From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Syntax

{{Infobox Band
| band_name        =  #Required
| image            = 
| caption          = 
| years_active     = 
| origin           = 
| country          = 
| music_genre      = 
| record_label     = 
| current_members  = 
| past_members     = 
| website          = 
}}

[edit] Discussion

Contents 1 Syntax 2 Discussion 2.1 Current members section 2.2 =Design of template 2.3 Addition of caption? 2.4 Suggestions for additional info 2.5 "Status" 2.6 Country → Origin 2.7 Location? 2.8 Problem with {{s 2.9 WTF? 2.10 Needs a "past members" field 2.11 Optional parameters 2.12 Image size 2.13 Years active 2.14 TabWiki Link 2.14.1 Infobox Code 2.15 Example with band? 2.16 Management 2.17 AMG Link 2.18 Albums parameter 2.19 Why using HTML table tags? 2.20 New infobox. 2.21 Using Images in Band Name Field 2.22 Which template to use 2.23 Nowrap 2.24 Clan template 2.25 Past members? 2.26 Example 2.27 lyriki 2.28 Associated acts listed on Infobox Band page?

• This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. (here)

[edit] Current members section

For bands with a rotating line up, which names should be included in the members list? Everyone or just the core lineup? -- Madchester 07:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just the current members I'd think. It might be worth considering a "past_members" template variable though (preferably one that, if undefined, would omit that row from the table output; IIRC there are ways to do this with templates). --Locke Cole 09:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] =Design of template

This looks really ugly and stupid. No offense to creator. Its just not pleasant in an article. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 17:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

What's ugly about it? What would make it better, do you think? It's looking at TFD as if it's going to continue to exist, so how can it be improved? -GTBacchus 17:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree, I'm not fond of this template. It doesn't follow the standard infobox style, and it's also a fair amount of work to put together well (e.g., I was expecting to just put the name of the image in the "image" param, not have to actually link it myself). I suppose some doc would help a little. unaware that this template existed, I went ahead and created my own template for bands and artists for the propsed Musical Artist WikiProject. I think it more closely resembles alot of the infoboxes you see around (e.g., {{Album infobox}}) and it's well doc'd on the template page. For the purposes of the project, I'm going to continue advocating the template I created, but I'd love to incorporate more elements from this template that people have found useful. If you have thoughts on the matter, please feel free to discuss it on that template's talk page. Also, if you support the creation of this project, please let it be known on this list. bmearns, KSC_(talk) 20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of caption?

I've seen some articles, such as The Beatles and Duran Duran, in which people have placed copyrighted images in this template, perhaps because that image was tagged as "fair use" for some other usage. Without a caption, or a commitment to describing the image in the lead (where this template is being used), this is difficult to rationalize as "fair use". A simple fix for this might be to add a caption to the image by changing this template, which would allow for some discussion of the image. Jkelly 20:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Added a optional caption-parameter - David Björklund (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for additional info

Why not add a couple more bits of info... in particular, I was thinking of adding a line for City_of_origin and one for Best_known_album(s), maybe even Best_known_song(s). How do those sound to other people? -GTBacchus 17:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Best known song and best known album sound like they'd be subjective and in violation of WP:NOR. The infobox should probably stick to factual information like the line for city of origin. It might be possible to derive "most popular song" and "most popular album" from CD sales data tho (could work as a replacement for "best known song" and "best known album" in your suggestion). -Locke Cole 18:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Best-anything will generate more trouble and discussion than benefits. --Sn0wflake 18:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm just thinking of a band like The Knack. I definitely expect to find in their article that they're basically known for doing "My Sharona", and it's not POV to say so. In fact, that information is in their article - why would it be any different in the infobox? Most copies sold would be a more objective measure, I agree, and convey much the same thing. -GTBacchus 19:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that all musical groups in the world play radio-friendly pop. I disagree and think that it's going to be a real treat finding out what is Napalm Death's or Nevermore's "best known song" if we do implement that tag. The same is valid for... well... every band which is not mainstream. So yes, I think it's a bad idea. --Sn0wflake 23:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a bit unwarranted. No, I am not at all under the impression that every musical group plays radio-friendly pop, nor under one that every musical group in the world has a well-defined genre, place of origin, or membership list. (The Plastic Ono Band might serve as a counter-example to all three.) As far as finding Napalm Death's most popular song, though, it's quite easy - look for the one with the most downloads on your major file-sharing networks. It's a moot point though; I'm convinced not to add such a tag to the infobox, just not for the reasons put forward in Sn0wflake's response. I still like the general idea that an infobox would clue me in to some widely known example(s) of a band's work, but it clearly gets too messy in the implementation, heck, even at the suggestion stage. If it were like the {{taxobox}} on species articles, we could include or exclude certain tags as appropriate, so bands who have a clearly defined highest exposure album(s) or song(s) could be tagged as such, and we could just leave it out otherwise. Apparently that's not how this template works, so consider that part of the suggestion withdrawn. -GTBacchus 00:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Status"

