Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Infobox orchestra

Please comment on the ongoing replacement of instances of this infobox with {{Infobox orchestra}}, at Template talk:Infobox orchestra#Use of this infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove 'website' parameter

I don't understand why there is a |website= parameter in an infobox about musical artists. To me this seems irrelevant and unimportant in relation to the subject, especially as it displays so prominently in infoboxes it is entered in. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is there to summarise the key facts about the subject. The website link is there as it is useful to the reader who can get key facts from the infobox and then visit the artist's website. I don't see any reason to remove it. --Michig (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked at Paul McCartney and don't think the website URL is excessively prominent. GoingBatty (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Provided there is only the one, "official", website, I don't see a problem - It makes it stand out from the fan-sites, blogs, Facebook pages and other sites which often clutter up External links. Arjayay (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above three responses. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If this were a traditional encyclopedia it might be irrelevant and unimportant. However, being that we are online when we come to such articles, its its most relevant and quite important when used correctly as it can lead to further insight into the artist and can connect the read with the artist in general. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

New sections

Can we possibly add

• |residence =
• |spouse =
• |children =
• |nationality =

to the box?? --Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

These have been discussed in the archives before (see the top of this page), and have not been found to be "key facts" about these artists. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

this template supports embedding, so you can always embed it in {{infobox person}}, which does support these fields. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I just came to post the same thing. I tried to add family information to an infobox and it doesn't appear. It's common to have this for other artists (fine artists, actors, directors, writers, etc.). This seems especially important for musicians as they often collaborate with their spouse/partner as well as their children.

I'm reluctant to change the infobox from musician>person because the template does include information that is useful to know regarding their career. I just wish that you could include relationship parameters as well. It's not like every field has to be filled out, it's just there as an option. Please reconsider. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

this template supports embedding, so you can always embed it in {{infobox person}}, which does support these fields. this does not require removing the infobox, but involves using both, with one embedded in the other. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Module parameters

Please add

| data21     = {{{module|}}}
| data22     = {{{module2|}}}
| data23     = {{{module3|}}}

to add numbered module parameters, like in {{Infobox person}}. This will allow already-adjacent templates to be embedded; compare the voice files on Rich Batsford (using this template) and Corrie Corfield (embedded, using {{infobox person}}. This has been tested; see the testcases page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. I also changed the sandbox to add some code which had been missed when syncing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Good catch! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Origin

"The city from which the singer or group originated (that is, the city where the group was founded; or the city where individual performers started their career, should it not match the location of their birth). If the city is not known, specify at least the country. Do not add a flag icon."

And if it didn't happen in a city at all, then what? The explanation should cover this scenario. — Smjg (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded that, to clarify. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Alias

It has come to my attention that the instructions for the "alias" field don't specify a preferred list format (comma-separated? bullet points?) for when there is more than one alias.

Any thoughts? — Paul A (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering the parameters for genre, associated acts, and all the others, imply a comma separated list. The alias should also be separated by commas, as the others are. STATic message me! 03:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not "all the others" - for Template:Infobox_musical_artist#current_members (and past), line-break delimiters are specified. However, I agree, aliases are more akin to 'associated acts'. –DjScrawl (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot the members was apart of this template, and not a separate template, I usually edit solo artists articles. STATic message me! 21:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Genre

I know that this has been discussed before; however, I still think that the "aim for generality" issue is yet to be clarified. What is meant by generality: the specific genre (or subgenre) a band mainly plays during their career or just simple generalizations (such as hip hop, rock or pop)? The "East Cost hip hop" example suggests the second alternative; nevertheless, I haven't seen it being implemented in most of the rock music articles. Also I have seen many discussions regarding the number of the genres, an issue that hasn't been clarified in the instructions. The instructions should be expanded regarding these issues. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, since infoboxes should be a summary of the article, we should state that the genre should be explained and referenced in the article, not the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Walter that genres need to be cited, and in the body. We definitely need to cut down the kind of "genre creep" that as five similar, niche genres listed for a single act. However, we must also recognise that some bands evolve. Pink Floyd in 1967 and 1987, for example, were not playing the same kind of music. And calling both Pink Floyd and, say, Iron Maiden "rock" would be so lacking in specificity as to be useless. There may be no easy answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that any genre that the band has heavily played throughout their career should be listed in an infobox, regardless of how similar it may be to another genre they play. That does seem to be the general practice in rock music articles anyway, and that's how it should stay. Some bands can be quite diverse and could have five or more genres that they have heavily played, whereas others could only have one or two genres that covers most of their music. But on the other hand, genres that have experimented with in only a couple songs by the band should not be listed in the band's infobox. But if it's a band with five or six albums, with two or three of them largely featuring a certain genre, that genre should be listed in the band's infobox. If I were to write the guideline, it would look something like this:

"The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Any genre performed by the act in only a few songs should not be listed."

Could probably be written better than that, but you get the idea. Seems simple enough there, and would leave very little room for confusion. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Having 5 or more genres in the infobox is just overkill, most rock bands have a "musical style" influence section for a reason. Rather than have 5-6 subgenres, we can have one or two distinct, defining genres that immediately explains what they play(ed). Just because the template has not be followed in a majority of rock articles, does not mean it shouldn't be. I mean according to the current way it is written it should just say rock, in most hip hop articles there are no subgenres at all usually and frankly it looks better that way. STATic message me! 03:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with the 5 genres limit, I don't really think that the general classification of "rock" would work well, per the reasons given by Andy Mabbett above. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not say to have a five genre limit, that just opens the field up to abuse. I said it is better to have one or two general significant widely sourced genres rather than four, five or six subgenres. STATic message me! 07:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think two or three genres would be OK for most of the bands, and for the bands with genre shifts during their career like pink floyd that pigsonthewing mentioned, I agree with Kokoro, any genre mainly played by the band for a significant time should be included. And in these cases I agree with 5 genres limitation. Solino_{the Wolf} 09:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Associated acts

For the part in which it has stated the use of associated acts should be avoided, while I agree with "Groups with only one member in common", I disagree with "Association of groups with members' solo careers". I think the side projects in which a band member is the front man could be mentioned an associated act. This means if the band member's other project is his own side-project and/or he's the frontman in that project, it should be included in the associated acts but if the member is also a member of another band, it shouldn't. I think this can make the article more useful for the readers.Solino_{the Wolf} 09:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Example where this makes sense? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Backround for conductor

The choice of values for the background field is too limiting: Must be one of 'solo_singer', 'non_vocal_instrumentalist', 'non_performing_personnel', 'group_or_band', 'classical_ensemble', or 'temporary' .

Which of these should I use for an orchestral conductor (or for a bandleader)? None of these options fit. I have used 'non_performing_personnel' for John Eliot Gardiner. I propose a new option 'musical_director' (see Musical director). Verbcatcher (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Would Template:Infobox orchestra work for what you're using? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that a conductor is an orchestra, although many are arrogant enough to think so :) I would probably use 'non_vocal_instrumentalist' or 'non_performing_personnel'. we could certainly add 'musical_director', but what colour to use? Frietjes (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why 'non_performing_personnel' is insufficient to cover the case. A conductor or bandleader does not perform on an instrument. (Well, some band leaders are instrumentalists as well, but that's aside from their role as band leader.) — Paul A (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The conductor is on stage and central to a performance, so he or she is a performer. Indeed, some jaded orchestral musicians remark that the conductor is only there to give the audience something to look at :) However, this text is not visible in the article, so it is not of prime importance. Adding a musical_director option would assist editors, and the colour code might be helpful. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(I took the liberty to make the section header a bit less generic.) The article about the conductor who lends his picture to the lead of conducting, Zubin Mehta, uses {{Infobox person}}. Is there any reason why that is not satisfactory? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}} does not have the genre, label or associated_acts fields (although "Associated acts" grates in the classical music world, ensembles would be better). Also, using a more precise infobox may help automated analysis tools and possible future search options (e.g. "find all conductors that specialise in baroque music").Verbcatcher (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

you can always embed this infobox in {{Infobox person}}, and as far as "automated analysis tools" go, categories can do a very good job of categorising things. Frietjes (talk)

Proposal to revamp the genre field

The following discussion 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.

