Template talk:Navbox musical artist

Add hCard microformat

{{editprotected}} Please add an hCard microformat by including the following code:

|bodyclass = vcard
|titleclass= {{Infobox musical artist/hCard class|{{{background|}}}}}

The latter line sets the |titleclass= to fn for individuals and fn org for groups; and is based on the code use in {{Infobox musical artist}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there consensus for this change? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Disabled request, as no response. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because he says so :/ —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done It caused massive page corruptions with articles that have other templates. Namely Dolly Parton and Christopher Guest seen to be damaged. I have a html file of the corrupted Dolly Parton if you want to see, drop me note. I think it's the used of <code>, {{Infobox musical artist}} does not use that format  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you misunderstood the edit request. The <code> tags weren't supposed to be included, and bodyclass and titleclass are supposed to be parameters in the Navbox template. By the way, I'm in favor of this edit, if we're still trying to build a consensus. --CapitalR (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

CapitalR is correct. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And working perfectly. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect correction

Resolved

{{editprotected}} Could the redirect from {{Navbox Musical artist/color}} be bypassed to {{Navbox musical artist/color}}? Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:R2D comes to mind... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro in documentation

"Please discuss major changes on the talk page before making them." Does it mean: "Please discuss major changes on the talk page before editing the template." Just a quick comment, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Films/TV shows being listed in the template

Wow this talk page hasn't been edited in a while, anyway I wanted to start this discussion on what other people's opinions are on having films/TV series listed in the musical artist template. I for one find it very unnecessary considering acts like Beyoncé, Hilary Duff, Justin Timberlake, Lindsay Lohan are just a few singers that also have few or more acting credits under their belts. Listing every film and TV show that they have done is superfluous, the more their careers continue the more acting work they are going to do. The Navbox musical artist template is exactly that a template for the person as a musical artist NOT as an actor. Adding the person's name and a hashtag linking to the filmography section in the person's page (like this Person#Filmography) should suffice linking it from the template. But anyway, what are your opinions? QuasyBoy 07:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 16:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree with what you are saying, in a way, but I think that as long as only starring roles are mentioned in the infobox, it should be okay. Personally, I think a navbox should be created for actors. For example, artists like Hilary and Lindsay are pretty much done with music, so to have a navbox just about their no longer existent music careers seems bizarre to me. And yes, actor navboxes could be messy, but if created, we could have maybe like a three starring role rule - only the three main stars of the film's navbox can be used in the article. Thoughts? I think this is long overdue. — Status {^talk_contribs  17:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the current situation is ok. Major billed roles should be listed only, though. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 17:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The only time I feel that a film or TV show should be listed in the template is if the artist was active with the project as lead actor and executive producer, etc, not just appearing in the film. For example, it should not be a problem if Hannah Montana is listed in the Miley Cyrus template because naturally the show launched her career, same with Hilary Duff and Lizzie McGuire. QuasyBoy 18:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Change to this template?

Was there a change to this template recently that caused the separators between the album/song titles to disappear? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Navboxes for songs and singles

Basically because they present the same thing (an artist's songs with their own articles listed in a navbox), I've started a discussion at WT:SONGS questioning why one template listing an artist's singles and one showing the artist's songs should be displayed differently (in terms of background color). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a limit of 20 entries in this navbox?

The 21st section of the Depeche Mode navbox for DM singles won't display. I don't see anything in the documentation for this template to indicate a limit, and the template appears to be formed properly. Any idea why section 21 isn't appearing? 87Fan (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't in the documentation but there is a limit. I tested it using the standard navbox template and I was able to add a 21st section. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It may just have been too big a table. I was able to compress some information to bring the # of sections in the template to under 20 (although if DM keep releasing albums, we'll hit the limit again soon enough). Thanks for your reply. 87Fan (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Linking to subjects without their own articles

I am aware it is currently the case that some navboxes are including music releases – e.g. singles – that don't have their own articles. Take Template:The Prodigy, for instance: several of the singles, EPs and albums link to articles that are not specifically about that subject – e.g. The Added Fat EP links to The Fat of the Land.

