield. Richard3120 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Note that if a change is made here, {{Navbox musical artist}} would also have to be changed too, and possibly other templates.
I have another interesting example - Bill Drummond, who is currently yellow as a "solo singer". If we restrict ourselves to just his more notable activities he has in fact been: the manager of Echo & the Bunnymen and The Teardrop Explodes and the founder of Zoo Records (non-performing personnel); guitarist and vocalist in Big in Japan (non_vocal_instrumentalist and the non-existent singer_in_a_band); vocalist, producer, programmer and possibly an instrumentalist with the KLF and related acts; and a vocalist (solo_singer) and guitarist on a solo album. He's also a songwriter (non-performing personnel). Like each of the Beatles and probably many thousands of others, he qualifies for all 3 of the categories of individuals, in addition to the non-existent "singer in a band"!
Other roles are missing too, such as conductor.
I suppose the first question should be "why do we have these colour codings in the first place" closely followed by "do we need them"?
Assuming that the answer is yes we need them, then what are we going to do about it? My suggestion if taken up, or a similar outcome, would need bot assistance to implement. My suggestion is not to add more categories and complicate things further, but to simplify. Nuke solo_singer and non_vocal_instrumentalist. Reuse the yellow background for a new option of individual. That would give us the following:
individual: yellow
non_performing_personnel: green
group_or_band: blue
classical_ensemble: whatever colour that is, looks like cyan
temporary: grey [surely only applies to groups or a collaboration between solo artists; tbh I'm not sure what it's for or whether it's needed]
tl;dr: nuke solo_singer and non_vocal_instrumentalist, and replace with individual which would be a catch-all for singers, players and conductors, including the many folks who have both sung and played instruments in bands and/or as solo artists. --kingboyk (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"years_active" parameter

What's the deal with years_active parameter? Why is it advised to use {{Start date}} for groups, but not for individual artists? I hardly seen any band's article use it (Metallica, Megadeth or Slayer come to mind first). – Sabbatino (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have the same question/observation. The absurd thing is this: The Beatles article is used as an example, so I clicked over to there to look at the wiki source and they don't use {{Start date}} either! --kingboyk (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
As there has been no response in 3 years, and the article used as an example does not implement the advice, I am removing said advice. --kingboyk (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Convert to wrapper