---

Background

Genres have plagued most if not all music-related articles for as long as I've been an contributor here. In that time, I've seen many suggestions for how to remedy this problem -- all of which haven't really done much to reduce the amount of vandalism, editwars and seemingly endless debates. The project at one point disabled the parameter, which was immediately met with widespread backlash. Some users have tried using hidden comments to prevent editing genres, but these are often times completely ignored and genres are still changed, and many of these hidden comments are written in a rather WP:OWN-y way without much supporting discussion. Sometimes a user will add a source with a genre, but there's no discussion or analysis to determine whether or not this single source represents a minority or majority viewpoint. Genre seems to be subjective to some degree, so what's to say this one source doesn't just represent one single person's opinion?

Supporting data

Just to strengthen my argument a little, I took it upon myself to gather a small bit of supporting data. I examined five FA/GA articles on my watchlist (Radiohead, Black Sabbath, Slayer, Bullet for My Valentine, Bleeding Through) and sifted through the last 50 edits in the history. I tallied up all edits involving a genre and determined that about 30% of all edits pertain to genre (an average from the five articles with a range of 18-46%). The majority of the time these edits were reverted, so that means about a third of all edits to musical ensemble articles (based on these five FA/GA articles) are undesirable and thrown away -- occasionally leading into tireless discussions, edit wars and notice board comments.

Proposal

(Please forgive my lack of technical knowledge here. Also forgive the metal-leaning of the examples.) To help curb this percentage, I propose that the genre field becomes similar to the "background" field in that it only accepts certain values. So if "metal" is listed in the field, it will display Heavy metal. I am also proposing that the field only accepts community-discussed umbrella terms like "heavy metal" and ignores hyper-specific subgenres and styles like Neo-classical metal and Symphonic black metal -- if either if these were to be entered into my proposed updated field, nothing would display. A lot of the warring seems to stem from these subgenres, so forcing the field not to allow them might help to prevent pointless edits. The field's documentation already recommends to, "Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop)," so I don't think this is too drastic of a request if that's already what we're asking from editors. Also, the field should allow for a maximum number of genres to be listed (say, three?).

This would also reduce the number of pointless hidden comments (that go ignored anyways), parenthetical notes like "current genre" and "early genre", and completely made up genres.[1]

The energy and arguing that goes into deciding which genres should be listed in the infobox (which is meant to be general anyways) should be shifted toward focusing on writing a well-sourced and thought-out section on the ensemble's style instead. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Awesome impulse! Genres are a pain in exactly the way you describe. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I like the general idea of this. Using pre-determined inputs will lessen the amount of infobox warring (although I fear it will move to the lead of the article next).

That being said, I don't know that I agree with going to the point of generality of "heavy metal" for anything metal-related (apologies to those who don't work on metal articles, my examples will also use metal genres; however, the arguments can easily be applied to any major subgenres of overall giant genres, and I'll make an attempt at a couple of non-metal overall genres). For example, I'd move to a point of major subgenres: while "symphonic black metal" or "technical death metal" are going too far, "black metal" or "death metal" I feel would be the right level of specificity in the infobox (this also helps avoid problems like "grindcore": is grindcore heavy metal or punk rock? Both? Neither?). Similarly, "rock" is too general, but "new wave", "punk" (or "punk rock"), "grunge", and "alternative rock" would be the right level. Same with "electronic music", but "techno", "dubstep", and "house" (or "house music") would be the right level.

Maybe I'm getting a little ahead of myself, but I do agree with the idea of pre-determined inputs for infobox genres instead of "neo-symphonic technical blackened death metal" clogging up infoboxes. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Generalisation: I'm against generalisation! Too me that means ambiguity and, in music, a return to the 'bad old days' of running around record shops trying to find where the worldbeat CD I want to buy may have been filed. Also, IMO, such vagary plays to the marketing-goliaths of the big three. Furthermore, e.g., I dislike most house, but I like most electro house, acid house and fidget house.

If forced generalisation can be practically separated from the proposal, I believe the remainder will get a much easier ride. –DjScrawl (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Counter proposal: IMO, artists/band do not have genre! Music has genre (i.e. tracks and concept albums/EPs). However, Wikipedia seldom has knowledge of track genre (NB: collaborative filtering music sites, e.g. Last.FM, often do for mature/non-esoteric tracks) - so, within Wikipedia, the closest we normally have is albums. Thus, my counter's (also, forgive my lack of technical insight): Where an artists/band has releases with a page, make it impossible to put genre on the artists/band Infobox - instead aggregate genre from the release page(s). This would cut thrash, as releases are generally much more tangible/unarguable, in terms of genre. –DjScrawl (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been thinking along the same lines. A limited list of allowed values would be a good idea. For those who want to add detail of specific subgenres (properly sourced of course), the prose within the article offers plenty of scope. The genre field in the infobox should be for the broad category. We would still get edit warring over the broader categories (e.g. to me Haim (band) are just a major label Pop music band but I'm sure they have fans who like to think of them as Indie rock, Indie pop, Alternative rock, etc.), but choosing between a limited number of values would probably be better than the free for all of made-up subgenres we have now. --Michig (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I was invited to comment here by the RFC bot. I generally wouldn't have bothered, because whilst I love music, and have wide ranging tastes, the whole "genre" thing leaves me cold. Seems there are 2 extremes being argued for - one says you should have 20 or so basic genres and use those. The other extreme seems to practically demand the invention of a new genre or "sub-genre" for practically every record or artist, it feels to me. It becomes silly and meaningless, and done "for the sake of it" past a certain point.

  Now I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that a lot of pointless edit warring about no end of seemingly arcane "genres" flies across my watchlist regularly, so it occurs to me that it might be an idea to give this RFC its own page, keep it permanently open, and send "genre warriors" here to argue with like-minded souls about what should be in the limited list, instead of mucking up the articles...

