Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

background parameter

Following a discussion on my talk page: User_talk:EdwardUK#Solo_singers? I'd like to raise some concerns over the use of the background parameter as it has been noted that the category names may be open to misinterpretation. Particularly it is the term "solo_singer", which the documentation says covers all vocalists, but when seen on the individual article, out of context from the explaining documentation, the solo part appears to suggest something other than group singer or backing vocals, also there is the issue of there being a clear distinction between different vocal styles - i.e. singing and rap.

A suggestion would be replacing or adding to "solo_singer" with a clearer term or terms, possibly just "singer", "vocalist", or "rapper", which could be used interchangeably with the existing category, that is produce the same color-coded output, or perhaps in the case of rapper a different colour could be used. Also an idea is for an extra category for "other" which could apply to those who do not fit the existing options. - EdwardUK (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the division is not good for a trustable encyclopaedia, in fact disinformation of what we offer to people that happen to see it. Since this template is being used massively, their number is great. One could choose to add 'other' as a category. But why play with colors at all, one may better skip them, so one can concentrate on the content. Ymnes (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to to try and differentiate between types of vocalists... many vocalists in the R&B and hip hop genres alternate between singing and rapping, sometimes within the same song. It'll just lead to edit warring... there will probably be editors arguing that Taylor Swift is a rapper because of her rap in the middle of "Shake It Off"... Richard3120 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you're better off reactivating this discussion. Richard3120 (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A rapper may be a vocalist, but some admit they can't sing because it would sound false. Why not skip the idea of colors? It's leaning against WP:OR a bit anyway. Ymnes (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Does the parameter serve any purpose other than to change the infobox colour – that is, is it required for things such as auto-generating categories (apart from the missing or invalid parameter tracking category). If it is just for colour then why should it be mandatory, there are several articles where the text does not make it clear which option should be used - having it as a required field is problematic when the information is disputed or not available. There are also cases when this infobox is embedded into other infoboxes resulting in the parameter having no effect on the appearance, yet the articles still show up on the tracking category - to prevent this from happening would it be possible to change the coding so that it does not check for the background parameter if the infobox uses embed=yes. EdwardUK (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Confusion with past_members field documentation?

From the template docs:

past_members

This field is only relevant for groups. Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field. If membership of the group has varied over time, it should not be noted here, but may be discussed in the article body. Can also be given as |former_members=. Separate multiple entries using * list markup. For example,

| past_members = 
* Member 1
* Member 2
* Member 3

The "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names" sentence seems pretty clear and seems to be the standard for just about every band with changing lineups over the years (eg. The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Jackson 5, The Beach Boys, Tool, Earth, Wind & Fire, etc. etc.). But then we have this sentence, "If membership of the group has varied over time, it should not be noted here". So, what does this mean? Does it mean that if the band is still active, the |past_members= field should not be used? Does it mean other info about "varied membership" should not be added to the name? But that was made clear with the earlier "no other notation than names" statement.

I've looked at past talk discussions, eg. #1, #2, but could not find something to specifically address this question. Most seem to just be debating who/which/when members should go into what category.

It could be I'm just missing what idea is being documented. In that case, clarification would be welcome, and that clarification added to the docs could help others. Thanks in advance. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

It means that if we do not list instruments, changes in roles, or any details about the players in the infobox, do so in prose and in the membership section.

It means that if members have come, left, returned, come again, left again (etc), don't list them all in the infobox, do so in prose and in the membership section.

It means that if the band has changed names, but continued to have mostly consistent membership, don't list the details in the infobox, do so in prose and possibly in the membership section.

It means that if there have been a lot of former members, don't list them all in the infobox, do so in the membership section.

The rule of thumb is simple: the infobox is to be a summary of the article's contents, it should not replace it. We don't list years that a band was on a label, but we list them in chronological order. We don't list how associated acts were associated, we expect that to be detailed in the article. We do not go into details about current and former members, we simply list them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Big thanks for the reply here Walter. That does help clarify. Seems proper, and I'm all for the MoS rules to keep infoboxes short 'n simple summaries. Although I don't see many(any?) following the "if members have come, left, returned, come again, left again (etc), don't list them all in the infobox" part. Members are just moved from current to past and back when they quit & rejoin. Also, the "if there have been a lot of former members, don't list them all in the infobox, do so in the membership section" would be hard, if not impossible, to adhere to. A group member is either a member, or they're not. Would it not cause endless arguments if people started deciding which member was "worthy" of being in the infobox and which not? (think of the Genre Warring battles that go on ad infinitum)

For long lists of past_members, I used to just wikilink to the article's contents. But, a few months back was reverted as this is a violation of the Infobox MoS. Who knew... and the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument didn't trump the MoS. This raised a couple of Catch-22's with policy and template documentation. I'd sure love to see this template's documentation clarified a bit.

Again, thanks. Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

Collaboration on a single track,

What if, one artist collaborates with another on a single track, for a motion picture soundtrack? But both the artists have a significant popularity. Can it be counted as an associated act? IndieOKB (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No – Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts states quite clearly that a "one-time collaboration for a single song" should not count for inclusion in this field. Richard3120 (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Signature

I think a Signature line should be added considering how musical artists give out autographs to their fans. It shows how they really handwrite their signature so it's valuable information. Kj1595 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

See the essay WP:AUTOGRAPH. There is no policy for or against including signatures in the infobox, but it would have to come from a reliable secondary source, and Wikipedia would have to make sure it doesn't cause any problems with the artist. Also, what happens with bands, are we supposed to have a line for every band member's signature? Do we remove the signature if they leave the band? Richard3120 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Signatures can be trouble, because real people can be hurt by copies of it. Here's a recent request from the attorneys of an actress to take down her signature. Personally, I think signatures should be used for dead people, or for living people who have made their signature famous in some very public way. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Background information heading

Change 'Background information' to 'General information'. It is not about any "background" of musicians. --Obsuser (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Parameter native_name

I suggest moving |native_name= below |birth_name=, both in display and documentation. Now it looks ugly when it is below infobox enlarged bolded title: example. --Obsuser (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

For consistency for readers, it is probably best to continue to follow the practice at {{Infobox person}}; see example at Abu Bakr. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Member roles

"current_members" and "past_members" seem ideally suited to list musical roles (instrument/voice), yet the specification says "with no other notation than names", but without motivation. Now the user has to dig through the whole article parsing unstructured text to try to make sense of who does what, or which people filled a particular role in the past. Having only names in these fields might look prettier, but it's also pretty much useless and redundant: why is the former considered more important than the latter? — RFST (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't start moving more of the article information up into the infobox. The infobox should be reserved for quick answers to simple questions. Musician roles can be very complicated, switching around over time. Some bands argue about who is lead guitar and who is rhythm. And what about bands with multiple lead vocalists who also play an instrument? No.

The table of contents should be used by the reader to quickly take them down to the band member section where they will see the details in all their messy, complicated glory. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article, therefore it's not redundant. When musicians are responsible for multiple roles over multiple years, the infobox would become unmanageable. I'm not sure that most readers are interested in seeing roles in the infobox either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it would make the infobox far too long. Even for a band like the Beatles, who kept the same line-up throughout their eight-year charting career, it would become very confusing: all four members took on lead vocals on various songs, and although Paul McCartney was principally the bass guitarist, he also played electric guitar, acoustic guitar, piano and drums, and that's just on various singles, never mind the album tracks.

It would also be kind of pointless on some articles - for example, the long-running Latino boy bands Menudo and Calle Ciega have both had 30+ members pass through their ranks, but as all of them were nothing more than vocalists, what extra information could the infobox hold? The same goes for many J-pop bands like AKB48, who have a constantly rotating line-up of vocalists, none of whom play an instrument. Richard3120 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Attempted summary: "Sometimes it could get too complicated/useless." Well, then list only the main role, or something like "(see text)", or nothing. But is non-complicated, e.g., <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Home_Free_(group)&oldid=972200646>, such a rare exception that general prohibition is appropriate? How would IMDB ever have survived if nobody liked lists of actors and roles? Why do concert programs have such lists? Oh well, just a suggestion... — RFST (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying not to include the information at all, just to not include it in the infobox in order to keep it as simple as possible. Everything in the infobox should be in the text in expanded form, so there isn't any need to say "see text". Some articles include a "member timeline" section to indicate who did what throughout the group's existence (see The Rezillos#Membership timeline, for example), but I know these timelines are not popular with some editors. Richard3120 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My basic complaint is that the article body is where all the details should go. The infobox should be trim and slim.