I think Wikipedia should have a policy on whether or not this should occur because, theoretically, any single given release could be included in a navbox as long as it is linked to another article. I personally think all subjects without their own article – with the possible exception of subjects which have their own individual sub-sections in another existing article – should not be included in a navbox, and that the Discography link in the 'Related articles' section should suffice. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, navigation templates are for navigating between existing Wikipedia aritcles, and therefore redirects should not be used, especially where one link redirects to an article already linked in the same template. I'm often removing plain text from navigation templates but don't always check for redirects or "Easter eggs". –anemoneprojectors– 09:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Pleaser reduce the limit

Hi Wiki collegues, Please reduce the limit of entries of the Navbox so that Template:Eric Clapton singles can work.

Thanks --Matthiasberoli (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Add an editing notice?

One of the problems I frequently run into with musical artist navboxes is that they're often treated as little discographies, with editors cramming in every release by an artist—EPs, singles, obscure releases, etc.—regardless of whether there are articles about those topics to link to. Thus the navbox winds up with a lot of redlinks, unlinked text, song titles that pipe to album articles, easter egg links, and such. I usually remove these with an explanation such as "this is an article navigation template, not a discography" (example: before and after). But the problem is pervasive and persistent. I'm sure anyone who works with these navboxes with any regularity can relate.

My suggestion is to add a notice that would automatically appear at the top of the editing page when one tries to edit a musical artist navbox. Similar to the notice that automatically appears at the top of the page when one goes to edit a BLP. Something like:

This is a Wikipedia navigation template, a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. It is not a discography for the musical artist, nor a general listing of topics related to them. Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia and should only contain links to existing Wikipedia articles. Please do not add unlinked text, red links (unless the red linked article is very likely to be created), or piped links from song titles to album articles (these are considered easter egg links). For more information, please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and Wikipedia:Navigation templates.

I doubt such a notice would solve the problem, but it might help a bit. At the least it might help inexperienced editors get to know the purpose and function of navboxes a little better. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support + possible wording tweak – I frequently perform the same tireless edits and link WP:EXISTING in my edit summary. At WP:EXISTING, it says, "In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable." This is something I strongly agree with and would like to see incorporated in a possible notice if possible. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I run into this a lot and think an editing notice is a great idea. I also support Fezmar9's suggested addition. Random86 (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Good idea, but prefer the KISS approach (& bold, underscored, and ALL CAPS) or it might be missed. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support anything that reduces navbox clutter. As for listing red-linked band members: only if at least 2 are blue-linked; otherwise all should be omitted as there's no navigational benefit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – I just re-read WP:EXISTING after linking it in an edit summary and was surprised to find this addition from June 2015:

Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first.

This seems to condone the use of navigation templates as mini-discographies as long as unlinked text is simply red linked. I think Template:Navbox musical artist should opt out of this exception. For many musicians with large catalogues, this would result in ridiculously oversized navboxes that would not provide the intended benefit. An artist's discography is just a click away and provides dates and other details that make some sense out of a shopping list of titles. Thoughts? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Definitely. The way I read that, it implies that the red links should only be added if the articles are likely to be created and kept. In musical artist navboxes, I generally find that redlinks are from articles on minor releases that were deleted, or have been there forever and the articles are unlikely to ever be created (and likely wouldn't meet the notability threshold). As you say, the full discography of an artist should either be in the article about the artist or in a separate discography article, if warranted. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Hoodoo Gurus is an example of a navbox with about 1/3 redlinks. The red links were added to previously unlinked text, with the edit summary "Red links are now acceptable per a change to the guidelines. unlinked text is not".[1]. I doubt this result was contemplated when the new(er) exception to WP:EXISTING was added. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious who made that change to EXISTING and if there was any discussion behind it. Do you know? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

IllaZilla: It looks like the decision was made here: Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 4. I think it is hard to apply this to the musical artist navbox because not all albums/songs are notable enough for a standalone article. For example, if a song/album article is deleted, it makes no sense for it to be in the template as a redlink. Random86 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Since so many articles are deleted, perhaps meeting WP:Notability (music) for all navbox entries should be required. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate place to cite those who did covers of songs by the artist of interest?