  Seriously, though, I think I would support, in principle, a limited list, it would at least cut out some of the ridiculous infobox "wars" - although I wouldn't want to be the referee at the meeting convened to decide what goes on the list... Begoon ^talk 16:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm strongly counter the limit 'genre' to 20-ish portion of the proposal (unless perhaps its in a new 'meta-genre' field), yet as much against "invention of a new genre or 'sub-genre' for practically every record or artist" (i.e. I'm fully in support of the "all genre must be wikilinked" diktat, e.g. rather than boutique genre, like bubblegoth). –DjScrawl (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I note the etymology of genre is wiktionary:genus#Latin – therefore, at the root, its about more about origin than aesthetic opinions on the result. Thereby, what's trying to be captured here is a cross-cut of: originating dated-subculture, originating techn(ology/ique), stylistic dated-perception, etc. IMO, many terms (including: folk, classical, RnB, jazz and pop), are moribund in their ability to approximate their subjects and would rather the tin's label were, at least somewhat, indicative of its content. –DjScrawl (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, I would agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially the part about artists not having genre. I personally feel that classifying music by genre is a dead paradigm. But this conversation quickly becomes more philosophical in nature that will only appeal to a minority audience, which would probably have little benefit to a website that aims for a general audience. I think genre is a very complicated subject and I think that's what the biggest problem is here. It's really hard to get the masses to agree on one or a few specific styles that an artists plays, thus warring ensues. By limited the genre field to a short list of genres, which aren't wrong they're just vague, it will hopefully encourage editors to work together on a well developed body section devoted to an artist's genre that can allow for the critical commentary and sourcing that an infobox cannot fit. Stuff like "originating dated-subculture, originating techn(ology/ique), stylistic dated-perception, etc." can't be expressed in an infobox in only a few words, but if editors are funneled away from the infobox and toward a body section, these things can be expressed. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - It sounds like a good idea, I am really tired of articles with 5-6 subgenres in the infobox, it defeats the purpose of the infobox and quickly becomes overkill. We just need to decide what genres we are to include. Would we limit it to just rock, heavy metal, country, blues, jazz, pop, hip hop, Contemporary R&B, electronic, folk etc. Or would we allow inclusion of higher level sub-genres such as Hard rock, post-hardcore, Gangsta rap, EDM, Alternative rock, Alternative hip hop, Rap-rock, Synthpop etc.? Also is this also a proposal to include only one singular genre in the infobox (which I think it should be), and if not how would that work with the background parameter comparison. STATic message me! 20:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • One possible solution for the inclusion of multiple genres could be multiple fields for genre like |genre1 = ????, |genre2 = ????, if the community were to support multiple genres. Since proposing this idea, I have gone back and forth in my mind about whether a strict limit of one or maybe a limit of three would work the best. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose So would this list of encoded genres include Carnatic music, Gagaku, Kecak, and Qawwali, or do we just use a catch-all like world music or folk music? I am thinking about this from the perspective of WP:CSB. Sorry I don't have a suggestion about addressing the edit wars (other than, say, enforcing policies like WP:EW and WP:V). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about any of the genres you have mentioned, but after a few minutes with Google, it looks like Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is a prominent name in the Qawwali genre. Allmusic classifies his music as international/classical[2] and iTunes classifies it as world music[3] -- are either of these completely false or are they just vague? What would be the negative side of labeling Khan something simple like "world music" and then encouraging editors to begin a body section on his impact to the Qawwali genre? Fezmar9 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Again, as Wikipedia:CSB, yes international... and world music are vague ... and mostly in a Eurocentric way. –DjScrawl (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
    • To put it another way, I think we would end up with a lot of "Genre: Other". -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. It sounds good at first, but I'm not sure it would solve anything. Like someone else said, the edit wars would move to the lead, and it does seem a bit prejudiced against non-Western, non-corporate genres. Calling Poison (American band) "heavy metal" would ignite just as many edit wars as it would solve in Iron Maiden. Where would you put Primus? No matter what genre you chose, it would be wrong. Maybe this is just the price we pay for having an open wiki, much like how liberal democracies have to put up with gridlock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment and response to concerns: as far as categorizing music by genre anywhere (both online and offline), Wikipedia seems to be the only place that not only allows limitless possibility for how to describe music in a simple medium like an infobox, but it's also a place that anyone can alter. The results of combining these two ideas, as other users and myself have commented above, haven't been terribly positive nor productive. The way I see it, genre warring will never cease, but the effort I have proposed above of limiting what can be entered to a small list of community-accepted general genres should dramatically reduce the amount of warring within the infobox field to almost nothing. Common concerns expressed so far about this proposal are that warring won't stop, it will just transfer to another place where genre is mentioned. I fully agree with this to a point. Yes it will move to other places, but this is a good thing. Warring over genre in the infobox isn't constructive because you can only list a handful of genres with nothing to support it. You can't explain in an infobox why an artist is a significant figure in a certain genre or scene, you can't explain in an infobox how an artist's genre and style have evolved over time, you can't explain in an infobox with critical commentary why an artist is commonly erroneously categorized as one a specific style -- but you can contribute these to a lead or section devoted to musical style. Genre warring, over an extended period of time in both a lead and body section, should, in theory, eventually reach an equilibrium point where all invested parties have expressed their opinions on what an artist's genre is and how it should be fairly represented leading to a well-developed/researched/sourced article.

In my "background research" post above, I audited the last 50 edits to several articles. In the Slayer article, I noticed that the style section was virtually untouched. The main source of argument appeared to be whether to list the band as speed metal, thrash metal or both in the infobox. By limiting editors' options down to whether Slayer should be represented as "heavy metal" or just "rock," this should dramatically reduce warring over the infobox, and editors will then be funneled toward the style section where healthy debate will ensue to provide critical commentary over Slayer's affiliation with either speed metal or thrash metal (which the article already does).

I don't think it's too controversial to say that since the album infobox has chopped reviews and moved them to a separate template, that the number and quality of album reception sections have greatly increased. Users who love and hate an album are now coming together to make sure their opinions are well represented in a reception section and provide ratings and review quotes to support their personal stance (many users also edit these sections completely bias free, I'm mainly talking about unregistered users here). The result is an equilibrium state and fair balance in the reception section of album articles. I believe the same impact from the ratings change could be felt with this proposal.

In response to NinjaRobotPirate, I'm not familiar with Primus, but all of the genres currently listed in the infobox are derivations of "rock" so I fail to see how it would be wrong to list the band as such. Especially when the lead currently states "Primus is an American rock band".Fezmar9 (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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.

Keithbob – I think the summary is misrepresentative in several ways, including:

1. I did not make statements to the effect that I supported further generalisation of genre on album pages.
2. I did not uphold the validity of data on "release papers" – they're sales brochures and only of default/pro forma value, IMO, to be augmented with academic and/or overwhelming public-opinion as soon as such is available.
3. A number of respondents expressed WP:CSB-concerns ('world music', et al), which is not captured in the summary.
4. I would not characterise the overall opinion as "general consensus" – There's 'comment' and 'oppose' (no unreserved 'support'). To me, this indicates that the area requires partitioning and/or refinement, for any part to achieve a supportive consensus.
5. Also, I don't know WP form on such matters, but would have thought tagging cited individuals would be the proper way. (I would certainly have been along sooner, if so.)   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your feedback. Here are my responses to each of your points:

1. My summary says: "DjScrawl said he/she opposed generalized genres"
2. I must have misunderstood your comment about release papers and have removed the mention of it from my summary
3. A summary is a summary, it doesn't capture every nuance of a discussion.
4. I summarized and made recommendations as a neutral, uninvolved editor and assessed consensus to the best of my ability.[Despite the labels on the posts by different users, I read the thread as being generally supportive of the idea and I suggest it be explored further via a temporary or limited test phase. Also consensus is not a matter of vote counting but rather one of assessing the comments as a whole. However, after careful consideration I've decided to change my summary to: NO CLEAR CONSENSUS]. If you [still] wish to challenge the closure you may follow the instructions here.
5. I am not aware of any instruction for closures that recommends or requires pinging all involved parties. If you find something, let me know so I can amend my procedures accordingly.

Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC) I added to my comment above with some new items in [brackets]. Thanks-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2013

Spouse and Partner should be added as other historical people have them included. Nicholasemjohnson (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nicholasemjohnson: - You may wish to contribute to the #spouse section above. GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward with revamping the genre field

The previous discussion I opened has now been closed. In Keithbob's closing statement, he said it seemed that there was a general consensus to move forward with this idea and test it on a limited number of pages and reassess from there. I would absolutely love to be able to test out this theory and see how it works, however I have no idea how to even go about doing that. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

NB: IMO, Proposal to revamp the genre field: Summary is misrepresentative.  – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi DJScrawl and Fezmar9, Although I feel that the general sentiment of the RfC was supportive for change and I do recommend moving ahead in some fashion ie through further discussion, a task committee, or limited testing...... DJScrawl is correct in pointing out that there was no clear and distinct consensus and I have modified my Summary to reflect that. Please let me know if you have any questions. Many thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regardless, there was still support from a number of editors. And if these tests prove that this method both (a) reduces edit warring and (b) encourages article development, I hardly see a single logical reason why anyone object to further and more wide-spread use. Likewise, if the tests prove that it makes no difference on edit warring/development, then I would obviously no longer support the idea. I see no way that this could be harmful to the community. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