The infobox is where lazy people have their edit wars. For instance, the huge amount of genre-warring happens almost exclusively in the infobox. Lazy people zero in on the infobox because they don't want to invest the time to balance multiple sources to make a fair summary of the literature, and they don't want to learn how to cite sources. I'm sure many of them are not very good at composing prose. Whatever the reason, I would not like to place more facts in the infobox and thus give the lazy people more things to fight over. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that an infobox should be considered subordinate to the text, mere illustration, "trim and slim" and pretty. Well-crafted lists and graphs and diagrams etc., perhaps in time-validated standard formats, are a high-speed conduit to the brain, they add value by saving time, and the effort to create them is amortised with the number of users, another dimension in which they can be worth a thousand words (to borrow a saying). The only alternative to making each user hoping to find this information trawl through the text is to have a separate roles list inside the article as well as the "trim and slim" infobox that by decree lacks this basic information, which would just be silly. I amend my attempted summary: "Sometimes it could get too complicated/useless/edit-warry." Seems more like a list of excuses than arguments to me. But I rest my case. — RFST (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but article structure – specifically, section headings appearing in the Table of Contents under the lead – is in keeping with such a need-it-now approach. Band articles contain a Band members section (at least they should do), and readers see this in the ToC; and besides, those main roles may well be identified in the lead section itself. I don't agree at all with your opening statement that "the user has to dig through the whole article parsing unstructured text to try to make sense of who does what, or which people filled a particular role in the past" – at least, not if the article's of even average quality.

Infoboxes should be super trim. For music artists, this is also why the threshold for inclusion is so high for genres and associated acts. For albums and songs, it's the same with the number of genres included also, and why, say, recording dates are usually simplified into a time span, or a couple of time spans, rather than giving each and every session date. All non-text elements (infoboxes, quote boxes, images and captions, album review ratings boxes, any tables set within section of text) are definitely subordinate; the prose could easily stand alone without any of those elements, but it doesn't work the other way round in Wikipedia terms. JG66 (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RFST worte, "I don't think that an infobox should be considered subordinate to the text". Have you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes? What you described as your thoughts is not in-line with the project's goals for infoboxes: "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." How does adding more information to the infobox align with this stated and project-wide goal for infoboxes? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What has been ordained by God, all men shall accept as unshakeable literal truth for the ages, and no man shall ever question! Verily, it is the sign of the righteous wikipedian that he shall never avert his eyes when he comes upon an infobox with information contained within it and not improve it by removing at least one item of information, following the Boy Wikipedian Rule to "always leave the infobox cleaner than you found it", because "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Do not follow the evil example of heretics who were led astray and, under the guise that "as with any guideline, there will be exceptions", added "ICD codes in {{Infobox medical condition}} and most of the parameters in {{Chembox}}", for they will burn in the sixth circle of hell for all eternity! — RFST (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Reading between the lines, you're not planning to explain how adding more information to the infobox aligns with the MoS and since you have no consensus for the change should we just turn out the lights? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RFST's suggestion violates WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". RFST's suggestion of moving article details up into the infobox would, if followed to its logical end, create a prose-free collection of infobox pages that we could call Infoboxpedia. I am voting against that. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, but why are we even still talking about this? RFST, you brought it up here for discussion, and I think it's safe to say the proposal's been met with a resounding "no", based on a combination of practice across the encyclopedia, the purpose of infoboxes generally, and other editors' preference. In a film article, the infobox lists the film's main stars; now, it might be nice to add the name of each star's character there to save readers having to locate a section in the Table of Contents dedicated to listing this info ... but we don't, do we? If a band article does not contain a similar, dedicated section ("Now the user has to dig through the whole article parsing unstructured text to try to make sense of who does what", etc.), then it needs to be created, that's all. JG66 (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

"Dance-pop" in Mariah Carey's example-infobox should written lowercase. and, in the audioslave-infobox, the "image_upright" parameter is redundant when "landscape=yes" is already enabled 188.192.211.248 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Moved the image_upright to Carey's infobox and corrected the MOS:CAPS part as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Spouse section missing

Why's there no spouse section? --Luka1184 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The general consensus has been 1) because bands do not have spouses, 2) the spouses of most most musicians are not significant to the subject's career, 2a) it would cause unnecessary edit warring to include them if know but not referenced in the article, and 3) infobox templates can be used modules in other infobox templates and so for t hose where it is important, this is the best option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)`

Associated Acts

Is it really necessary to have associated bands contain two or more common members? The other rules make sense, but this rule in particular seems arbitrary and somewhat defeats the purpose, depriving the casual reader of upfront and pertinent information. Plus, a great many pages tend to ignore this guideline. In fact, on this same page, the example given contradicts this guideline by listing Soundgarden and Temple of the Dog as Associated Acts for Audioslave, despite there only being one common member. Can this be discussed for deletion? StuOnThis (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I would go the other direction, making it harder to cram barely associated artists in that slot. I would require "associated acts" to have reliable sources describing one artist as collaborating significantly with the other. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I can understand not wanting the info box to get cluttered, and all bands listed should certainly have full pages of their own (no stubs or red links). But what prompted me to open a dialogue about this particular guideline was that we now have band pages (Deftones, for example) where their Associated Acts section winds up listing only the stub page for their high school band incarnation and not the major-label bands their members are also a part of. Each page's user base can decide in their talk section whether which bands to list in that area are appropriate or not, the same way many bands' pages have deliberated putting EPs in the discography section despite template guidelines (Nine Inch Nails, for example) because they were major releases that charted. Given that many band pages ignore this guideline and this Template page actually contradicts itself (for good reason), I move to reduce the common member clause to one, provided the band in question is noteworthy. StuOnThis (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Count on my 'no' vote. I don't see such a pressing need. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Major releases that charted does not make an association, although some editors like to think it's needed. I would argue that we should just drop the field from the infobox completely. True associations will be discussed in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think my point may be getting misinterpreted here. I assumed the whole point in the infobox entirely was to provide quick and pertinent information and details so the reader wouldn't have to read the entire article to obtain said information. I mean, why have the band members listed if they're just in the article? Why have the active dates listed if they're in the article? Et cetera. Wikipedia is supposed to be a wealth of quickly accessible information. I don't want to have to repeat myself too much here, but I feel as though my points are being glossed over for the sake of protecting an arbitrary rule (which is contradicted on its very same page) that completely defeats the info box's sole purpose. I'm genuinely shocked I'm getting pushback on this. StuOnThis (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the contradiction shown by the Audioslave example, the solution is to fix the example.

I don't like anything that makes the infobox bigger, duplicating more and more article facts. For another perspective, there are some folks on Wikipedia that argue whether an infobox should exist at all for certain topics; the usual argument is that the reader should be reading the article. Ian Fleming is an example where the local consensus is no infobox.