"status" is completely pointless - it is answered in "Years Active". So i'm removing it. Deano 18:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Then how 'bout changing "Years Active" to "Time", just the word "years" or whatever? If that means restoring the "status" part. -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Renaming "Years active" "Time" or "Years" would not make "Status" any less obsolete. HarryCane 11:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

couldn't agree more. well in. Deano 11:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"status" can be used to give a reason of their existance, like "official paused, unoffical dissolved". --83.160.202.79 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The "status" field could be very useful on at least one article, actually. There's a constant debate on the Pink Floyd article whether the "Years active" should read as it currently does, "1965-present". One member has said that they see it unlikely that they will be recording or touring in the forseeable future, they have only played one gig in the past 10 years and their last album was 12 years ago. Nonetheless, they have not broken up in any official way, some members have stated they may want to tour... etc. It's a thorny problem and has nearly resulted in some revert wars. "Years - 1965-present; Status - Inactive" is exactly what the article needs, and I'm sure it's not the only band that has this problem. - dharmabum 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - Pulp are taking an indefinite hiatus as well. SaltyWater 20:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For Pulp and other people facing this issue, you might want to take a look at the custom infobox I made for Pink Floyd, which has thankfully stopped the near-daily reverts. - dharmabum 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country → Origin

I have changed the template structure from "Country of Origin" to just "Origin". This enables a more specific and relevant reference to be given... such as in Kaiser Chiefs - their country of origin is United Kingdom, which is no help to anyone. Whereas now it reads "Leeds, England". The locale of bands is vitally important, and this is the same for American bands - saying "United States" is about as useful as saying they sing in English.

Anyway, please do not edit this now without due discussion, because I have begun updating several pages already! Deano 19:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"Origin" just sounds ambiguous, is it describing a location? A musical style origin? The original name(s) of the band?

Country of origin is kind of tricky as well. Bands like Placebo have an international group of performers within its lineup, but they've found the most success if the UK. The box should follow something similar to the "Formed", "Disbanded" style found at allmusic.com --Madchester 17:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but the "Formed"->"Disbanded" period is covered under "Active Years". Musical style is clearly covered by "Genre", although I agree "Origin" is ambiguous. However, that is a good thing - it means that locations do not have to follow the ridiculous rules we come to expect where bands from LA have to say "United States" when everyone knows where Los Angeles is etc. It means that a variety of specific and useful information can be encompassed into the infobox. Bands like Ash would never say they are from the "United Kingdom" - they are from "Northern Ireland". Everyone knows where Northern Ireland is, but if the box says "Country of Origin" then you cannot officially say that. "Origin" provides a beneficial degree of ambiguity! Deano 18:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Would "Place of origin" work better, and in case the band hasn't got a real specific place of origin, we could list 2 or 3, as necessary? -GTBacchus 18:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm just wondering about this section again, cuz for a band like Metric, they're undoubtedly Canadian and based in Toronto. But, they were originally formed in Brooklyn, NYC. --Madchester 07:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It refers to the country in which the band was originally assembled. Angra is more popular in many European countries than in their country of origin Brazil, but they are still mentioned in every serious publication as a Brazilian band, so that's it. --Sn0wflake 20:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please sort this bit of the template out: it currently says "Country:" and then most entries are followed by sthg like "London, England". Call me old-fashioned, but London is not a country. It looks stupid having a heading called "country" which is habitually followed by names of towns and cities.--feline1 17:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case then just change the field to "origin" rather than "country", and that should clear it up. Deano (Talk) 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no "just" about it: there's HUNDREDS of these damn templates in use. Moreover, as numerous posters on this page have explained, "origin" on its own sounds daft. Moreover if some say "country" and some say "origin", it's not much of a template, is it?--feline1 20:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost all the fields in the template are optional. The original format was country, but this was altered to origin. Now, you can have both. For a band that traces its roots from, say, Ireland, but are based and located in the USA, then you need both - origin=Ireland, country=USA. The vast majority of templates only require origin though... and I have no idea which plonkers have put "London, England" in the field "country". I have altered every template I have seen to read origin, unless the only available information is country. Perhaps you should do the same? Deano (Talk) 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Elena Paparizou article keeps getting reverted to put Greece as the "Origin". She was born and brought up in Sweden, so it seems crystal clear that Gothenburg, Sweden should be the "Origin", and Greece the "Country". What do others think? --Mais oui! 09:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location?