How about if we look to third party sources - Allmusic for example - and list genres as they have listed, rather than allow the cherrypicking of sources that seems to happen at the moment? It seems sometimes if a single review lists a certain genre, then in it goes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We already use AllMusic as a source for genres, but the genre cloud, the list on the left side, is not reliable and so we should not use it at all. It may be difficult to find a single, definitive source for a band or artist's genre. We may have to become that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't become that. That would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. This is the problem with something as subjective (and frankly, useless) as genre. But then I'm someone who blanks out the genre field from my MP3s. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Too late. We already are that. It's neither if it references back to RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with tossing sources into the genre field is that it's never really done properly. Usually, one editor will simply go to Google and grab the first source (whether it's reliable or not) that backs up his/her subjective beliefs about the genre. Another editor who disagrees will either replace the previous genre/source with another genre/source, or add on another genre/source leading to either an edit war or ridiculously long list of genres/sources that completely clutters the infobox. Rarely is there a discussion that considers the due and undue weight of each source — since genres are subjective to a degree, some genres will be supported by a minority or majority sources. Additionally (per Help:Infobox), the infobox is supposed to be a summary of information that's already properly sourced in the body of the article. The energy that goes into sourcing and bickering over the genre field of the infobox should be spent sourcing and bickering over a section in the article devoted to the artist's style (and gives proper weight where due), and the infobox should merely reflect this section. This is something Allmusic sort of does — while they don't have a genre section, there's usually at least a sentence devoted to genre in most biographies. Their equivalent to our infobox merely lists Smashing Pumpkins' genre as "pop/rock" but the biography expands upon this by stating the band's style is: "an amalgam of progressive rock, heavy metal, goth rock, psychedelia, and dream pop, creating a layered, powerful sound driven by swirling, distorted guitars."[4] Fezmar9 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. References should not be in the infobox. It should be a summary of the article. There should be a style section that discusses the genres. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've found that AllMusic's genres/categorization is, to put it kindly, sometimes unhelpful (at least with regard to jazz styles). It has (in the past) led to articles and categories here on Wikipedia about genres/styles that do not exist outside of AllMusic's data sorting methods (for those further interested, see archived discussion, or an even older comment from 2007). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

spouse

I don't see why this template can't have the spouse parameter? an infobox is supposed to sum up the article, isn't their marriage in the article? Lady Lotus (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Great idea, but wrong premise. The infobox is to summarize notable information about the subject. Unless the marriage is either notable to the artist's career or is somehow notable in its own right it's not really even important to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

And when it clearly is "either notable to the artist's career or is somehow notable in its own right"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Then you discuss it in the article at length or do what you discuss below. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Use {{Infobox person}}, and embed this template as a module of that one, if you need the specific musician fields. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please give an example of what that looks like. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Love Hewitt is an example of an article that uses a musical artist infobox inset in a person infobox. — Paul A (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Embedding is good (sometimes). --Musdan77 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Using Template:Infobox person as main template with embed

It appears there is some controversy with music artists having their template changed to the person infobox. Care for any discussion on which should be primarily used? I believe the person infobox should be used, with the music career embedded since the person box allows for extra information to be included that the music template does not. And it looks cleaner and neater (clean-wise) to use it over the music infobox, which adds un-needed colour-blockage. What do you guys believe? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Recently the infoboxes were changed on several young, female singers from Template:Infobox musical artist to Template:Infobox person without any sort of edit summary or discussion, or if an edit summary is used it uses one of the other articles as justification for the edit. These artists are mostly known for being musical artist and should therefore use this infobox, these articles include: Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Cheryl Cole, Rihanna, Ciara, Pink (singer), Beyoncé Knowles, Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears. When I reverted back to the musical artist template, I was quickly reverted on some of the articles, so I thought I would start a discussion here to get some feedback. From some of the edit wars in the article history, I assume these changes were made so that the spouse field could be used in the infobox. I am opposed to adding this field to this infobox and if I am right about my assumption, I am also opposed to changing someone who is mostly known for being a musical artist's infobox simply to add fields that are not in this infobox. Aspects (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how my edit was moved from its own section into this one, [5], I guess that means my assumption is correct and that these edits were all about the spouse field that has been rejected by this infobox numerous times. Aspects (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I only moved it because a discussion had already been started, and there was no point in having two separate discussions. But using the other template is good for not only spouse, but partner, children, networth, etc. It gives a lot of other options that may be useful to list in the infobox that you wouldn't with just using the music infobox. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If the person is primarily a musical artist, then Template:Infobox musical artist should be used. In all likelihood, parameters like "spouse" are unnecessary for these artists (not "key facts" about said artist), and can be mentioned in the article body instead. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else have anything to say on this subject, especially those involved in the change? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I just noticed this. I expect to have an opinion tomorrow (actual music, food, etc. is on the menu, for me, now)   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add:

| label#    = Parents
| data#     = 

As per the parent template {{infobox person}}. Thanks a lot. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 23:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This template can be embedded in Infobox person, so the addition is unnecessary. Please begin a discussion and achieve consensus for parameter additions to highly visible templates, as they may be deemed controversial. STATic message me! 04:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What's going on?

Several pages with the template appear like J. Geils' page - a blank, "broken", infobox.. anyone know what's up? – Connormah (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

screenshot added... – Connormah (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Something with your browser. It's fine in Chrome, IE10 and Firefox under Windows 7. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm using Chrome... – Connormah (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ftr the screenshot is from Magic Dick. – Connormah (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect something was broken for a short time in the bowels of that infobox. Some pages you saw were rendered with that broken version. Then the infobox got fixed and again, some got rendered with the corrected infobox, but not all. I observed a minute ago the broken version at Magic Dick, then purged the page and it was good again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

check the edit history for template:infobox and you will see what happened. if you open the article, make no changes, and save it, it will fix the issue. the editor responsible has been trouted. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrej Hoteev

I would like to seek a permission on putting an infobox into the article above due to the scope of the article. It won't be easy for a reader to see the key points of his notability. I think it sound convincing. Same request is for Alexei Sultanov. Many thanks.--Mishae (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The article was Andrej Hoteev. I added an infobox to both, but you don't have to ask for permission. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, user @Toccata quarta: have removed the infobox for some reason, sanding me to WP:CM where it says that I need to ask a permission to use an infobox. Go figure. Thanks though. I will keep you posted if any of them will get reverted by him.--Mishae (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Classical Music project doesn't really like to use them. If they are removed, that's OK too. They don't have to be used and may be more distracting than informative. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, English Wikipedia have the most odd policies when it comes to music. Every single section of Wikipedia as a whole uses an infobox even on a composer. Why is project music is so hostile? Like, isn't it obvious that if every single language Wikipedia uses an infobox, its perfectly fine to use it here too? OK. Lets be frank; on stubs, even I don't use an infobox, but once that article passed that I think its perfectly fine to use it. Is there is a place that I can propose this bright idea at?--Mishae (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Another question, is it O.K. to put like for example 2000 in music articles like this? Sorry if I did it prior to asking you. Like, there was no other wikifications of that section. I'm thanking you in advance for any explanation or criticism of mine wrong doing.--Mishae (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Change of infobox musical artist to infobox person

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Change of infobox musical artist to infobox person. Gyrofrog (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

New discussion regarding Genre in the infobox

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Genre in the infobox. Gyrofrog (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Serious malfunction

What happened to the images in the template? If you see articles such as Gudda Gudda, Schoolboy Q and The Game, for some reason the images have been expanded to take up the entire screen. Their size in the infobox has not been messed with and I see no recent edits to the template. Does anyone know what is causing this malfunction? STATic message me! 16:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please rollback ASAP [6]. I cannot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ping User:Dinoguy1000. Nymf (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 rolled back. Thanks Bbb23. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I still get this problem, even after cleaning my cache, and strangely enough only in Read move, in Edit mode all looks normal. Hoverfish Talk 19:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC) BTW this is the page I happened to visit: Leningrad Cowboys.Hoverfish Talk 19:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hoverfish, try doing a null edit to the article in question. The template change might take awhile to appear otherwise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Look ok now? [7] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, ok now. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 19:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

death_cause parameter

Is there a reason that this template doesn't have a death_cause parameter or can it be added? I think all infoboxes about people should have the death_cause LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

birth_place parameter description

It (Template:Infobox_musical_artist/doc#birth_place) says, "Omit the country if it does not differ from that specified at the field "origin"." Shouldn't it say under "origin", "Omit the country if it does not differ from that specified at the field "birth_place"? -- since birth_place comes before origin. Also, it mentions, "artist's hometown (see field "origin" below)," but it doesn't say anything about "hometown" under origin -- or anywhere else on the page. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if not objection, I'll make the appropriate changes. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Overly prescriptive?