I feel certain that the listed associated acts should be very closely associated and interconnected. I think the rule of two members in common is somewhat arbitrary, though I understand where it's coming from. I would rather see both artists discussed together in the literature, for instance the early reviewers who always compared Audioslave to RATM and Soundgarden would be a factor in listing those acts. But looking through the literature is harder than counting to two. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know if you're being misunderstood. I for one am raising my own issues with the field, and I do think I understand your point. Before I try to address it I'd like point out that MOS:INFOBOX indicates that the infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject". It should not stand in place of a well-written article. So if there's no content in the article about an associated act, it should not be in the infobox even if it checks-off all the items we list in our documentation. I've always assumed that the key words in the phrase are "significant and notable to this artist's career", not only the "professional relationships with other musicians or bands". We need the article to show how the associations are significant and notable, not just working on a few songs. It's easy to see how George Martin's relationship with the Beatles would satisfy that criteria. I do not see how working on a single album together creates such a relationship between Zaytoven and Lecrae. If the article, however, can show how it elevated the profile of each artist in the eyes of the fans of the other members, that's a different point (and neither article does that). I have not looked into either article that you've pointed to, but if the association is not discussed in the article, remove it. If the association was for a passing thing, remove it. If the association is neither significant nor notable, remove it. If it involves only one member of the band, remove it. I understand that you think that some members are more key, or how associations are creating by comparison, and in that case, use judgment and show how the member's interaction in both bands influenced the subject band's career, sound, etc., or the comparison to similarities are valid. I still think too many infoboxes are misused and this is one of two problem fields that really does not help to summarize key features of the subject, but until we get a consensus to remove it, we should at least endeavour to use it correctly and uniformly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I concede, then. I came here trying to fix what I thought was an obvious flaw in the system, but it appears as though the general consensus is that the bug is actually a feature. After this discussion, I can actually agree that the Associated Acts section of the infobox may be too abstract an idea to be utilized uniformly. Thank you to everyone for your time. StuOnThis (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I rarely see this parameter used appropriately and would support removing it entirely. ili (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• I agree 100% with StuOnThis that the common member criteria should be 1 rather than 2, but I also agree with most of Walter's points, that being that the relationships should be non-trivial and should be discussed in the article. I think a good discussion point would be the Sex Pistols. I think their associated acts should be Public Image Ltd (John's band), Rich Kids (Glen's band) and The Professionals (Steve and Paul), but under the 2 person criteria, only the least successful of the three (The Professionals) would make the cut. I think any general reader of the Sex Pistols article would agree that having the Professionals as an associated act, but not Public Image, would be ridiculous. I just checked out The Beatles and found that Billy Preston *is* an associated act, but Wings is *not*, which is a perfect example of how absurd this can get. If the folks that decided on the "2" rule are adamant that it stay, I think I would switch my vote to removing the label completely. Before writing this, I checked the Sex Pistols article to see what associated acts are there and it's a good example of it going too far the other way, as every band that Steve Jones ever played with are included. I do like the idea of giving the folks who maintain an article some latitude on what constitutes an associated act. Robman94 (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the point is that Billy Preston worked with the Beatles more than once, while Wings never worked with the Beatles. If you are going to include in the infobox every band that past or future members were involved in, then it's going to get very crowded, and little of it would be in any way relevant to the band article we are specifically talking about. In the case of PiL, one of John Lydon's main goals when forming the band was to put as much distance between himself and the Sex Pistols as possible, he wouldn't have seen any connection between the two groups at all. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Billy played with the Beatles on one album only (Let It Be), so I would not think of him as an associated act. I agree that it would be silly to list every future band that a band member might be associated with, but I think the first act after leaving the main band would be fine. So back to the Pistols, for Steve Jones I would include the Professionals, but not Chequered Past or Neurotic Outsiders or any of the acts he did one album with. Likewise for Glen, I would include the Rich Kids but not Iggy Pop. As for whether Rotten wanted to be associated with the Pistols anymore or not, is irrelevant to the fact that he IS associated with them, whether he likes it or not. Anyway, if the powers that be absolutely insist that it's 2 members or nothing, I vote nothing. Better to have no label than to have a bad one. Robman94 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Just having the first act after leaving a band is also problematic... Midge Ure's first band after leaving Slik was the Rich Kids with Glen Matlock. But he had more commercial success with Thin Lizzy and Visage after that... and he is easily best known for his time in Ultravox, and organising Band Aid.

I've also said before that an associated act may not necessarily be someone who formed a band afterwards. There are several notable artists listed as "associated acts" for Elton John, but to my mind not one of them comes close to Davey Johnstone, Dee Murray and Nigel Olssen, who were John's backing band for decades, including all through his 1970s peak years. Those three people to me are real associated acts, not people who sang with John. Richard3120 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Use of label parameter

If someone is an independent artist, should the |label= parameter be used to indicate this? I'm looking at this edit. I can see arguments either way. Thoughts? Please feel free to ping me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If it were to be included, it should be as "Independent artist" (italics), not "Independent Artist" (both initials with caps), as the latter makes it seem as if the person were contracted to the label called "Independent Artist". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Not capping artist is a no-brainer to me, but why italics? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Independent artist" could very well (though unlikely) be the name of a label. The italics emphasises that it's not a name, rather a status. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there actually a record label called "independent" or is this an artist releasing independently? If it is the cormer, add and link to the record label. If not, no, it should not be added. The field is for all record labels, past and current not a status. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think what the editor is trying to suggest is that Ghoshal isn't on a label, rather that she is independent. I can see the argument for including something, the way we might include "atheist" in a religion parameter (back when those still existed), i.e. None (independent) or similar. I infer from your comment that you don't agree with this usage. Have there been any discussions about this? I can't find one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Independent" isn't a good idea, because there actually have been record labels in the past called "Independent Records", and what Walter is saying is that the use of this word in this parameter could cause someone to think that she was signed to one of these labels. I would prefer "none" (without capital letters) or leaving the parameter blank, I think. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two cases here.

1. If the subject was never signed to a label and is truly independent, we could leave it blank (my preference) because they are not signed to record label. However, if it is causing edit wars or confusion, including none (independent)—whether "none" was capitalized or not—would be fine.
2. If the subject was on a label and then ventured out to be independent, we should not list independent, or anything like it. My rationale is that the status would be conflated with the other labels. The same would be the case for a subject who was indie and then signed to a label.

I'm not sure if that is more clear or if it creates more questions than it answers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we still need "Background information" to appear? The horizontal break is useful, but I'm not sure it's needed any longer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Agent/manager parameter

This parameter would be quite important for the career of a musical artist. Placement of such information in an article will seem like an advertisement and I feel this would belong best in the musicalartist infobox. Terry g. bishop (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, are you suggesting that we list the musician's or band's agent or manager? I would deeply oppose that. We don't list that in album articles, even when it's listed in the liner notes, and I can't imagine what encyclopedic value it serves a reader. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it might be important for the artist but it's hardly vital encyclopedic information. Unless it's someone like Colonel Tom Parker or Allen Klein, the manager is unlikely to be notable. Most artists these days are managed by a company rather than a single person, so putting that in the infobox or anywhere else isn't going to provide the reader with much insight. Richard3120 (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, some indie artists may still be run by individuals or small companies, but that's still not encyclopedic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

Hi there, this edit request is for adding Nationality, Education and Alma mater parameter to the infobox. In addition, also rearranging website parameter to display on last row of infobox. This is the sandbox and this is the testcase.

Why add the 3 new parameters? I know this parameter already exists in Infobox person, however when using Infobox person as module, the parameter would be displayed in awkward position, see this example. As you can see from the example, if there is signature included then it would look out of place when compared to Infobox person in which the signature row is coded to position at the bottom of the infobox. Here is an example of Infobox person with signature. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

To editor Paper9oll:  done, and thank you very much! We'll see how it goes. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

To editors Paper9oll, Walter Görlitz, Richard3120 and Binksternet:  Undone pending review and consensus. Reference. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

New parameters

Paper9oll (talk · contribs) added the new parameters of nationality, education and alma_mater. I see no discussion of their addition to the list of parameters, and at least two make no sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Please refer to edit request on 1 April 2021 section above and you would get it. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: what Walter Görlitz means is that you put in the request and it was implemented almost immediately, before any members of this project had a chance to express their opinions about it. I'd also like to know how education and alma mater are important for an artist's music career. Richard3120 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Oh I see, I simply submitted an edit request, didn't heard of edit request needing consensus when i'm not even making controversy changes like the background parameter getting removed. Like I have mentioned above, I could use Infobox person as module however it would displayed/rendered awkwardly if there is signature included. Not sure if you seen the explanation and example I have linked in the edit request, hopefully you did which pretty much explained it. Why is education and alma mater not important? Are musical artist not a person? Education and alma mater fields are relevant if they are sourced via the infobox itself or via the body content hence I don't see what the problem is. Of course, if you're talking about using in groups/bands then it wouldn't make any sense but for individuals, why would it not make sense. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Should be reverted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Why should this be reverted when this isn't even a controversial change? Not having an discussion is not valid reason, as per edit request If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, you can submit an edit request and my changes is not controversial hence I don't see the point in having an pointless WP:SNOWBALL discussion. If my changes is like the background parameter then having discussion is required as it's considered controversial change. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Should be reverted because it's part of the infobox person, and this infobox can be added as a module to that one or vice versa. As already stated, there was no discussion nor consensus to add it. The archives show multiple discussions where the inclusion of these very parameters were rejected.

