Template talk:Navbox Musical artist

Problem with a template

Hello, I need a little help with Template:S Club. Whenever I bold the band members' names, the formatting screws up, and I just can't figure out what's wrong. Thanks, indopug (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. It didn't like the ' in the word Movin'. --Geniac (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Colour scheme

I'm going to bring up the standardisation of the colour scheme again. It would be very easy to use an {{ safesubst:p{{ safesubst:#if{{{1}}}:{{{2}}}|1|2}}|{{{3}}}|}} function to give the optional ability to shift the template away from the standardised format.

Standardisation is fine in terms of format - it adds some consistency across the project. However, standardising colours for navboxes that do not relate to one another does not serve any beneficial purpose. If anything, it reduces its usefulness as it just appears as another "box at the end of an article" rather than an extension of that topic.

As such, I am going would like to add an optional ability to change to colour of the top line.

cheers, DJR (T) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a quick example of a page where this might be useful? I'm not for or against your idea, I'm just interested to know what you had in mind. --CapitalR (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well really any page whatsoever. For example, the Arctic Monkeys template (specifically {{Arctic Monkeys}}) has always been dark green in colour (see this diff), but is now embedded in a standardised shade of blue.

The crux of my argument is that forcing all navbox templates to have blue headings has absolutely no benefit to the project. I totally agree that the blue should exist as the default colour if nothing else is input, but where bands have distinctive colours associated with them - or indeed for any other valid reason - users should be able to use their discretion in implementing it. DJR (T) 23:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Phish

...isn't collapsing. Anyone know why? — MusicMaker5376 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks okay to me in FireFox 3, Opera, and IE7; what browser are you using? --CapitalR (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Collating members

Thoughts Some editors (e.g. me) have a preference for alphabetizing the list of members - this is a non-arbitrary and rational method that is easier for readers to read and search, especially in the case of bands that have several members or several past members. Other editors have a preference for some other scheme, such as order in which they joined the band or some kind of preference by contributions (e.g. Trent Reznor would go first on Template:Nine Inch Nails as it is a vanity project.) The documentation doesn't give any clear guidance. Does any else have any thoughts on this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, just use good judgment on a case by case basis. Documenting an official order seems like an excess of rules and bureaucracy, so just do what's best for each page. --CapitalR (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Influences

We have a section for influences for both the writer and philosopher infoboxes. I think it would be a good idea to add this to this infobox as well, as many musicians have talked about their influences (and we can definitely find references for this information in many cases). Likewise, we could also add the "influenced" section, also found in the previously mentioned templates. -- LGagnon 15:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

navbar parameter

{{Editprotected}} It would be nice if this template would pass the parameter "navbar" through to the navbox template. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 03:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

hCard microformat

{{Editprotected}}

{{Navbox}} has two new parameters, bodyclass & titleclass, which can be used to add microformats to instances of the template. I should like to add an hCard microformat to this template, with the titleclass being dependent on the background parameter, in the same way as the class used in {{Infobox Musical artist}} is generated; using {{Infobox Musical artist/hCard class}}.

To that end, please add the two lines:

<code>
|bodyclass=vcard
|titleclass={{Infobox Musical artist/hCard class|{{{Background|}}}}}
</code>