This sentence: "Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop)" is often used as fodder for genre warriors. I suggest that it should be taken out, because it implies that local consensus is not the primary determining factor regarding what to list in an article's infobox. If editors at an article want to list East Coast hip hop instead of Hip hop then I think they should be free to do so without having to argue against a template suggestion. A reader will in both cases know that the genre is hip hop, so I'm not sure why the conveyance of more information is discouraged for this one field, whereas all the other fields are specific. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

At the discussion linked by Gyrofrog in the first entry on this page, someone suggests that genres be kept very simple, just like in a record shop. That would be fine by me (for whom they are a big yawn), but I don't think it's going to happen, as there are just too many people who love categorising ever more finely. So I go with Gabe: let's make it clear the distinctions can be as detailed as consensus arrives at in any given case. Rothorpe (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I would go the other way, Gabe, because genre warriors would then have no barrier. I would add a second piece of instruction: "The infobox genre should be as succinct as possible, not an exhaustive list." I am in favor of fewer infobox genre entries, with the complexity of the topic described in the article body, not the infobox. Keep the infobox simple. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This should be decided on a case-by-case as needed basis at individual articles. The Wikipedia community has resoundingly rejected the notion of project-wide consistency at the expense of local consensus. If editors at a given article build a consensus to include 15 genres or two, then that should be up to them and not dictated by others and certainly not controlled by template language, which does not trump local consensus anyway. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I am not at all convinced that restricting the number of genres would in anyway reduce genre warring. If we limited the field to one or two that would only exacerbate not remediate the problem. Inclusivity would reduce warring, as more editors would be "right" to include, whereas limiting genres would lead to even more disagreements over the correct "main genres". Its all popular music anyway, so if we really wanted generality we could list that in any article that wasn't about folk or classical. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Genre in the infobox, which is also currently linked to, from the first section on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Signature parameter

I have at least one artist for whom we have a signature SVG. Any chance on adding a signature parameter like the Person Infobox has? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Somebody will be along shortly, to point you to all the archived requests for this parameter, and to tell you that they constitute evidence that there is no call among the community for it... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I use {{infobox person}} to start with, for example, - as Andy once said: "Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that ... was not a person...", winning my heart with that line ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I considered changing the infobox to {{infobox person}}, but I couldn't figure out how to wedge in "Instruments" and "Genre" into that template. IMHO, this template should include all the parameters of {{infobox person}} and just add a few specific to musicians, but that's not my call. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The answer is to use {{infobox person}}, but to include {{Infobox musical artist}} as a module within that. Shout if you need help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'm shouting. I visited {{infobox person}} and Infobox Embedding and added {{Infobox musical artist}} as a module, but it just doesn't look right... — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Which article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the Lindsey Sterling article. We have a signature SVG (in Commons), but can't use it with the musical artist infobox. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've nested the infobox (note |embeded=yes); and there's a blank parameter ready for you to add the signature image file. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. What you came up with is precisely what I did in my experiments and got the same result as you. Unfortunately, I wanted the signature parameter to appear at the bottom like it does in other articles, but I guess adding the module makes it render in the middle. Darn. Oh well. Thanks for your help! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Frecklefoot: see this thread. Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes:: Thanks. I responded there. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

death_cause parameter again

I'm readding this since no one replied over a month ago to my first post. Is there a reason that this template doesn't have a death_cause parameter or can it be added? I think all infoboxes about people should have the death_cause. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

See the section on #Signature parameter, above, for tips on embedding this template within {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

years_active

Shouldn't the suggested usage feature an ndash, rather than a hyphen, per WP:NDASH? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Does it not already? All examples I see use an ndash, and the section specifically says to use one. Am I missing something? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Current wording is "Use commas to separate non-consecutive periods, and denote ranges with an unspaced en dash". Seems correct. It also points to the MoS on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

MrMoustacheMM: sorry, you're right; I'd thought those were hyphens e.g. here because they didn't have wikEd-superscripted "n"s in edit mode. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 09:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Should navigation boxes about musical ensembles and artists be permitted to contain the year the album was released?

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 Discussion was initiated in the wrong place

---

Support - For navigation boxes about musical ensembles and artists, I support the option of having in parentheses the year that an album is released to the right of the album title. I am interested in hearing other thoughts and viewpoints. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? Take a look at an artist that has released more than a few notable albums and tell me how that makes any sense? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Reply - This has been done on {{Krayzie Bone}} like so [8], but has since been reverted. For this reason, I wanted to begin the discussion. I feel that the navbox looks less "cluttered" and the year indicates the approximate time that the album got released. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand now. This is the talk page for the template infobox musical artist. It's not about a specific artist's navigation box. The discussion is entirely misplaced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply - I am trying to have the discussion about musical navboxes in general, not only this navbox, which is why I started the section here. The same user has reverted my additions of years on several navboxes in addition to Krayzie Bone. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to discuss the infobox musical artist template, what it includes, how it should be formatted, and anything else related to the topic if the template, then this is the correct place.

Try raising this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music or possibly one of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. This is not the place for a discussion about navboxes related to musicians.

If you want to discuss the edit warring behaviour, try following the instructions at Wikipedia:Edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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.

Horizontal separation with CSS instead of a TH element

See also: Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 11 § Text alignment of past and current members, and pt:Predefinição Discussão:Info/Música/artista § Separação visual

Since this edit, the template creates an empty table header (<th>) which (by the thread linked above) seems to be there just to create visual separation between the two parts of the infobox. Isn't more semantic to do this effect using just CSS? Helder.wiki 17:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So? Helder.wiki 10:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

difficult since the border attribute cannot be applied to a table row (only the cells), and there is currently no method in {{infobox}} for adding per-label or per-data-item styles (only all the labels and all the data-items). so, you would have to hack it in there (example hack). note that the outline attribute works for table rows, but this would outline the entire row, not just the top. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't even a <hr /> better than the current structure? Helder.wiki 18:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

go ahead and make some changes in the sandbox. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

spouse/partner/children parameters

One thing that most annoys me in search for information on musical artists, is that, in the Template:Infobox person, the information on marriages, partners and children are displayed, whilst on musical artists, it's not. This irritates me because it's not something instant, you're obligated to go through the whole page to find out. And while I obviously read the page and not only the infobox, the latter is something good to capture the basics quite quickly. I would suggest the spouse/partner/children parameters, as an extra information. Even if "musical artist" may infer that it's a band, it can also be a single person, so, readers should have these parameters available. For example, John Lennon's page. Of course he was a solo musical artist. However, he was married, but that is not stated. Sorry for the long section, but I just wanted to make my point clear. Just a suggestion, nevertheless. I'm not there. Message me! 00:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This topic has come up several times for this template in several seperate discussions ( this being just one of them) and the consensus has always been 'no' .... and rightly so for all the reasons against that have already been given. It's a horse been beat to death ... let that dead horse be at peace. Mr Pyles (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If that was the case, then we should remove these parameters from Template:Infobox comedian, for instance, just because it's "not relevant to this occupation". I understand the argument, but because it's specific, it ends up leaving out information, and, let's face, a musical artist is a person. Also, if we need to be specific, then why isn't there a Template:Infobox film director, for instance? However, I agree with you, it's a dead horse indeed, so I'm not going to push it any longer. Thanks for the response. I'm not there. Message me! 00:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to request that they be removed from that template. It's not up to us to impose our consensus there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You can overcome this - rather silly - limitation of this infobox by using Inofbox person, and adding this infobox as a module within that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the John Lennon article was mentioned as an example, I have edited it to demonstrate how the situation can be handled using the existing infoboxes. — Paul A (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please add "Religion" parameter