Not to mention that the change was done in less time than we had to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The new parameters should be reverted. They are not important to a musician's career. There was no discussion of the request before it was implemented. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You are not being reasonable here. Do you know what I'm exactly saying and why I submitted the non-controversial changes in the first place, did you happened to see my explanation above in the edit request section or are you just blindly preaching it should be reverted because of no discussion and no consensus. Furthermore, it seem to me you like to through the entire bureaucracy and isn't being helpful and reasonable? If you want to revert it and then add module4 since you seem to prefer to having more coding structure and having 2 infobox person as module, why 2 infobox person because first one would be for education and alma mater parameter which would positioned it below the occupation parameter which is already there in infobox musical artist (just a reminder, I didn't add occupation parameter btw) and last module would be for signature.

Furthermore, I always thought Infobox musical artist is a more specific infobox for musician, sadly I doesn't seem to be anymore. Pages are better off with Infobox person instead because Education and Alma mater mentionings even if sourced with reliable source is considered non-notable and non-importance. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: No problem, feel free to submit revert request. My reply is pretty much the same to you as with Walter. This discussion is going in circle and likely won't change, sadly this community is different from the other community within EN-WIKI which is more helpful and more thoughful and more understanding of the situation. Peace out, I don't wish to argue anymore. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: I think the issue here is that many editors feel the infobox should be kept as short and simple as possible, and only contain the key information relevant to the artist's career as a musician. Many believe that their education isn't relevant to their musical career and therefore shouldn't be included in the infobox - it can be mentioned with sources in the text if necessary. Richard3120 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: I'm not being unreasonable in any way whatsoever. We make changes based on consensus. You did not even check to see if that happened. In the other locations I edit, admins actually bother to check of consensus had been reached before making any change to a template or locked article. This infobox is used for bands as well as individual musicians, and the consensus has long been clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

On further reflection, that would be specifically to templates. I suspect articles would be different. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I don't wish to argue with you or debate further in regards to nationality, education and alma_matar since that's going in circle and is unlikely even change. However, please answer this question instead, can I request to add module4 directly below module3? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Logo parameter

An abundance of artist logos are available on Wikimedia Commons, most of which go unused. Logos are important encyclopedic information and a vital component of a career. I’m suggesting that a “logo“ parameter be added to Infobox Musical artist https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Musician_logos Terry g. bishop (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I would just say that some of those supposed "artist logos" are ridiculous, though – David Bowie never had a logo throughout his entire career, neither does Beck... those are simply two typefaces used on one album each in their careers. The Rihanna subcategory has several pictures of her name in different typefaces but none of them are actually her "logo" – which one would you use? Logos tend to be the preserve of heavy metal bands. Richard3120 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Not strictly opposed, but just going off that last point, I would guess that the image for metal bands is the logo (assuming it's free or fair use). Primefac (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's probably the reason why there are almost no actual real logos in that Commons category... I would assume that the most recognisable band logos, like those of Metallica or Iron Maiden, are copyrighted and we can't use them on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, there are certainly logos, rather than typefaces/fonts, which are synonymous with certain bands... the Rolling Stones' tongue logo, or Electric Light Orchestra's jukebox-inspired multicoloured circle. But I think these are very likely not fair use. Richard3120 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The one that would be best used in Rihannas scenario would be the one used most prominently on upmost recent albums and promotional material. Commons has information on whether a logo would fall under fair use. This parameter seems to be a sound idea for all genres. Terry g. bishop (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is an expanded list to prove my first point: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_musicians_from_the_United_States Terry g. bishop (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

But almost none of those are actually "logos", they are simply the font used on a particular record. Regarding Rihanna, every album of hers has used a different typeface, so "on most recent albums" would change every time she puts out a new record. If we had to do this for every artist every time they released a new record, it would be very time-consuming, and all we'd have is the artist's name in a different font, which doesn't help to identify them at all. To be honest, I think the number of logos which are (a) unambiguously identifiable with a particular artist and (b) in the public domain, you could probably count on the fingers of one hand. Richard3120 (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Rihanna was a remarkably poor example. As previously stated, the upmost recent logo or most identifiable will be used, and I don’t see 1 other artist that changes their logos like her. This will also be limited by availability of the logo on Commons. A fair majority of logos on Commons have public domain availability visible. This also will not be limited to artists, as bands seemingly have a larger array:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_musical_groups_by_country

This seems to be experimented with on articles Cardi B, Lil Wayne, and James Morrison. Terry g. bishop (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You genuinely don't see another artist who changes their logo like Rihanna? I would say almost everyone bar heavy metal bands changes from one album to another. You talk about using the most recent logo, but the Cardi B example above was literally only used on her first two mixtapes – it hasn't been used again since in the last four years. James Morrison and Lil Wayne haven't used those particular typefaces on any of their records in the last decade... they don't even use them on their websites. Richard3120 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of these logos exist purely for use in articles about albums and songs on projects where fair use isn't allowed at all, like the Spanish and French Wikipedias. If there is a freely licensed official logo for a particular act, why not just incorporate it into the body of the article? ✗plicit 02:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Removed background parameter and associated tracking category

Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and associated page Template:Infobox musical artist/doc/type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seem out of place now that the Background field has been removed. --Auric talk 20:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

There are a few unused subpages and categories after the recent change. I was planning to wait a few days to see if there was any uproar before nominating them for deletion. It's easier to wait a few days than to recreate everything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we commission a bot to remove the parameter? 21:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Could you please consider running your bot to remove the |background= parameter from {{Infobox musical artist}}? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Should be doable. What sort of scale are we looking at, and is there currently a tracking cat? I'll pop this on my watchlist for a bit to avoid the need for pings. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The tracking category is Category:Pages using Template:Infobox musical artist with unknown parameters, which currently has something like 99K or 100K pages in the "Ba" section. I'm assuming that all of those are there because of |background=. The scale of this change is what was behind my suggestion above to wait a bit before cleaning up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes. According to the TemplateData report background is used in over 100k transclusions. Definitely something I can get started on (though it will take me a couple of days to get going). Of the other invalid parameters, are there any that should get removed while I'm doing the run? Primefac (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

|Background= (initial upper case), |spouse=/|Spouse=/|Spouse(s)=, |family=, |children=/|Children=, |nationality=, |residence=, |height=, |partner=, |parents=, and |relatives= can also be removed. None of those parameters exist in the template code or the documentation. Most of the other unsupported parameters either need manual evaluation or exist in only a small number of articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Be careful not to remove module included parameters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

​ Are any of the params listed above in that grouping? Primefac (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

{{infobox person}} Yes, nationality, height, spouse, partner, children, parents, and family all are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Um.... this is {{Infobox musical artist}}, not {{infobox person}}, so I'm not really sure what that template has to do with this discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, I believe Walter Görlitz is referring to the special case where someone has embedded {{infobox person}} inside of {{infobox musical artist}}. I would assume that any automated replacement would be smart enough to only modify the parameters in the {{infobox musical artist}} and not touch the parameters in the embedded {{infobox person}}. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk)

Or embedding infobox musical artist in infobox person. which also happens. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes. So far none of my parameter removal runs have had that issue, as the removal is template-specific (i.e. non-recursive in either direction). I will still keep an eye out for it, of course. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a replacement to change the infobox color banner? Or will all musicians, bands, and producers have the blue infobox banner from now on? Terry g. bishop (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

All blue all the time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t like all blue. I liked it when it was yellow. Why make this change? Tinton5 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Just bringing attention to the fact that this change affects {{navbox musical artist}} as it has a similar mandatory parameter. Xfansd (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not have 2 colors, yellow for solo artists and blue for bands? FMSky (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There is the issue of "bands" which are in effect one person, using a variety of guests and session musicians from album to album, e.g. The The or Mt. Eerie. Or acts like Alice Cooper and PJ Harvey, who started out as bands before becoming solo artists, without a change of name. Richard3120 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Reinstating a limited background parameter