Could we change "Country" in the infobox to "Location"? A lot of templates put the city and (in the USA) state where they are located. This makes them look foolish. For an example, see DJ Spooky. Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with {{s

Guys, when modifying a template you FIRST add the new variable to ALL pages and THEN change the template. This is to avoid a lot of pages having those ugly-looking {{origin}} tags all over the place.

Somebody please comment it out until all pages using this template are finished or I will do it myself tomorrow. We are running the risk of not finishing all bands and then the pages look extremely ugly.
Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine as that may be, if you just leave them alone then some bright spark will do it themselves. That's the whole point in Wikipedia! There are some 200 pages that use this template - there is absolutely no point doing what you said above. It is a waste time and is all the more pointless given that someone who is concerned with the relevant page can do it in one minute. It is like rv-ing vandalism - it looks ugly until someone fixes it and then it is good as new. And the time that takes is... the next person who sees it!

Take it easy mate. It's not your fault the template was flawed to begin, but your theory on how to change it is ridiculous. Cheer up! Deano 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You didn't have to change the variable name... you could have changed just the visible name and then nobody would have had to go through and changed all the templates (which so far just seems to be you making the changes). You might reconsider what you've done depending on how far through the "What links here" list you've gotten and just change the variable name back, undoing all your edits on pages that use the template. -Locke Cole 23:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that this template wasn't discussed beforehand and was simply implemented en-masse, there is no point in going around and changing every single article at this point. When we reach a standard which all find good enough, then we get around doing that. This could have been avoided, of course. --Sn0wflake 23:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I resent the implication of "ridiculous", I've been around for a while and made a "few" edits... Things are NOT done like that around here. You reach a consensus first, then you do it in the least disruptive way. Unless you're prepared to change 300 pages in 1-2 hours, you change them first and then enable your change. This is an encyclopedia and people may be extremely confused by something that reads "{{status}}". Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe I removed the "status" section, so there was not one single page that would have read "{{status}}"... Deano 20:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Then it's all good, once all bands are updated, then we can readd. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 02:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being stupid here, but what exactly is "Status" supposed to say anyway? HarryCane 18:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether the band is Active, On hold or Dissolved. --Sn0wflake 19:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

Who in god's name is the asswipe that keeps altering this template? Leave it the fuck alone! Cjmarsicano 18:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the changes to the template made by Deano. There are around 300 articles that reference this template, and to my knowledge Deano only updated about 50 of those articles (leaving the other 250+ still using the old variable names). As his changes were without warning and incomplete, I decided to correct the issue.

Now perhaps the matter can be discussed before anyone else makes any changes to the template. You might also be interested in reading over WP:CIV and WP:NPA. -Locke Cole 19:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Did it not occur to you that someone had added the "country" section just before I changed it to "origin"? How about you go have a look around your 300 pages and see how many have filled in "country"? Not many, because all the pages I had done it for were done for the first time. And no others have anything. I was improving a brand new addition to the template before it came into mainstream usage. Then, after several of the pages had been edited, you decided to act unilaterally and it was a complete waste of time. If you had bothered to look at the history or just asked then you would have realised this. Seriously, go have a look. It was a stupid to change it back after I had done it - it made absolutely no difference. Deano 19:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it didn't occur to me that it was recently added. I'd thought the variable had been there all this time and you'd made a breaking change for all 300+ articles that used this template. Still, your attitude in general sucks. Can we please discuss changes like this before just making them and hoping for the best (this goes for everyone, including the person who initially added the {{country}} variable to begin with)... ? -Locke Cole 20:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well to be honest I don't really care about my supposed "attitude". But anyway, at least you changed the name of that box. I maintain actually naming the section "origin" would be better, and I maintain that you shouldn't have corrected all my edits. But now that you've done it, I can't be bothered. Deano 20:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL did you change "Origin" for? Did it not occur to you that some idiot had only just added "Country" in the first place??? NO ONE HAD FILLED IT IN. By the time you changed it about 50% had been. IDIOT. Deano 18:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