There are confusions arising in religion of music artist in certain articles. Will be good if 'Religion' parameter is added to this template. - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The religion of a musical artist is not that important/relevant for 99% of the cases. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• No Fields like "religion" are misused with as many additions as possible with little regard for what it means—does it refer to heritage, or childhood upbringing, or a belief, or something else? Where appropriate, text in the article can clarify what is known about a person's religion and its significance for their work. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - In which articles is confusion arising? It would be good to know before we consider adding it. As for 1% of artists, if it's a valid parameter for those artists, why wouldn't we consider adding it? Editing a great many articles for artists in contemporary Christian music and its sub-genres, I have yet come across a case where this might be important information for the infobox, and few articles actually discuss the denomination of the performers, but I'd like to see where it might make sense, and where we wouldn't want to ask editors to include this infobox as a module within infobox person. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Because in 99% of the cases where it isn't relevant, editors will try to add something in anyways. Sorry if I'm a bit grumpy on this. It's just that I see this being added to politician's bios frequently, justified by one line in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Vatsan34 added the parameter here... and there's one line in the biography about religion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, actually, I saw Religion parameter in certain infoboxes related to person alive/dead and so asked 'why not for this?'. (Personally, I do not have any affinity for any religion). Imagine a person who wants to know what religion this particular musician is, and he is baffled by religious websites claiming him as one of them;Wikipedia will be good place to confirm it. - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No it wouldn't. We can only report what other websites, such as those you mention, say. I'm with NeilN on this. For the vast majority of musical artists religion is irrelevant, but too many people will want to add it anyway, for both positive and negative reasons; hardly ever for neutral reasons. (Which, of course, is what we require.) It's an unhealthy parameter. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
        • That's a misinterpretation of WP:PRIMARY. It's fine to discuss information like this in an article, but to list it in the infobox is not appropriate in this case since it's not a major element of subject's career. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Except for all the artists who perform - indeed, who build careers on performing - religious music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
            • I can confirm that many, if not most, of the articles of artists under Template:Performers of Christian music, which is a sub-cat of performers of religious music linked above, would not use the parameter. Aside from a generic "Christian" value, their denomination is not known. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Thank you confirming that; however I prefer to wait for consensus to emerge. And I'm pretty sure that Christianity is a religion (our own article agrees); as are the various non-Christian beliefs in the sub-categories of the one I linked to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
                • And the problem is that within Christianity almost every article discusses a branch of it. Perhaps if you were to look at some prominent biographies such as Pope Francis (nothing in infobox and Catholic Church in the lede), Billy Graham (Evangelical Christian listed in both infobox and lede), Justin Welby, the current Archbishop of Canterbury (uses "Denomination: Anglican" in infobox and "religion" is not used at all). The Canadian governor generals should list "Christian", where that's appropriate, but they list denominations instead. I could go on but I would be casting pearls of wisdom before Pigsonthewing and I will be shown the "right" way to edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
                  • Leaving aside your little ad hominem; none of the articles you mention use {{Infobox musical artist}}. You appear to have gone off at a tangent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
                    • Sorry. My on-topic response was that "Christianity" is not used as a religion field. I am opposed to the inclusion of the parameter because it cannot be used correctly, but that doesn't change the point that Christians do not consider themselves to be part of the catholic (universal) church, but rather they see themselves as part of a particular tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, etc.) or part of a particular of a specific denomination (Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Anglican, etc.) and so the parameter will not be used correctly in articles related to Christian musicians. You appear to have missed that point completely and still don't understand what an ad hominem attack is. If I were to say Tim is ugly so you can't understand this topic, that would be an ad hominem argument. I simply pointed-out that my logic is lost on you and you insist on arguing points that are not being made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This seems unlikely to be used on a majority of articles using the template, and per WP:IBX, "If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all." In the few cases where it could be useful, this template can be embedded into Template:Infobox person. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vatsan34: Just use {{infobox person}}, which has |religion=, and include this template as a module. John Lennon is an example of how embedding works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vatsan34: But please don't do that in the article you were trying to add the parameter to as there's no indication religion influences what the subject is notable for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Using the infobox person template and loading this one as a module is too advanced for most editors. It's not a good option as I stated above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The former is why I gave an example; I'm also happy to assist fellow editors with such technical matters, as we all should be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sorry to bring this back to the point. The archives include numerous proposals for extra parameters, including nationality, spouse, children, influenced, signature, cause of death, net worth and height(!) The problem is that many users feel obliged to fill in all the boxes, and rarely read the documentation; we have enough problems with "associated acts". If the religion (or height, or cause of death) is important, it will be mentioned in the article - but it rarely is important, so does not need to be an infobox parameter - and how do you deal with people who have changed religion like Jermaine Jackson or Cat Stevens? - Arjayay (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

For people with change of religion, something like:

{{Plainlist|
* Buddhist (birth-1985)
* Christian (1985-)
}}

could be used; but the point is moot; a module in infobox person is the solution; as it is for all the other useful and sensible biographical parameters in that template, but regularly opposed here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Members of a person

Shouldn't we suppress the display of "members" for a solo artist or other individual? They make no sense, as seen on Jason Isbell. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it makes no sense. To "suppress" this, simply remove all information from that parameter (and the parameter itself if desired), and that parameter/information won't show up. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

should probably be under "related acts" ... Frietjes (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Alt parameter in examples

Hi, per alt attribute and WP:ALT, the alt parameter should not literally describe the contents of the image, therefore the examples on this page are incorrect. For example, the alt text for Mariah Carey's infobox is "Young woman singing into a hand mike with her eyes closed and a big smile", when it should be something like the caption, which is "Mariah Carey performing in 1998". Could someone please update these examples? Thanks Melonkelon (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Melonkelon, I disagree. For the visually impaired, a literal description of what the image depicts is better than just a restatement of the caption. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Frecklefoot. I think in most instances, the caption can best convey the contents of the image. I just edited Madonna's page, because her infobox image's alt field was "A middle-aged blond woman looking towards the camera. She wears bright, red lipstick and has her left hand behind her head". I don't know how helpful that could be. Melonkelon (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Melonkelon, reading over the policy, it looks like you're closer to the mark. Alt text should be short and convey the key information of the image. I've seen it done the way I described, but not on Wikipedia. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Genre

Should it not be mentioned that the genre will be sourced in the article, such as the Musical style section, and shouldn't it mention that it should be kept generalised? Some articles have literally 10 genres with footnotes making it looked very cluttered and disorganised. SilentDan297 talk 17:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it already says to keep things generalised ("Aim for generality"). Having 10 genres listed is ridiculous, and I would recommend starting discussions on those articles' talk pages to slim that number down to 2-4 genres.

As for having sources there, since genres in the infobox is (unfortunately) often a hot topic, having the sources there (even if they are simply repeating sources given in the prose) can generally be useful. It might be worth adding a sentence here such as: "Genres that are sourced in the article itself do not require a source in the infobox, but sometimes it can be useful to have the source listed again anyway, to help prevent edit warring." MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, for instance, Babymetal's page currently contains 5 genres: Heavy metal music, J-pop, Death metal, Symphonic death metal and Melodic speed metal (which doesn't have its own article.) Most of these are sub genres but one user insists that it should remain that way, making it look incredibly cluttered and messy when it would be simpler to use Heavy metal and J-pop since they are the two most associated genres with this group.
So should I edit in that it should be kept generalised and also to only contain references when required under that section? I think the fact that genres go into more detail throughout the album should also be included personally. SilentDan297 talk 18:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks pretty bad, especially the explanation in the infobox, that definitely should not be there (instead it should be in the article prose). "Death metal" looks like it should cover "symphonic death metal" (generalisation), and "melodic speed metal" isn't a real thing. In this case, I'd suggest that "Heavy metal, J-pop", and possibly "death metal", depending on the prevalence of its use in reliable sources (WP:UNDUE might apply here). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've explained this to the user on the talk page but he won't listen, instead he just repeats that it doesn't say not to do it on this template, may I edit the suggestions to that section? I believe it will also help in the future on other articles as well as a reference. SilentDan297 talk 18:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Continued discussion of "Spouse" and "Infobox person" template merge and/or use