Whilst the former background parameter was outdated and ambiguous between its options, I think that (as one stated in the discussion) there should be a different colour for individuals. I am sure it wouldn't be difficult for readers to decipher the meaning of two colours. Though this perhaps does not serve much practical purpose, I believe it's odd to see individuals with the same blue colour as their bands, and that the deletion of the entire background parameter was rather rash. I hope to gain consensus to bring it back but to keep it straightforward. Lazz_R 00:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

On a side-note, this template page refers to individuals with yellow and groups blue, despite the template itself no longer doing so. Lazz_R 00:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The comment was made well after the discussion closed and I for one do not find it odd to have individual musicians and groups of them identified with different colours. It's almost as odd to use colour alone to distinguish between the two as it is to use colour alone to classify genres and sub-genres. There are many times when an individual musician is also a "project" or band, such as with Owl City. So is that a solo project, a band or an individual who hires musicians to perform his music? Which colour should that be? This is what Richard3120 was suggesting with the Alice Cooper example. Musical artists are blue for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In these very rare instances where it isn't 100% clear if it's a band or solo artist, it can be decided in a case-by-case basis imo. But just making everyone's color blue is lazy. --FMSky (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:COLOUR reads in part, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method". So to satisfy your yen for some clarity in the infobox, we have to add back some text as well. Why?

The lede should already state either "{Some band} is (was) a(n) {nationality} {genre} band" or "{Person Name} (born {date}) is (was) a(n) {nationality} ({genre}) {occupation}". In my opinion, that says it better than the infobox. While I agree that we should not be lazy, we should also not cater to those too lazy to either write a proper lede nor to those too lazy to read it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Could go like most other infoboxes and not have any colour at all. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No color or something other than the current blue seems better since the current color is too similar to the {{Infobox military conflict}} color. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the lede explaining what (act/artist/band) is is enough to satisfy the readers. There are releases that are ambiguous as albums/EPs/compilations but we have individual colours for them. A case-by-case basis is all it need be. Lazz_R 23:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Background parameter

What would a record producer/DJ fall into? non_vocal_instrumentalist or non_performing_personnel? There seems to be a bit of inconsistency across articles. DJ Rebel uses non_vocal_instrumentalist, while Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike uses non_performing_personnel. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

See the previous threads at Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 14#Insufficient options and Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 15#background parameter. I agree that this parameter needs updating, but we don't seem to have come to a consensus about it. Richard3120 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Can't the parameter be removed completely? What benefit does the colour add? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure, to be honest. I agree it's outdated and needs revising, even if that means complete removal. Richard3120 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There are possibilities (like lead singer and musician, or background vocalist and musician) so I would not be opposed removing it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the parameter should be removed (or have their values simplified to "individual" [without any color] and "group" [with a blue color]) as I'm not aware of any other "person" infoboxes with a similar arrangement. ili (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone against the removal of the parameter? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I would sooner see it converted to something more appropriate, but if consensus is to remove the parameter completely, we should take it to an RfC and move forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

So, should we take it to an RfC? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless we get a few more voices here, that would be the best option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Hi there, you might want to restructure your RfC. It should be presented neutrally without any editorialising. I would probably use only the question, then if you want to include your rationale, do so in comment form. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thanks for taking the suggestion well! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the |background= parameter be kept, revised, or removed? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Many individuals fall between more categories (producer + DJ, or lead singer + musician). And besides, all the parameter does is change the background colour of the name in the infobox (it's not like readers know that a specific colour is associated to a specific category). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The parameter only becomes a problem when applied to individuals, and as stated, the current choices are not all-encompassing and individuals can be in multiple classes of types. As was done with genres, a single colour to identify the template is all that is needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

With the RfC having expired, and no one else having opposed, I think we could procede with the deletion of the parameter. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: could you please help out? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

To editor Nehme1499: the deletion is in the sandbox. I just want to make sure it is what you and Walter Görlitz want and that the edits don't break the template in any way. Please check it out and let me know. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I think it works. As long as the colour of the infobox defaults to the grayish-blue tint, and isn't based on a "background" parameter (so writing background=solo_singer would still keep the background colour as gray-blue). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Test cases show that the edits retain the default color, plus I previewed "/sandbox" on the /doc page and the Mariah Carey ibox colors changed to the default while the Audioslave ibox stayed the same (default) color. Let's give it a go and see what, if any, attention it draws. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

To editors Nehme1499 and Walter Görlitz:  done, and thank you both for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Perfect, thanks for your help :) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Enquiry: is this parameter going to be stripped out from all existing infoboxes by a bot? And/or are editors meant to remove it, on an ad hoc basis, as they cone across it? But I see below that there's now talk of re-instating it in some way; so should we all leave well alone? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Any advice? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I have yet to see anything that definitively overturns this consensus or the discussion below. I've been away from my PC this week but at some point in the next few days I hope to get this one enacted with my bot (along with all of the other problematic/invalid params listed in the other discussion). Primefac (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Background parameter redux

I've restored the background parameter code, which is used in:

class="{{Infobox musical artist/hCard class|{{{Background|{{{background|}}}}}}}}

and without which the template's microformat markup will not work. This issue does not seem to have been included in the above discussion.

Note that the purpose of {{Infobox musical artist/hCard class}} is described in this template's documentation; and that the subtemplate's own documentation clearly describes the importance of the |background= parameter to that purpose.

Removal of the parameter and its values from individual instances of the template should cease until this matter is resolved; or where applicable should be reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This restoration should not have restored the coloring of the infobox headings, as there is pretty steady consensus against it above, and in MOS:COLOR, as far as I can see. I have re-restored the default coloring for this infobox. I have no opinion on the other uses of |background=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a consensus to remove.

Why don't you reiterate the value so we can discuss it rather than pointing elsewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, is there a reason that |title={{{Img_capt|{{{caption|}}}}}} was removed from the infobox image rendering? I do not see that change addressed by Pigsonthewing above. I have restored that bit of text as well. As for Walter Görlitz's message, I do not understand it or know who it is addressed to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

My comment was explaining there was consenus to remove the background parameter and Andy is pointing to other documentation claiming it is relevant here. if it is, it should be discussed here.

Caption should not have been removed. Is it because there was a separate parameter for it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not reiterated the details here because they are well documented on the pages to which I referred. Do let us know if any of that documentation is not understandable to you. I also opened this section explicitly to facilitate their discussion here, and there is nothing precluding you from contributing constructively to such discussion: please do so.

As for consensus, please can you indicate where it is recorded? I see only a still-open RfC in which only you and the proponent have expressed a view; plus an ongoing discussion on "Reinstating a limited background parameter". That notwithstanding, the edit broke - apparently unintentionally - functionality for which there is long-established consensus - thereby damaging the project. If the parameter's other functionality is not wanted, it must be removed in a way which maintanins the microformat functionality; or a consensus to abandon that must be demonstrated explicitly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not running to another template to read its documentation. If you cannot at least copy the relevant portions here, they're clearly not worth the electrons used to write them.

At least the consensus is above, on this page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus against adding such a parameter. Opponents noted that, per the section on purpose of the manual of style on infoboxes, infoboxes exist to summarize (and not supplant) key facts; pronunciation of a name was argued not to be a key fact. The proponent asserted that pronunciation looked better in the infobox, which is not a compelling policy-based argument. Therefore, by both numerical vote count and grounding in policy, there is a clear consensus against adding a pronunciation parameter. Tol | talk | contribs 22:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Request |pronunciation= param be added in line with Infobox_person. ATS (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Poll

• Support as nom. ATS (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Entirely unnecessary for the infobox. Lede is sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Then, by that logic, it should be removed from Infobox_person. If it stays there, it should be here—a parallel infobox for a specific person (or group comprising persons). One but not the other is inconsistent and illogical. ATS (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should be removed from that template. It's barely used there either. Richard3120 (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Could not agree more. Let's open an RfC there after this one closes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Just as a matter of personal preference, I think it looks way better in the IB—it tends to interrupt the flow inline. As an example, compare this and this.