at whatever points seem sensible. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make all musical artist pages vcards ? Is that desirable ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, every page using this template would emit an hCard microformat (which could then be converted to a vCard about the artist). And yes, that is desirable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So for every song an artist made, and every event and controversy he was part of, sometimes his producers, there would be a vcard with his name on it ? Personally, I think that is a bit over the top. I mean, i can see it for infoboxes, because that uniquely identifies an artists page, but this opens up the possibility that his vcard is on pages of other people. That would just be confusing to me. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There would be no vCards, unless someone chose to create them. All the microformat does is identify the meaning of a given piece of text - in this case as a name. How would that confuse you? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Not done I don't feel at ease making this change (adding microformats to navboxes), and apparently nor do other admins, or it would have been done by now. I would like to see a broader consensus or a clear precedent, and then I wouldn't have a problem with it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does exist by precedent - I've manually added microformats to many such Navboxes (and other non-infobox templates) and none have been reverted. For example, there are 136 hCard microformats on David Beckham, via {{National squad}},to which I had the relevant mark-up added one year ago this month. The same applies to several thousand articles using {{National squad}}. There have been zero complaints. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Disabling edit request since there is not consensus for this change. --- RockMFR 23:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read my preceding comment, where I demonstrated existing consensus? Only one other poster has commented, and all of his questions have been answered. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated {{editprotected}} since, so far as I can see, discussion has ceased and all concerns have either been addressed or refuted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you, too, not read my earlier comment, where I demonstrated existing consensus? Only one other poster has commented, and all of his questions have been answered. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not done: This is becoming disruptive. Please stop. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could answer my question; or either state why you think there is not consensus; or why you think this should not be done? Otherwise, it would be your actions which appear disruptive. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No response after four days, so editprotected restored. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed, again. The administrators above feel that there is not enough consensus for this change. If you would like the edit made the burden to provide justification for that change is on you, not us. Perhaps you should talk to one of the administrators who commented above on their talk page if you would like further information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. No productive response. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications

The following explanation may be of use:

• The hCard microformat adds semantic meaning to text data, by wrapping it in meaningful HTML class names.
• The hCard mark-up will be used solely to give semantic meaning to names.
• In this case, specifically, they will specify that the text is either the name of a person, or a group.
• The relevant existing HTML markup is <table><th>; this change will add two class names, to make that either: <table class="vcard"><th class="fn"> or <table class="vcard"><th class="fn org">. Nothing else will change.
• Wikipedia already emits hundreds of thousands, probably well over a million, microformats.
• Microformats are emitted by some of our most-used templates, including {{Coord}}, {{Infobox settlement}}, {{Infobox person}}, and the templates based on them.
• hCards in particular are already emitted by most infobox templates, about people, places and organisations.
• Partner organisations such as Google parse our microformats; our use of them has been praised by Yahoo.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You have made this explanation several times. You are trying to compare two very different things: navboxes and infoboxes. Infoboxes are "used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject." (from WP:IBX) and navboxes are "boxes with links to other related articles" (from WP:CLN), so why do you try to add microformats to something supposed to only add links? I think microformats are great for infoboxes but their usefulness is not proven for navboxes. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I want us to add them to navboxes, to enhance the semantic meaning of the text in those boxes; just as they do for the text in infoboxes. Their usefulness is precisely the same in both cases - why would you think otherwise? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No response, so repeating request. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done There does not appear to be consensus for this change given the above comments and the prior declines by others. Furthermore, it's a navbox—not an infobox. The problem inherent to this is that navboxes for a musician might be used on articles that only indirectly relate to them. This creates a situation where multiple conflicting hCards could exist if other navboxes were used in parallel, because stacking is common with navboxes but almost never occurs with infoboxes. For example, one could plausibly put a Rick Astley navbox on Rickrolling, but an hCard with Rick Astley's contact info on the article for Rickrolling isn't appropriate. --slakr^\ talk / 02:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Three is no such thing as a "conflicting hCard". The hCards produced by this template will not include "contact details", other than names. If Astley's name is placed on Rickrolling, it is entirely appropriate to emit an hCard to that effect. These issues are already addressed above. I'm coming to the regrettable conclusion that the handful of people opposing this additional semantic mark-up are not taking the trouble to understand what is being proposed. hCards are already being emitted by some navboxes, including those about musical artists, with no problems reported, whatsoever,; I'm simply seeking to implement a method of making them do what is already being done, which is quicker, easier, more efficient and more editor-friendly; a method which the parent template has already been re-coded specifically to allow Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Other Songs"

is there any established consensus towards including an "Other songs" section to a navbox? This section would be for songs which aren't singles. any thoughts? riffic (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)