Stemming from a discussion that simmered here, I am re-opening this discussion to gain more of a consensus on this. Many articles and users are believing that using Infobox person template, and using the "module" for the Infobox musical artist is key to exploring other categories that should be used for a singer. However, some have argued that this should not be used, as things such as spouses and net worths are not notable enough for a musician, but are for actors, etc. So once again, what's your valued opinion on using both templates over just strictly the music template? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a musician's spouse or legal partner is sufficiently important to the career of a musician to mention in an infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The point is that those who feel differently about the issue are using a workaround, embedding parts of one infobox inside the other. I think we should support actual usage patterns. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, your example of actors as people for whom spouses are considered notable enough to mention in infoboxes is misleading. Whenever you see an infobox on an actor article that includes fields for spouses and net worths, that's because the article is using {{Infobox person}}. — Paul A (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Paul A: Actually, that's part of my point Paul A, I'm pointing out that articles such as Beyoncé and Jennifer Lopez use {{Infobox person}} and embed {{Infobox musical artist}} into it, allowing for both templates to be used, and for more parameters to be met for singers and songwriters that are normally omitted when strictly using the musical template. And my question is, why can't we do this universally? Why should those using {{Infobox person}} be allowed parameters like Spouse, Children and even Net worth while {{Infobox musical artist}} is deemed that they do not deserve to have such mentions. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Acalamari, Arre 9, Chasewc91, IPadPerson, Status, Tomica, and XXSNUGGUMSXX: Inviting you guys into the mix of the discussion, hoping you'll provide your thoughts for a wide consensus on the matter. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This is something I think is broad enough to be taken to "Infobox person" talk page: my suggestion would be to have one template for all biographies flexible enough to contain all possible parameters whether they are singers, actors, politicians, businesspeople, scientists, writers, athletes, socialites, or anything. I've never understood the need for different types of infoboxes. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 01:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the reason is: to eliminate irrelevant parameters so as to minimize nonconstructive edits -- and possibly edit warring. As for the main topic, as I see it, just as it is for the "infobox person", where a spouse or child can be listed if they are notable (have a wiki page), I see no reason why not for musical artist as well. I know that some editors feel that they shouldn't be listed unless they had an integral part in the subject's career, but I think that should be a matter of preference -- and article consensus, and shouldn't be a reason for restriction. I have, personally, only embedded Infobox musical artist (twice) into articles where the person is both a singer and an actor (and the reason had nothing to do with the spouse parameter). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, per WP:IBX: "Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all." The field will be relevant in only a tiny number of articles; thus, it should not be included. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, then why is it relevant to {{Infobox person}} and those who it is appropriate for, but not for musical artists? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A "tiny number"? I don't think so. I can think of many that can apply. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to edit more music bios then. I can't think of many artists who have notable spouses. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Same could be said for non-musical artists and their spouses. That's the point trying to be made. If anything, spousal parameter should be removed from all infoboxes to remain fair to all BLP's. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Being "fair to all BLP's" is a red herring. there's nothing "unfair" about noting that, for example, Win Butler and Régine Chassagne are married to each other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There are also Gustav and Alma Mahler, Richard and Cosima Wagner ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Having read WP:IBX, you'll be aware that it's topped by a prominent template, which reads in part: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If I were to continue the listing of examples... without giving every name, I just looked through my watchlist and found an even dozen. (And remember, the spouse doesn't have to be another musician; it could be an actor or athlete, etc.) --Musdan77 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am indeed aware of that, Pigsonthewing. But right now I see no evidence that this should be an exception.

This template is used by (presumably) every band article. Not a single band article should have this proposed parameter filled in. Add to that all the individual musical artists who do not have a notable spouse (a majority of them), and we're now at the point where the usage of this proposed parameter would be "relevant to very few articles". On the other hand, in those few cases where the use of that parameter would be justified, we already have a solution: Template:Infobox person with Template:Infobox musical artist embedded. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion of declining a biographical parameter on the basis that this template is (uniquely?) used for people and groups is ridiculous. We'd have no biographical parameters, and no group-only parameters, on that basis. But yes; Infobox person is used for this purpose; that's the point made above, and it's the evidence for the exemption, which you overlook. Maybe it's time to split his template into Infobox musical group and Infobox musical person, and make the latter a wrapper for, or module of Infobox person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Splitting might be a good suggestion Pig, but not making it a wrapper for infobox person. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but those who try to impose the {{Infobox person}} moduled with {{Infobox musical artist}} is automatically reverted. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If by "impose" you mean, "include" in an article, that's an issue for that article or possibly other intervention. If you by "impose" you mean try to use some of those elements in this template, that's a discussion for here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

By impose I mean using the person infobox and musical artist one, such as done on Jennifer Lopez, to include the spousal category, plus a few others. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Label

Infobox musical artist/Archive 12
Labels	Record Company 1 (2011–2013) Record Company 2 (2013–present)

Should the label section not contain record companies that the artist is no longer signed to as well? Also should years signed not be added either? An example of this can be shown on the right, is this incorrect? I think the Label section should go into more detail as what should be mentioned and what should not. SilentDan297 talk 09:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@SilentDan297: Looks OK; but rather than separating entries with a line break, please use {{Plain list}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The documentation currently indicates "Separate multiple entries with commas. Start with the oldest first." And so including the dates is inappropriate and the infobox currently opposes the use of breaks and plain lists in all circumstances. Details should be saved for the prose.

Yes, it should include labels that the artist is no longer signed with, but not the years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Then the infobox's documentation needs to be updated to reflect more recent consensus, best-practice with regard to accessibility, and commons practice (you'll be aware of all that, from past discussions of this very issue, where your viewpoint has showed you to have a minority of one - yourself - in support of your viewpoint). And no, the infobox does not oppose anything; it's inanimate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus here has been that the other consensus is not based on any fact and we have intentionally objected to its incorrect imposition on infoboxes. As for minorities, again you're wrong. There have been several who have objected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The documentation should be updated to recognise that lists of more than a couple of items benefit screen reader users if they are marked up as lists. Under no circumstances should <br /> be used. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists #List styles document the current site-wide consensus. I suggest that each occurrence of the comma-separator advice in the documentation for this template be amended to include the use of {{ubl}} or {{hlist}} and to expressly deprecate the use of <br />. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Walter, there is no "consensus here... that the other consensus is not based on any fact", only your unsubstantiated assertion. As for your denial of paste vents, I refer interested readers to Talk:Michaëlle Jean#RfC: Should the lists in the infobox use the Plainlist template?, where yours was the sole dissenting voice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Two separate issues.

1. No. Please don't list dates. It's not essential information. Simply list them chronologically. I know of multiple cases where listing the label dates will cause problems. One artist in particular was with on label for two different periods and a second label for three. It would be unwieldy for that artist and several other long-time bands or performers. I can only think of a few cases where it's important enough to list in the infobox and wouldn't cause debates and edit wars.
2. Check the archives. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 10#Ordering in certain parameters. No consensus for plainlist or flatlist there either. No documentation updates. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums has consistently opposed its use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

So should this information be added to the section? SilentDan297 talk 09:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As in the aforesaid RfC, that archived discussion has only one person - you- opposing the use of {{Plainlist}} or {{Flatlist}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time to update the documentation. With only one person objecting to including the guidance from the Manual of Style and the site-wide consensus it enjoys, that need not prevent better advice being given to users of this template. --RexxS (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Undone. We need more that a handful of editors deciding this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally believe it should include all labels in the past and present in that order and separated by commas, just nice and simple really. Any further details regarding their label signing should be mentioned in the article prose. Should it at least be mentioned that it should not include dates? That appears to be something we all agree on. SilentDan297 talk 23:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Flatlist or comma separated lists?

The following discussion 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.

---

Should flatlists rather than comma separtaed values be used to separate items in this infobox? The argument for is that there is consensus in another area that it benefits screen readers. The argument against is that there is not empirical proof that it actually does. Comma separated items can be confusing if the listed item contains a comma but they require less space in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are supposed to be neutrally worded. Yours is not: the argument is not "that there is consensus in another area that it benefits screen readers", it is that the use of these list-format templates benefits screen readers, and that there is consensus throughout the project for the use of the templates. Your repeated denial of this (as evidenced above) is disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You've also been canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to propose alternate wording, go ahead. I believe it to be neutral.

You're misrepresenting the facts as the RfC process states that the project involved should be informed so once again, nothing wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between informing and canvassing (and especially doing the latter with inflammatory language). If you don't already know that (you should), then I suggest you read WP:CANVASS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is and there's also a difference between complaining and being constructive. I allowed you the opportunity to do the latter but you decided against that. I have no problems with what I wrote in either location. You do. I'm sorry that I didn't meet your expectations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So you're going to stop complaining about the use of {{Plainlist}} and {{Flatlist}}, which have demonstrable community support, and start being constructive instead? I've been allowing (how kind!) you the opportunity to do that for some months. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I say this with all sincerity: did you ever have someone who asked you "if everyone were to jump of a bridge, would you do it too?" I don't think you did. I am being constructive. I'm sorry that you can't see that. There is one editor who uses one screen reader who claims it's better for him. There is no impricial proof. When you start showing me that, I'll believe that it's better for all Wikipedians. Until then, I will not accept its use is in any way beneficial.