Parameter Infobox musical artist Infobox person
1 No Yes
2 No Yes
3 No Yes
4 No Yes
5 No Yes
abovestyle No Yes
agent No Yes
alias Yes Yes
Alias Yes No
alma mater No Yes
alma_mater No Yes
alt Yes Yes
associated_acts Yes No
Associated_acts Yes No
awards No Yes
background Yes No
Background Yes No
baptised No Yes
baptized No Yes
birth_date Yes Yes
birth_name Yes Yes
Birth_name Yes No
birth_place Yes Yes
birthname No Yes
boards No Yes
body discovered No Yes
body_discovered No Yes
box_width No Yes
burial_coordinates No Yes
burial_place No Yes
callsign No Yes
caption Yes Yes
child No Yes
children No Yes
citizenship No Yes
credits No Yes
criminal charge No Yes
criminal penalty No Yes
criminal status No Yes
criminal_charge No Yes
criminal_charges No Yes
criminal_penalty No Yes
criminal_status No Yes
current_members Yes No
Current_members Yes No
death cause No Yes
death_cause No Yes
death_date Yes Yes
death_place Yes Yes
denomination No Yes
disappeared_date No Yes
disappeared_place No Yes
disappeared_status No Yes
domestic_partner No Yes
domesticpartner No Yes
education No Yes
embed Yes Yes
employer No Yes
era No Yes
ethnicity No Yes
family No Yes
father No Yes
footnotes No Yes
former_members Yes No
Former_members Yes No
genre Yes No
Genre Yes No
height No Yes
height_cm No Yes
height_ft No Yes
height_in No Yes
height_m No Yes
home town No Yes
home_town No Yes
homepage No Yes
honorific prefix No Yes
honorific suffix No Yes
honorific_prefix Yes Yes
honorific_suffix Yes Yes
honorific-prefix No Yes
honorific-suffix No Yes
honors No Yes
honours No Yes
image Yes Yes
image caption No Yes
image size No Yes
image_caption No Yes
image_size Yes Yes
image_upright Yes Yes
imagesize No Yes
Img Yes No
Img_alt Yes No
Img_capt Yes No
Img_size Yes No
Img_upright Yes No
influenced No Yes
influences No Yes
instrument Yes No
Instrument Yes No
instruments Yes No
judicial status No Yes
judicial_status No Yes
known No Yes
known for No Yes
known_for No Yes
label Yes No
Label Yes No
label_name No Yes
landscape Yes Yes
Landscape Yes No
misc No Yes
misc2 No Yes
misc3 No Yes
misc4 No Yes
misc5 No Yes
misc6 No Yes
module Yes Yes
module2 Yes Yes
module3 Yes Yes
module4 No Yes
module5 No Yes
module6 No Yes
monuments No Yes
mother No Yes
movement No Yes
name Yes Yes
Name Yes No
nationality No Yes
native_name Yes Yes
native_name_lang Yes Yes
net worth No Yes
net_worth No Yes
networth No Yes
nickname No Yes
nocat_wdimage No Yes
notable works No Yes
notable_works No Yes
occupation Yes Yes
Occupation Yes No
occupations Yes No
Occupations Yes No
office No Yes
opponents No Yes
organisation No Yes
organization No Yes
organizations No Yes
origin Yes No
Origin Yes No
other names No Yes
other_names No Yes
othername No Yes
parents No Yes
partner No Yes
partner(s) No Yes
partners No Yes
party No Yes
past_members Yes No
Past_members Yes No
post-nominals No Yes
pre-nominals No Yes
predecessor No Yes
pronunciation No Yes
relations No Yes
relatives No Yes
religion No Yes
residence No Yes
resting place No Yes
resting place coordinates No Yes
resting_place No Yes
resting_place_coordinates No Yes
restingplace No Yes
restingplacecoordinates No Yes
siglum No Yes
signature No Yes
signature alt No Yes
signature_alt No Yes
signature_size No Yes
spouse No Yes
spouse(s) No Yes
spouses No Yes
status No Yes
style No Yes
successor No Yes
television No Yes
term No Yes
title No Yes
url Yes Yes
URL Yes Yes
website Yes Yes
works No Yes
years active No Yes
years_active Yes Yes
Years_active Yes No
yearsactive Yes Yes

This template should be converted into wrapper of {{Infobox person}} Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 03:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It can already be used as a module. The problem is that bands are not "people" they are collections of people and this template is used for them as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Walter Görlitz. The |..._members= parameters would never make sense in Infobox person. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

instrument

I was wondering whether for artists like Paul McCartney - who has made at least one entire album where he played everything - a reasonable option for the instrument field might be Multi-instrumentalist?

Note: I am not proposing at this stage to change any article; rather to initiate discussion on whether the above might be a reasonable suggestion to make in the template instructions, or not. --kingboyk (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Vocals ThatieY (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

I added additional information about the musical artist, ThatieY


I request to write about ThatieY as a musical artist and I want his name to pop up when searched ThatieY (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

1 ThatieY (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I added additional information on the artist


I request to write about ThatieY ThatieY (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi ThatieY, you'll want to head over to Wikipedia:Requested_articles rather than here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
But also you will have to prove that the article meets the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, and also as it appears you want to write about yourself, you will also have to declare a conflict of interest - see WP:COI. Richard3120 (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Spouse / partner parameters

Is there any reason why the |spouse= / |partner= parameters don't exist for this infobox? If there is no reason, can we add them so we're more consistent with Infobox person? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You've already asked this, and it's already been answered: Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 14#Spouse / partner?. Nothing's changed. Richard3120 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Holee shit. I have no memory of this. Sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Bands don't have spouses or partners. The topic has been discussed before. Check the archives. Instructions for using either this infobox as a module in a person infobox or vice versa are provided. Also, how often is a spouse notable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Pass caption to Module:InfoboxImage

Please apply this sandbox edit. It passes |caption= to Module:InfoboxImage, so that the caption is machine-readably associated with the image itself, and can be used by tools like the Multimedia Viewer. Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Tacsipacsi:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Please swap the order of "occupation(s)" and "genre(s)", so that "occupation(s)" appears first. Presently we see output such as:

Genres: Pop, R&B, blue-eyed soul
Occupation(s): Singer, musician, record producer, television presenter

However, "genre" does not make logical sense unless "occupation" is already known, so these two are logically in the incorrect order. This seems to be a feature of the way the template is internally coded, and not of the order in which the fields are specified in the article itself. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:590A:A221:5903:554 (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
TBH, you just need to use your common sense rather than worrying about "establish consensus". Start with the premise of zero information (remember, people reading the article cannot see that this is called "Infobox musical artist"). They have no information, so what do they need to know first? Is it the genre, or is it what this person actually does? Hopefully the answer should be obvious. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:590A:A221:5903:554 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

associated acts

"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'm a bit concerned here. I see the first point, "multiple occasions", but collaborating on an album is a problem. You end up with a lot of session players in jazz bands playing on one album and then never being associated again. Also, touring together once isn't really a strong association. The key is that the association is "significant and notable to this artist's career." Can break this point down so "collaborated on multiple occasions" stands apart from the others, and I'd even be in favour of removing the last one as it's clearly not significant and notable to most artist's careers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, but occasionally it is true that collaborating on an album/tour can be a notable association. If I look at the "associated acts" for Elton John's article, for example, with the exception of Bernie Taupin (obviously), Kiki Dee and possibly Tim Rice, none of the others should be listed there, because they were all one-off collaborations. However, there's a good argument that Davey Johnstone, Dee Murray, Nigel Olsson and Ray Cooper should be included instead, as they have an association with John going back almost 50 years – they were the backing band on all the classic early 70s albums and most of the albums from 1983 onwards, and still form the basis of his touring band. And there are reliable sources that state that John's firing of Murray and Olsson in 1976 was a significant contribution to the beginning of the decline in his popularity, so that would meet the criterion "significant and notable to this artist's career". The statement does need rewording, though, to state that the collaboration has to be on multiple albums or tours. Richard3120 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone have a problem with changing the the text to:
  • Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions
    • Acts with which this act has collaborated with on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together, should be used only when it can be shown that it was significant and notable to the artist's career.
This would get rid of the "automatic in" that I've seen applied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

[Songs/Albums] Known for

I think the biggest omission from this template is a section for the songs and/or albums that the artist is best known for. If you are reading an article about a band that has only a few well known songs, it helps to have that info up front on the infobox. For more prolific artists, their biggest known works could be listed. This would be very useful to help create immediate context for these articles, as it would allow readers to quickly find notable examples of the artist's music to understand the part of their history that can't be expressed in text. As it stands, you have to skim through articles to find that info, which takes up more time than should be neccasary, given that we have this template already. -- 24.91.247.53 (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't really have to skim through articles – if an artist is really only known for one or two songs, this is usually mentioned in the lead paragraph, so you would only have to read this. Another question is, how would you define the "best known" songs of an artist? These could be very different, depending upon the point of view of a country. For instance, David Bowie's two number-one songs in the USA are "Fame" and "Let's Dance", but in his home country of the UK I doubt "Fame" would be in the top ten songs that would come to mind if you asked an Englishman... I'm betting "Space Oddity", "Heroes" and "Starman" would be among the songs that would be named before it. And how many songs would you limit the infobox to? Three? Five? Ten? Ten song titles would take up quite a lot of space in the infobox. Basically, if an artist is only known for a couple of songs, this will be mentioned in the opening sentences... if they're known for quite a lot of songs, it's unlikely that you'll need a list of them in the infobox to know something about the artist because they're already pretty famous. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the anon is thinking of simple cases (such as one-hit wonders) and not complex cases (such as the one you mentioned or bands whose careers have spanned decades or multiple genres). Then there are the cases where bands have not had any charting success. I agree it would just become fodder for edit wars. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Death cause

I think we should add the "Cause of death" parameter because many musicians die of notable causes like suicide, drug overdose, murder, plane crash, etc. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

When the cause of death is significant it can be added by embedding {{infobox person}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, surely not just musicians die of reasons other than natural causes, it's not something specific to musicians. Besides, if it's a noteworthy form of death, you'd probably want to add some prose about it in the body of the article, explaining the details. Richard3120 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What would the cause of death be for a band? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_14&oldid=1147405602"