In addition, adding the parameter simply offers it as an option; I cannot imagine it would cause wholesale change. ATS (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Walter Görlitz FMSky (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The purpose of infoboxes is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article, and the pronunciation of a name is rarely a key fact in my opinion. I support removing the parameter from {{Infobox person}} as well, but that's another topic for another RfC. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 01:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is contradictory: if IBs are to "not supplant … key facts", and pronunciation is "rarely a key fact", then there's nothing key being supplanted. ATS (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes no sense. It's not a key fact of a musician or artist. It should not be in the infobox. Period. No contradiction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I misread the passage and withdraw my statement. ATS (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

Adding an automatic short description

Template-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

Please add a new line with an automatic short description:

Original request
From: To: <includeonly>{{Short description|Musical artist|noreplace}}</includeonly> {{Infobox {{Infobox

Thank you! Tol | talk | contribs 23:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Revised request to accommodate bands

To disable this with bands (which have either current_members or past_members):

From:	To:
	<includeonly>{{#if:{{{current_members|}}}{{{past_members|}}}||{{Short description|Musical artist|noreplace}}}}</includeonly>
{{Infobox	{{Infobox

— Tol | talk | contribs 23:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Should an automatic short description (which could distinguish between individual artists and groups, as shown in § Revised request to accommodate bands) be added to this template? Tol | talk | contribs 03:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose! That would be disastrous for articles with better and more precise short descriptions. If all infoboxes were to implement something similar, templates are included as a module, it would cause conflicts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Walter Görlitz: The "noreplace" parameter means it will not replace existing short descriptions; it will only add this short description to articles without an existing one. Tol | talk | contribs 23:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  Cool story. A band is not an artist. We should focus on correctly implementing short descriptions instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Walter Görlitz: Alright, then disable it if either current_members or past_members parameter is set. Tol | talk | contribs 23:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  And, as for "correctly implementing" them: this is a perfectly fine implementation, as I believe that a generic short description ("Musical artist"), while worse than a specific one for each article, is better than nothing. Tol | talk | contribs 23:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  The revised implementation is better, but why not get a bot to go and do this where no short desc exists either in the article or Wikidata? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Walter Görlitz: Because this can do it in one edit instead of approximately 64,742 (search), and does not require coding a bot. Tol | talk | contribs 02:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  This method will not prompt other editors to modify a generic short description whereas a physical {{Short description}} will. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Walter Görlitz: At least with my installation of ShortDesc Helper, there's an "override" button for adding a local short description which overrides the template-generated one. Tol | talk | contribs 16:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  Had not seen that before. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It seems this would be helpful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support the revised request. FMSky (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

Per consensus above, please implement the edit shown in § Revised request to accommodate bands. Tol | talk | contribs 22:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Tol | talk | contribs 17:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Extraneous blank space in articles

This template seems to create an unnecessary newline when preceded by a newline, see The Beatles revision here: [1]. I removed the space between the redirect hatnotes and the infobox to solve this, but I suspect the infobox could be the issue. 9³ (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. That was my mistake. The new short description test was rendering a blank line above the infobox when it was omitted. I have moved the short description lower in the template code; since it uses noreplace and is not part of the article's wikicode, it does not have to be at the very top of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Short description when embedded

I noticed an unneeded short description in Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan where {{Infobox musical artist}} is embedded in {{Infobox person}}. I have .shortdescription enabled in my Special:MyPage/common.css and I see the description "Musical artist" at the bottom of the infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you normally see the shortdesc at the top of infoboxes? If so, I feel like an embedded IB is going to have the shortdesc somewhere embedded in the parent infobox (either at the top or at the bottom). Primefac (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

No; when the template {{Infobox musical artist}} is used by itself, the short description appears at the top of the article, below maintenance tags, not within the infobox. I don't know how to search for pages where the template is used as a child template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Pages with both {{infobox person}} and {{infobox musical artist}} are here, including Britney Spears. For interest, I did a search for ib person and {{infobox rugby biography}}, results here, which gives pages such as Mark Bingham. If I'm correct, the shortdesc will appear in the middle of the ib person call and before the ib rugby bio call (since the shortdesc in that ib is at the top). Primefac (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek: It sounds to me like that CSS needs adjusting. The infobox short description is tagged with "noreplace", so it should be discarded if there is a local short description. Have you considered using the "Shortdesc helper" gadget (in Preferences - Gadgets) instead? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Primefac's assumption about the appearance of the infobox at Mark Bingham is correct. It is marked with <div class="shortdescription nomobile noexcerpt noprint searchaux" style="display:none">Rugby player</div>, the same as at Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.

Does the magic word {{SHORTDESC:}} really observe |noreplace=? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The {{short description}} template in {{infobox rugby biography}} uses noreplace, so if you add a manual short description to the top of Mark Bingham, the infobox's short description will not be used in search results and other places where short descriptions are used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of |noreplace=, the HTML code <div class="shortdescription nomobile noexcerpt noprint searchaux" style="display:none">(text)</div> will still be inserted for each occurrence of {{SHORTDESC:}}/{{Short description}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

See T193857 for technical details of how noreplace works. My understanding from that ticket is that "noreplace" prevents the infobox-generated description from being stored in a database and used for the article. As I said above, it appears that your CSS modification is correctly showing that short description to you; computers do what you tell them to do, if you are lucky. If you want to see only the page's actual short description, use of the supported gadget is recommended. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing for past members?

The infobox documentation doesn't appear to say anything about sourcing for past members of a musical group. Is there a presumption as to where this information is originating? I'm looking at The Swingle Singers, which lists an extensive collection of past members with no attribution. Is it appropriate to put a CN tag in the infobox at that point? DonIago (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:INFOBOXREF. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox should be a summary of verifiable facts found in the article body. No facts should be found solely in the infobox. To solve the described problem, a section in the article body should be added, one that includes past members. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

At the Swingle Singers, I would remove the past members from the infobox entirely, and carve out a members section in the article body. I see that a list of current members is already cited in the article, and a few past members are supported by cites. A common mistake is to replace the infobox past members list with a wikilink pointing to the appropriate article section, but such internal links are deprecated by INFOBOXPURPOSE, as the table of contents is considered sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the past members who were not discussed within the article from the infobox. DonIago (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

"Spouse" not working

Why is the "Spouse" parameter not working? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many times before – see Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 15#Spouse section missing and Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 14#Adding Spouse details, for example. Richard3120 (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So fix it, then, so the same question doesn't need to be asked many, many more times in the future. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was established to keep it out. Nothing to fix. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not working because it's not a parameter that is included in this infobox. Just like many other parameters that are valid in other infoboxes, WP:CONSENSUS is that this parameter and other parameters are not needed. In short, it's not broken, it's just not there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

adding an influence{s,d} parameter

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has run its course and there is no consensus for creating such a parameter. -- Calidum 02:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

---

i think the musician infobox is in great need of both the influence{s,d} parameters. that way we can trace pedigree of great musicians in the course of history.

it's no different than the scientist infobox. it gives us a great idea of who deserves to come before and after for specific musicians.

of course for jobber musicians it can be debated if they deserve this, but we can fight on those talk pages about whether they warrant them (maybe they're borderline WP:NOTABLE and thus don't deserve to piggyback on bigger names) 198.53.108.48 (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (for multiple reasons, but primarily because the majority of articles do not source who influences were or who was influenced by the musician or band. This is better left for prose in the article) and for technical reasons (RfCs should only be started after discussion stalls, not in lieu of them). Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – Those parameters have been removed from {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox writer}}, and maybe others, by consensus and good reason. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Influence is not a "fact" (name), but a complex interaction between people, better described in prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Solid reasons provided by all the others above; I especially agree with Gerda's point and often rue the inclusion of genres for the very same reason, given how self-contradictory those lists can become (although that's more relevant to album and song articles, admittedly). I'd add that in the case of artists who draw from an unusually wide range of influences and then become extremely influential themselves – Beatles, Bowie, for starters – the Influences/Influenced lists would be vast. Then there's the issue of artists contradicting their earlier statements ("No no, I was never influenced by Artist X") and which of the two opposing statements should be reflected in the list. Also, if there was a limit applied to the number of entries appearing, that actually misrepresents the extent of the influence of, say, Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Bowie, Joni Mitchell, because they'd appear to be no more influential in terms of numbers of acts influenced than an artist who scrapes together the same number of influenced acts in total. Sorry, bad idea. And it should never have been presented here as an RfC. JG66 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – per all of the above. – zmbro _(talk) 16:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

that's fair i guess. i do acknowledge artists can, and have, contradicte(d) themselves (Scott Storch being among one of the more memorable ones for myself).