Now, you on the other hand, still have not solved the problem: claiming that the RfC was not neutral. I say you're mistaken. It offered both sides of the argument. The fact that it doesn't support only your side may be the problem with you seeing it as neutral. As for canvassing, again, I said you were trying to impose the use of it, which is true. There was little discussion. I would call that an imposition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WG: Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, please. Graham87 is a highly respected editor and he is frequently consulted, and followed, in matters of accessibility for blind people. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

So when it comes to this issue I'm beating a dead horse for asking for empirical proof that is is actually an improvement but the rest of Wikipedia that requires WP:V isn't. I see. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I don't believe I've impugned the editor's reputation, I simply stated that I have not seen empirical proof that this is an improvement. That's all I've ever asked for. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You are - yet again - ignoring that the HTML standard we follow says to mark up lists as such; and that WCAG 2.0, the ISO international standard for web accessibility, says to follow HTML standards; and to mark up lists as such; and our own manual of style says to follow WCAG, and to mark up lists as such. All of this has been pointed out to you previously. Graham87 is far from a lone voice in this. the lone voice, as repeatedly demonstrated (and as currently demonstrated again, in the RfC below), is yours. And it is thus you who is being unconstructive; indeed, being disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring either actually. Simply show my the empirical information I have requested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy. Please show me exactly where in WCAG 2.0 it specifies that lists must be formatted in the way we're proposing. I have looked through it several times and have not found it. A direct link would be required. I'll point you to the title of the latest revision: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ You won't find anything there, but feel free to look. (PS: It was my job for the past four years to ensure WCAG 2.0 compliance on websites, so I'm very familiar with the standards).

No offence to Graham87's opinion that "It is indeed not as important to screen reader users like myself for small lists, but it's nicer", it's not empirical proof that it's better for all screen readers. Empirical proof is a list of the major screen readers and how they present comma separated lists and the marked-up lists, as opposed to ordered and unordered lists.

I also recognize that I am the lone dissenting voice on my side of the debate. I'm sorry that I am wasting your time with this, but I still don't have convincing proof that this is a better change, but I do accept the fact that I will not win this debate and would like to suggest that you all stop attacking me. I'd also like to request that the RfC close early as it's a waste of time to continue this any further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"I'm sorry that I am wasting your time" Apology accepted; time to move on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that, despite the above apology (acceptance duly struck) and acknowledgement of time-wasting, Walter has just again reverted my updating of this template's documentation, back from using {{Flatlist}}, to using commas. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I stated that the RfC should be closed. I didn't think you'd revert to your version.

Second, I reverted an applied a version closer to what was discussed below in two steps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You edited the page again at 16:53 UTC; after my previous comment (at 16:51). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to subvert the RfC, but it may be helpful if we have example wording that we can all live with. Thank you, Walter, for your edit to the documentation; I think it reflects the consensus developing below. I've used the reference system to create links from each mention of list format in the documentation to the note that expands on the guidance. I hope that is acceptable and allows sufficient flexibility going forward. If the edits stick (i.e. enjoy consensus), then I'd recommend closing the RfC sometime in the next few days. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

So far, twelve people have commented in the RfC. Of these, four called for "{{Flatlist}}", with no exclusion for short lists. Two expressed no specific view (though leaned towards the template's use); three said that {{Flatlist}} should only be used for lists of three or more, and three agreed with RexxS, without specifying a numerical limit. Even charitably lumping the latter two sets together, there is clear consensus for using {{Flatlist}}, but not (four:six) for restricting it to lists of three or more. There are no exceptions in HTML standards, WCAG or elsewhere, for two-item lists. A comma-separated list of two items in which one or more contain commas, is harder to parse (for a human or a script) than properly-delineated list (does "EMI, London" mean "EMI Records in London, or "EMI Records and London Records"?). And yes, there are record labels with commas in their names. No other infobox, using this template, makes such a restriction, and we should aim for consistency, for the convenience of our fellow editors. Compromise is admirable, but who are we compromising with, in this case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Subsection

• I think that we should encourage these lists, but not require them. Similar to another similar discussion somewhere, I would support language along the lines of "should be separated by commas or preferably [insert list type names here]". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Flatlist: The comment from Graham87 at a previous RfC is empirical evidence that a prominent Wikipedian who relies on screen readers finds proper list markup beneficial - although not as important for small lists. I'd prefer to use something along of the lines of "an acceptable list format^[footnote]" in each case in the documentation, with a footnote that elaborated on best practice as described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists #List styles - perhaps like this:

• Note: for short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists the use of {{flatlist}} or {{hlist}} is preferred as they offer a benefit to users of screen readers. Vertical lists should always be implemented by {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}} and never by <br /> tags for reasons of accessibility.

This kind of solution ought to be a reasonable compromise between those who dislike bullets as separators and those who want to maximise the accessibility of our lists. It would also hopefully form a model for other infoboxes, so that we could improve the documentation without having to go through this process on every talk page. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Flatlist Haven't we been through this before? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• flatlist for anything more than a couple items. Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Flatlist, I agree with the argument made by RexxS. SilentDan (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Flatlist per RexxS, and my previous comments about this subject that he linked. Graham87 01:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comma-separated. I can't say I understand what the benefits of a flatlist might be. (Take The Beatles: would all the record labels be separated by a dot/bullet? How is that better than a comma?) As regards situations where a comma already appears within a listed item (or is somehow needed), then all items within the list can be separated by semicolons. That's what I use in album infoboxes containing a number of studios: A&M Studios, Los Angeles; Record Plant, New York; Olympic Studios, London. JG66 (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The advantage is that the underlying markup is the correct markup for lists, as specified in the HTML standards to which we supposedly adhere, and the ISO standard for web accessibility, ditto. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks to Paul A and Andy M – I hadn't appreciated this from reading the post raising the proposal. I certainly want to see these articles as inclusive as possible for all, so I've struck out "Comma-separated" above. It's still my preference for how these listed items should be rendered, purely from an aesthetic point of view. JG66 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• I support RexxS's proposal. (JG66, the advantage of using the flatlist is not in what it looks like but in the fact that it is then explicitly marked up as a list; this might not make an obvious difference to most people, but can be useful in circumstances where a computer is required to interpret it. In particular, it improves the readability for people with visual impairments who rely on their computer to read the page for them.) — Paul A (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Flatlist, for lists of two or more items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Flatlist for three or more, or a similar alternative (hlist, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Flatlist, to use the correct syntax for lists. Helder 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Flatlist, because of web accessibility. This RfC was not neutrally worded. Walter should have put his observations down in a subsection where the pros and cons were to be discussed. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• No requirement for fFlatlist.I think it depends on the situation what format should be used. I haven't seen any links posting to documentation that flatlists are significantly better for screen readers. --Holdek (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)^{--Holdek (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)}

• http://webaim.org/techniques/semanticstructure/ --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• http://webaim.org/articles/screenreader_testing/ --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, RexxS. I'm not entirely confident I understand, as this is a technology issue I'm not too familiar with, but the links you posted seem to imply that the infobox dividers in flatlists announce to the screen reader at the beginning that the items being read one at a time are each separate terms as part of a list, which doesn't happen when commas are used.--Holdek (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly it, Holdek. The templates result in html lists with each item marked up with <li>...</li> ('list item') that screen readers can use to announce the list and/or navigate item-by-item. It's obviously not a big deal for just a couple of items, but for bigger lists, as Graham says, "it's nicer", and that's what we want all our readers to feel. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of flatlist vs csv

Labels, as proper nouns are obvious, but other items that are going to be permitted to use flatlists will have to be addressed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The correct way to implement flatlist

If commas will not be used at all, the correct way to implement flatlists is the way it was done for the template's current_members and past_members parameters. It makes it easier for new users and avoids problems associated with nested templates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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.