Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Proposal to reduce the ambiguity of parameter origin

Proposal (and request for discussion, and hopefully consensus): Change label6 of the template from Origin to Launch location. (Perhaps a parameter alias---or whatever the term is---called launch_location could be added later.)

Rationale: The origin parameter presents an ambiguity when used for individual performers. To the casual Wikipedia reader, it incorrectly suggests that the label Origin represents the birthplace of the performer. The casual reader is not equipped to look up which infobox template is being used, let alone the meanings of the individual parameters. This even confuses Wikipedia editors from time to time. Talk page usage discussions have "kicked the can down the road", but we might as well fix the underlying ambiguity by selecting a clearer label.

Alternate ideas:

1. Change label6 from Origin to Debut location.
   • But this is likely to be interpreted as the first performance, however minor, when it should instead indicate when the person or band really took off.
2. Change label6 from Origin to Original performance location.
   • But this has the same drawback as the label Debut location---in fact, even wordier.
3. Split this template into two: Infobox_individual_musical_artist and Infobox_group_musical_artist.
   • But most people would likely find the effort worth not worth the improvement in clarity.

History of significant discussions of the origin parameter:

1. Talk Archive #1 (2007):
   • Origin and flags => Suggestion to use label Career origin.
   • Country? ==> Request to put all "turfs" (i.e., significant performance locations) into the origin parameter
2. Talk Archive #3 (2007):
   • Birth place ==> Confusion between origin and birth_place parameters
   • Raised ==> Confusion over the use of origin parameter
3. Talk Archive #6 (2008):
   • Origin and Hometown ==> Points out that the meaning of Origin parameter is unclear
4. Talk Archive #7 (2009):
   • Appropriate uses ==> Claims the current label is misleading, and proposes using Debut
5. Talk Archive #9 (2011):
   • Edit request from CWenger ==> Confusion over the use of the origin parameter
6. Talk Archive #10 (2011 to 2012):
   • Origin ==> Suggests adding based_in parameter for current primary location
7. Talk Archive #12 (2013 to 2014):
   • Origin ==> Clarification sought for meaning of parameter origin
8. Talk Archive #14 (2018):
   • Definition of origin ==> Discussion of use or origin parameter, including Grace VanderWaal, who gained fame through America's Got Talent, and the BeeGees article, which had edit wars(1)(2)(3) over the origin parameter.

Dotyoyo (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes life does not fall into clear-cut definitions. I suspect that no single attempted "definition" of Origin will satisfy all of the people all of the time.

The existing description of Origin is The town, city etc., from which the group or musician originated (that is, the place where the group was founded, or where the individual performer started their career, should it not match the location of their birth. Here in the UK, think Liverpool for The Beatles and Manchester for Oasis. This seems a clear use of "origin". But the archives also indicate that the origin field does not work for The Bee Gees and in this case the article itself has an inline comment to advise that "origin" is, for this band, inappropriate.

An Infobox is simply a brief, broad-brush, outline summary. The more subtle, intricate and nuanced details are often beyond the scope of an infobox.

So the existing "live and let live" use (or "most of the people most of the time") seems reasonable: "origin" works for a large majority of cases, and indeed for many (Beatles; Oasis) it is an important aspect. For a minority (e.g. Bee Gees) it won't work. And all that seems OK to me.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The description you give for Origin is readily available to Wikipedia editors who are capable of peering into the help documentation for Wikipedia templates. But articles should be crafted with the needs of casual readers in mind. If those casual readers had a simple way (e.g., a tooltip) to view such descriptions, then I might agree.

But given the lack of easy label description lookup, I propose this guideline: Labels should be used that convey almost all the meaning of the label to almost all the users, almost all the time. With that in mind, I propose the label "Launch location", but I'm open to other suggestions that would be correctly interpreted by casual Wikipedia readers.

Dotyoyo (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

"Origin" and "launch" seem different concepts. "Origin" seems to be about where they seem rooted, whereas "launch" suggests a choreographed event. Suppose (hypothetically) that the Beatles, with their strong (and proudly owned and claimed) Liverpudlian roots, had achieved their rise to prominence somewhere different. I would suggest that "origin" more closely matches Liverpool, whereas "launch" would more closely match that 'somewhere different' location. Perhaps "origin" needs to stay as "origin" (or closely similar), but that an optional, supplementary "launch" (or similar) should be available. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The root problem might be that the description has two different meanings: one for groups, and another for individuals. Assuming it's technically feasible, perhaps there should be different labels for those two cases. Dotyoyo (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it could actually make things more complicated... for example, Blur are often described as coming from Essex. But actually only one member of the band was born in Colchester, the town which is considered to be their "origin". But how would that be different from their "launch"? I would have thought that there are very few cases where you could definitively say that a band was "launched" in a particular place. Richard3120 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Need for new parameters

We need more parameters for winners of competitions, such as American Idol and Miss Universe. The box would contain the following parameters:

 | contest      =
 | year         =
 | season       =
 | predecessor  = 
 | successor    = 

The last two parameters would work the same way they do in the infobox we use for officeholders. See Template:Infobox officeholder. Another infobox that needs this treatment is Template:Infobox pageant titleholder.