i disagree, however, with @JG66:'s argument involving a limited list and how that would limit the extent of the influences because there are ways around that (Descartes always comes to mind here).

i also disagree that it cannot be characterised outside of the artist's own statements.

often what we do for scientists and mathematicians is use WP:secondary as a buttress for any doubts around WP:primary (if they even made statements about influence).

i am in agreement that this would be hard to do in music since the secondary sources would be an author with less credentials than a typical secondary source in the aforementioned areas. i therefore believe @Gerda Arendt:'s position about it being a complex interaction between people is the strongest argument for rejecting my proposition and it is one with which i concur.

discussion over! go ahead and shut 'er down, @Walter Görlitz: 198.53.108.48 (talk)

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.

website usage example is contradictory

website section says Template:URL should be used. but none of the wensite examples given in infobox use www. in website. should we follow url template or just plain website without http or ftp or www? -চামুণ্ডা/ashtamatrikas^{[আলাপ/talk]} 14:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Template:URL forces you to have "www" in the URL? You can put any URL you like in there. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not needed, just as the protocol (http, https, ftp, gopher, etc) is not needed. Most servers rewrite targets. So if you arrive at example.com and there is only a www.example.com, it's not an issue and that is used. If there are others, such as sales.example.com or support.example.com, it is the site's responsibility to make those additional URLs evident to the reader. And if there is a secure protocol, most sites will redirect to the secure port if the browser is capable of negotiating the secure connection.

There has been some disagreement in the community about whether we should be pointing to the secure site by default, but that is a different question, and not what was being asked here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Parameter to remove short description

I noticed that this template automatically adds the short description "Musical artist" to the article – as if every article with this template must be about a musical artist. Well, in an article I've been writing, Portugal in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021, only one section is about a musical artist and uses the template. Since the article title is descriptive, it shouldn't have any short description at all. I tried adding {{Short description|none}} but that does not appear to help; the page information still says "Musical artist". This problem can easily be fixed by adding a parameter to remove the short description. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that a workaround by placing {{Short description|none}} after the infobox might solve that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, but I tried it and it doesn't work. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: please implement this edit on the sandbox per the above reason. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: Could you explain what the issue is with overriding the default short description? Following this edit by User:Mike Peel, the short description they wrote displays correctly for me, both on the page and on the page information (which perhaps had a delay in refreshing when you tested 'none'?). ChromeGames923 (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SDNONE, the article shouldn't have a short description because it has a descriptive title. The current short description isn't really helpful. Also, I'm pretty sure my attempt didn't work, because a few days later Pi bot on Wikidata imported the enwiki short description which was still "musical artist" ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, Jochem, you are using two infoboxes on the same article, with {{Infobox musical artist}} used in a subsection. Is there any need to use this second template at all? It seems to just repeat the information in the short paragraph about the singer in the competition, and is redundant in my opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe not. I think the infobox is there because that section is kind of its own subarticle, since he is not notable enough for his own article (hence also why his name is in boldface). A lot of other similar articles do this as well; for example, all articles in Category:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020 have multiple infoboxes. So either the infoboxes should be removed from all of them (which might not be a bad idea but it should at least be discussed at WikiProject Eurovision first), or this simple parameter could be used to at least remove the short description. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks for linking to that guideline. Though I'm not sure I understand why {{Short description|none}} doesn't work. I just tried inserting that on Russia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020, which also used to say 'Musical artist', and it seemed to have worked fine (nothing on the information page either). Is there something I'm missing? ChromeGames923 (talk · contribs) 23:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh. To me when I look at the page information, it still says that the local desciption is "Musical artist". It looks like |noreplace does not take {{short description|none}} into account (maybe that should be reported as a bug?). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh duh, looking at the source of Template:Short description, it transcludes nothing if the first param is "none". So of course the other shortdesc will think there's nothing to override it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh you're right, the page information does say that now. It also seems that Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper is inaccurate with regards to what short description is actually being displayed. Shortdesc helper tells me that "This page has deliberately no description." However, the page information and the short description displayed when searching for the article on mobile/app both say "Musical artist". So it seems that Shortdesc helper expects any short description template (even 'none') to overwrite the default, but the actual behavior is that this does not happen in the 'none' case, as you stated. I would reckon that it probably should overwrite with none, since otherwise it seems a bit misleading. Perhaps, then, the change should be implemented in the Short description template, and not this one? ChromeGames923 (talk · contribs) 21:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That's also an interesting idea. However that template uses the SHORTDESC magic word, and as far as I can tell the magic word currenlty supports the concept of "no short description"; it either sets a short description or does nothing. So that would require a change in the software, although I would support it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

How about using the {{Template short description}} template instead? It looks like that would deal with the problems too. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think adding Module:Is infobox in lead would solve the problem here, no? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  I concur, and I seem to recall this fixed the issue on a similar infobox that was being used mid-article. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  I would support that solution as well. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

So, is anything going to happen with this edit request? I think we kind of agreed on Module:Is infobox in lead? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Since it has caused problems, and that was my main concern about adding it, yes, we should remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done using Module:Is infobox in lead. firefly ( t · c ) 08:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Current members parameter

I notice that some of articles about musical group has this parameter, but they are using this parameter in a wrong way. The parameter states "For multiple members joining concurrently (such as the formation of the band), list them according to alphabetical order". Other articles use this, instead of alphabetical order, they arrange it in oldest to youngest member. Example: Blackpink, BTS, and Twice, articles which I've edited. I've already arrange the order of current members of Twice and Blackpink to alphabetical order, but my edit in Blackpink was reverted. I need someone's opinion here thanks. Ctrlwiki • 06:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Alphabetical order seems far more sensible to me - a casual reader is unlikely to know the birth dates of each member, so the order will seem random to them. Richard3120 (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The template documentation does not take cultural context into consideration. Particularly in South Korea, age and social hierarchy completely change the way one speaks (see Korean honorifics), behaves, and functions around others, and this is reflected in the way members are ordered. It is not just a matter of "oldest to youngest", it demonstrates (for the lack of a better word) the authority each individual possesses. This is always the way K-pop group members are ordered and it is easy to cite, as the group's record label does so on their official website.

Oddly, YG Entertainment did not bother to list Blackpink's members, but official profiles like the ones found on Naver [2] do the same. 멤버: 지수, 제니, 로제, 리사 (Members: Jisoo, Jennie, Rosé, Lisa). There is no right or wrong way to list members, just preferences, and this structure happens to work in K-pop articles. ✗plicit 14:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

So the parameter description is nonsense at all, cause it is not followed in many article, because the parameter is for all articles, korean or not. Could you please clarify the parameter description, because it states that it should be alphabetical order. Ctrlwiki • 15:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the current parameter description reads: "Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. For multiple members joining concurrently (such as the formation of the band), list them according to alphabetical order. [emphasis added]" It does not mention anything about listing according to the members' ages and alphabetical order only applies to members who joined at the same time. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: It is mentioned: For multiple members joining concurrently (such as the formation of the band), list them according to alphabetical order. it means, it should be alphabetical order to the members who joined the group at the same time. @Explicit: we should remove the parameter description already cause it is not followed at all, then you said, we can just order it in our self preferences, so the parameter description that should follow is not needed. Ctrlwiki • 16:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Most bands are started by a couple of people and others are added along the way. I don't see a reason to change the parameter guidance. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

If that is the issue, it's fine, but that's not the problem. The problem is, many pop bands articles are not using this parameter in the same way just like the description, many pop bands articles, use this parameter but instead of alphabetical order (just like the description statement), they use it from oldest to youngest order, even the members are joined concurrently. Ctrlwiki • 17:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Blackpink article shows that the members did not join concurrently (Jennie on June 1, Lisa on June 8, Jisoo on June 15, and Rose on June 22). Twice members also seem to have been added/subtracted over time. Many articles use the chronological approach, which does give an idea of seniority. There will always be editors who ignore guidelines, so even the best guidance cannot prevent misuse. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Just because yet another parameter in yet another infobox is used and applied incorrectly does not mean that those who actually know how to use it correctly should not continue to do so. Similarly, if they apply the correct use to an infobox and someone reverts them that editor can inform the reverting editor of the documentation. At that point, the reverting editor is editing against the community's standard.