I wanted to add a few cover songs done of PM Dawn tracks. Is there an appropriate place to include this; in the navbox musical artist template or otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sberke206 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Navboxes should not be used for this purpose. Navboxes facilitate navigation, i.e., contain links to articles directly relating to the subject. Other artists who recorded the subject's songs are peripheral or only loosely related to the subject. If the covers meet WP:SONGCOVER (essentially, are they discussed by WP:Reliable sources beyond the fact that they exist?), the details may be added to the article about the song. If there is no song article, it (and any covers) are probably not notable.—Ojorojo (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Easter eggs in Led Zeppelin example

Please could someone edit the Led Zeppelin examples, to remove the following category WP:EGGs and overlinked items:

| group4     = [[Led Zeppelin#Filmography|Films]] should be | group4     = Films
| group5     = [[:Category:Led Zeppelin|Related articles]] should be | group5     = Related articles
*[[:Category:Led Zeppelin songs|Songs]] should be removed

I also think the following is problematic, and the image should be removed:

*[[File:Zoso.svg|55px|Led Zeppelin IV]] (''[[Led Zeppelin IV]]'') should be * ''[[Led Zeppelin IV]]''

Thanks! --woodensuperman 15:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Updated! --woodensuperman 09:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Best practice for musical artist navboxes

Would anyone like to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#Template:Katy Perry songs and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#Template:Taylor Swift songs? --woodensuperman 09:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 14#Template:Selena Gomez songs --woodensuperman 15:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

need more than 20 lists

Template:Michael Jackson. List 21 doesn't display. The only alternative I can see is to move some into sublists, like albums, but I've never done this. Any other option? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we spell-out BIDIRECTIONAL more clearly

I just had someone revert the removal of an "associated act" in a nav box despite there being only a tangential association, and there being no WP:BIDIRECTIONal link. I have seen people removing these for a few years and yet there are plenty that get added as well. What formal advice can we give? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, speaking specifically about musical navboxes, for the sake of consistency, I suggest we apply to them the same reasoning we already do to Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts. This should be made more clear at this very template, which uses an example that apparently violates the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL guideline. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 21:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Since navigation templates serve a different purpose from infoboxes, I don't think associated acts should be listed at all unless there is an even deeper association than that needed for the infobox. We only list labels that the band itself started, and that is a different criteria than what is in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The infobox criteria seems restrictive enough, but I hope we all agree at least that spin-offs and/or groups with several members in common are a must. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 18:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

But the infobox is a different criteria and has a completely different goal, and no spin-off groups with are a must in a navbox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What's the goal of a navbox? Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 17:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Navigation template "grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space." "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

And how is, for example, Alter Bridge interfering with that on {{Creed}}? Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 14:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you given up on wanting to know what the goal of a navbox is? Either carry on a discussion or don't, but I'm not following your bunny trails around.

In short, we should make it clear that associated acts should be nav boxes. Record labels that the band has released albums on should not appear in navigation templates. The exceptions to this should be few and far between, such as when you cannot think of one without the other. Otherwise, only list existing works, and their release years are always optional. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Relax, I was just trying to understand your reasoning, but in the end it seems we are on the same page anyway. And I agree listing labels in navboxes would be pointless, indeed, unless there's a connection significantly deeper than a mere contract. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 17:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I was having a bad day yesterday. Agree that labels (unless founded and maintained by the whole band) should not be listed. Associated bands are probably not best listed in the nav. Part of the rationale is that the nav template can appear on more articles that do not have the band's infobox and so associated acts don't make much sense in that context and may become a distraction. Thanks for not laying into me for yesterday's over-the-top response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, we can't be our best everyday, can we? As for the acts, I don't see them as distractions, honestly. I believe a casual reader would expect to see Alter Bridge at the Creed navbox, or at least wouldn't find it strange to see it there. Unfortunately nobody else is commenting so we can't say what the community thinks of that. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 14:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting rid of state / auto collapse

I don't know if this has been discussed before but MOS:COLLAPSE has very clear guidance for collapsing in tables. It says Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. On that basis, can we please remove the functionality for "autocollapse" as an option? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)