It could even be an infobox within an infobox, placed at the bottom, with a heading like "Miss Universe winner" and the "Miss Universe" symbol.

Any thoughts on this suggestion? Let's do some brainstorming. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know... each season of Idol, X Factor whatever, are completely separate... by placing "predecessor" or "successor" in the box, it gives the impression that they are taking over from the previous "holders". This would be true of a beauty contest, but I'm not convinced that it holds for reality TV contests. Richard3120 (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point, so I have tweaked it below (and revised what's above). This wording would apply better for American Idol:

 | contest      =
 | year         =
 | season       =
 | previous    = 
 | following    =

What we need is to make parameters that fill this need, and the exact wording should be created according to the need. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here though... this is template "Infobox musical artist". So why are we even mentioning Miss Universe or other beauty pageants? And we've already said that previous and successive winners are not relevant to the winner of each season of Idol and other talent shows, so this wouldn't be needed for them. Richard3120 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My first concern was this infobox, and then I added others where this is also needed. I'll have to propose this elsewhere for them. Let's just stick to musicians here. I'll strike the others.

By changing the wording to "previous" and "following" I resolved your objection. This is suggested as a convenience to readers who can then easily hop from one winner to the next (or previous). It has the same legitimacy as why we do it for officeholders. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how necessary this is - there are already navboxes that show all the winners from each year, and many winner articles also have succession boxes. So this would be adding a third way of moving from one year to another. Richard3120 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we don't need that parameter in the officeholder infoboxes. You mention that "many winner articles also have succession boxes." What are they? Can you give an example I can look at? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

See the bottom of the articles for Little Mix or James Arthur for examples of the succession box. But we really need more input on this debate from other people. Richard3120 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to request adding a parameter for Manager. As Managers play a vital role in a groups/individuals careers, it would be great to give credit to the corresponding invididual. -- Jmaya10 (PING me) 01:45, June 3 2024 (PST)

If the manager is notable enough they'll have their own article, they don't need to be added to an person's infobox and bloating it with extraneous information. There might have been famous managers in the past {Brian Epstein, Andrew Loog Oldham, Peter Grant, Jake Riviera}, but I would imagine that most artists now are managed by an organisation rather than an individual. Richard3120 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for new parameter: signature

This is already used in Infobox person, of which many musician's pages use already. I suggest this because I am trying to add a signature to a musician's infobox now but was unable to. I don't have much knowledge on infoboxes, so if this is possible without a new parameter, please let me know. Thank you. 333fortheain (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@333fortheain I recently edited Toshiko Akiyoshi, and as you can see from the infobox, you can add signature by embedding infobox person into infobox musician. This is done by using the module parameter. Below is the relevant part as guideline

:{{infobox musical artist
:|name=Toshiko Akiyoshi
:|module={{infobox person
:|embed=yes
:|signature=Toshiko Akiyoshi Signature.png}}
:}}

Hope this helps. Lulusword (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 333fortheain (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lulusword I just ran into the same issue and this workaround is great - thanks much! WidgetKid (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Glad it help! Lulusword (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing genres

When filling out the genre field, should I use the genres that the artist claims or should I look for independent sources? Wojwesoly (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely what independent sources say, its not relevant what the artist thinks their genre is --FMSky (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Generally I agree, though if there's actual contention between what the artist claims and what others claim (contention that sources have discussed), then that could merit a mention. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 21 September 2024

Description of suggested change: Add "height" category for music artists

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Height is usually not typically relevant to a musical artist's notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Counting reunions for years active

Is the current standard inclusion ofany performance during a time when the band is officially broken? That seems... rather uninformative, and prone to bloat, as seen in Simon & Garfunkel. We should have some standard to differentiate one-off (or some other threshold) reunions from time during which the band can be considered to "actually" exist. 2803:4600:1116:4C4:48F4:AEB9:8FCB:12AC (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)