I agree that there is no reason to change the instructions for the parameter. In order of joining, and then alphabetically. The only thing I would change is for former members: their duration with the band might be a consideration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: That was the formation of the group I think. There was no Blackpink at that time, but after the formation and the Blackpink was revealed, there are already four members, see: revert 1 and revert2. Twice members are also joined concurrently. After the group's debut, there are already 9 members. There is no member in Twice who joined after the group's debut. Ctrlwiki • 23:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: That information is the chronological order in which they were publicly announced as members of Blackpink, not the order in which they joined the group. Members don't really "join" a group, they are selected from a pool of trainees that have been training for years with the agency. Blackpink was originally intended to be a nine-member group, as the article states.

@Ctrlwiki: No, there is no need to remove the instructions for this parameter, but there's also no point in rigidly applying the instructions to a particular group of articles when a better system works. These articles sit perfectly fine up until someone decides to apply the instructions from a WikiProject that can't even adhere to its own genre parameter guidance among WP:FAs. ✗plicit 01:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: ok, I understand the point now. Ctrlwiki • 02:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe add a hidden note to the artist articles briefly advising something to the effect of <!-- Members are listed according to Korean practice rather than alphabetically --> so others will be less likely to change it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Request

Request to add "background" and "musical career" headings (for solo artists) to separate the background information and the career information, just like infobox YouTube personality and others. If anyone disagreed, why? —Ctrlwiki (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In {{infobox YouTube personality}} there is row on a red background that reads "YouTube information". This template already has "Background information". Are you asking to change that wording?

The reason I as is that we had a long discussion and consensus that a background parameter is not needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I am asking to add "music career" headings, to separte the background information and the music career information. I am not asking to change any word. Just take a look at this Revision. What happened there is, the infobox has "music career" headings separating the career and the background information, you can see the "music career" headings when the article used two infobox: Infobox person as main infobox and Infobox musical artist as its module. But if you look the edit source, the article used two Infobox musical artist, the first one is the main infobox, and the second one is its module. So I remove the module cause the article is already used it, but an editor reverted it back, and said the reason why there are two same Infobox musical artist is to make a "music career" headings. So what I did is to change the main infobox template from Infobox musical artist to Infobox person, to keep the module and the "music career" headings. Currently, there's only "background information" headings in this template, so I am requesting to add "music career" headings when using this template as the main infobox and using it as a module is not needed. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What needs to be added to the infobox for "musical career" that isn't covered by the "years_active" and "instrument" parameters? Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Background field

I believe the background parameter where either "solo_singer", "non_vocal_instrumentalist", "group_or_band", etc., was removed relatively recently. But any article without one of those gets added to Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field. If the parameter is no longer used, then surely the category is no longer needed. I'm just bringing attention to this. Xfansd (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think that |background= was removed? It is currently part of the template code. It is passed to {{Infobox musical artist/hCard class}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't there a mass removal or something like that when they got rid of the different colors based on what was written there? Maybe it still functions, but it can't be a coincidence that it is not listed at Template:Infobox musical artist#Parameters. Shouldn't all active parameters be listed and explained? Xfansd (talk)

Here's an example of a bot removing it as invalid. Example Xfansd (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

There was an aborted mass removal. It was a mess, but you can read all about it at Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 15. I don't know why that bot edit does not appear to have been reverted, or why the parameter is not currently in the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It was removed. Any article with it present will display an error when previewing the page. If the hCard class needs to be updated, someone should do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "It was removed" means in this context. According to the Template Data monthly report, |background= is present in over 37,000 articles. One example is The Alan Parsons Project, which does not display any error messages when I edit and preview it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure when it was changed, but when the parameter was removed, including values in the background parameter would generate a warning in the preview. We should correct that immediately as the parameter is no longer supported. That was done via a consensus decision. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No warning will be generated because this parameter is still listed in the known parameters in the template code. It must be removed from there for a warning to appear (generated by the module of unknown parameters). Solidest (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It should not be removed without consensus to disable its current functionality. It is still a supported parameter, as I explained above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That was agreed to above (Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_15#Background_parameter_2). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, I linked to that page above, on 15 February 2022. Please read the section following the one you have linked to, where an editor explains how |background= is used; the final comment there is from an editor who refused to read something that another editor linked to, which seems like the same thing that is happening here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Your discussion on this matter is required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"If the hCard class needs to be updated, someone should do so. " How do you propose that be done? Without |background=, what indicator is there that the subject is either a person or a group? This has all been explained on this page, and in the template documentation, previously; not least in my post timestamped 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC), which you saw. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If the person has members, then the person is actually a group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

There are instances of this template for ensembles, with no lists of members. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, it would be better to replace with a bot this field to something like "is group" = yes or null, than to leave it as it is. Solidest (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Background field

I believe the background parameter where either "solo_singer", "non_vocal_instrumentalist", "group_or_band", etc., was removed relatively recently. But any article without one of those gets added to Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field. If the parameter is no longer used, then surely the category is no longer needed. I'm just bringing attention to this. Xfansd (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think that |background= was removed? It is currently part of the template code. It is passed to {{Infobox musical artist/hCard class}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't there a mass removal or something like that when they got rid of the different colors based on what was written there? Maybe it still functions, but it can't be a coincidence that it is not listed at Template:Infobox musical artist#Parameters. Shouldn't all active parameters be listed and explained? Xfansd (talk)

Here's an example of a bot removing it as invalid. Example Xfansd (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

There was an aborted mass removal. It was a mess, but you can read all about it at Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 15. I don't know why that bot edit does not appear to have been reverted, or why the parameter is not currently in the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It was removed. Any article with it present will display an error when previewing the page. If the hCard class needs to be updated, someone should do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "It was removed" means in this context. According to the Template Data monthly report, |background= is present in over 37,000 articles. One example is The Alan Parsons Project, which does not display any error messages when I edit and preview it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure when it was changed, but when the parameter was removed, including values in the background parameter would generate a warning in the preview. We should correct that immediately as the parameter is no longer supported. That was done via a consensus decision. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No warning will be generated because this parameter is still listed in the known parameters in the template code. It must be removed from there for a warning to appear (generated by the module of unknown parameters). Solidest (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It should not be removed without consensus to disable its current functionality. It is still a supported parameter, as I explained above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That was agreed to above (Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_15#Background_parameter_2). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, I linked to that page above, on 15 February 2022. Please read the section following the one you have linked to, where an editor explains how |background= is used; the final comment there is from an editor who refused to read something that another editor linked to, which seems like the same thing that is happening here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Your discussion on this matter is required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"If the hCard class needs to be updated, someone should do so. " How do you propose that be done? Without |background=, what indicator is there that the subject is either a person or a group? This has all been explained on this page, and in the template documentation, previously; not least in my post timestamped 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC), which you saw. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If the person has members, then the person is actually a group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

There are instances of this template for ensembles, with no lists of members. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, it would be better to replace with a bot this field to something like "is group" = yes or null, than to leave it as it is. Solidest (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Associated acts" label wrapping

Could {{nowrap}} please be removed from the "Associated acts" label? The label's length substantially decreases the width of the content column, to the point that even dates of birth run over two lines. This is especially problematic when the infobox is used as a module of {{Infobox person}}, thus affecting numerous infobox fields. Thanks, Graham (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please gain consensus for the change first. Based on the RfC above, the parameter seems to be on its way out anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Move capitalized AKAs to deprecated parameters

Currently, there are currently about 20 AKAs that duplicate existing parameters, except of the first uppercase letter. It would be useful to finally start getting rid of them by moving them to deprecated tracking into a new category to clear up [this mess], along with unknown parameters. Solidest (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Btw, "Infobox musical artist/color" is not needed in the code as well, as "Background" currently only used to track hCard format as being discussed above. Solidest (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)