AND you can't just go around all the pages changing "origin" to "country". "Country of Origin": "Los Angeles, California" does not make sense. Idiot. Deano 18:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Deano please read WP:CIV and WP:NPA. -Locke Cole 19:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Is "Place of origin" an acceptable compromise for the various putative idiots and non-idiots involved? Then it makes sense whether it's filled in with Finland or with Los Angeles. "Origin" alone sounds a little odd, IMO. -GTBacchus 18:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah definitely I totally agree with that. But just point blank changing something that was an improvement without even discussing it is just stupid. MTP. Deano 19:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You need to re-think your attitudes and cool down. You will receive a short block. When you return, I hope you will act in a more civil manner. --Sn0wflake 21:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

-Person A makes a beneficial edit and posts the reasons why on the discussion page.

-Without discussion or consulting the history, Person B decides that it is smart and intelligent to revert 3 hours of work for absolutely no reason.

-THEN, Person B decides to read the discussion. And, surprise, surprise, decides to change his edits anyway. Because he discovers that his edits were completely pointless.

-Person A is not happy with Person B because he did something that was clear, well-reasoned and defintely not wrong, and Person B's actions made it a waste of time. In the time Person A spent improving pages linked to the template, he could have created other pages for Wikipedia like Portal:London, or continued improvements in one of 5 WikiProjects.

-Just like in all fair systems, Person A gets punished although he was right. Who wins? Nobody.

Good system.

Deano 10:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I take it then that you didn't read WP:CIV? I explained my misunderstanding, you'd think that'd be enough, but here you are fresh from being blocked and you're still complaining. And besides, you still missed the part where you made the unilateral change without any consensus or discussion, regardless of whether or not you explained yourself.

BTW: Please do not misrepresent what I did or how I came to do it. -Locke Cole 12:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I did read WP:CIV - perhaps you can explain exactly which part of what I just posted infringes it? Or are you just quoting random pages? As for my "unilateral change" - it is a completely different situation. Someone added a box which was wrongly labelled, so I changed it. That does not need consensus. But going through 50 pages of edits without discussion is ridiculous. The sad part is that you still refuse to accept that you mucked up and I didn't. And nothing I have said here contravenes anything in WP:CIV either, so don't even think about quoting that. In fact, while I'm on the subject, I have done absolutely nothing that contravenes WP:BLOCK, so why was I banned? As I said, good system Deano 12:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC).

You can't have read WP:CIV and not understood why you were blocked. Just look at your posts in this talk page. Just because I misunderstood something doesn't warrant *your* behavior. -Locke Cole 13:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"The sad part is that you still refuse to accept that you mucked up and I didn't". That's all it comes down to. Misunderstandings are human, but going out of the way to amplify one is stupidity. Hence my uses of the word. Have a look in Wiktionary for a definition. It is not being uncivil, it is being factual. Deano 14:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, engaging in a blame game does not equate with being civil. Maybe to you, but not to me, and I doubt to anyone else. You'll notice I haven't gone out of my way to try and blame you, especially after I explained the misunderstanding. All I've said is that you shouldn't be making unilateral edits without discussing it. As far as why you were blocked: again, read this talk page (and specifically this section). I can't speak for the admin that blocked you, but that's why I would have blocked you. Finally, I don't see how this back and forth does anything for the template we're supposed to be discussing, so I'll stop here. I do hope you'll do the same. -Locke Cole 15:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that it's clear that both parties might have commited a mistake which was worsened by a lack of communication, let's get back on track with discussions regarding the template. You both have absolutely no obligation of getting along well, but please respect eachothers opinion as much as possible. Let's forget this incident and go on. --Sn0wflake 15:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a "past members" field

...because, otherwise, articles like The Temptations and The Miracles are going to look strange. A caption field is neccessary as well. --FuriousFreddy 06:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I second it. It'll probably take up a good portion of the page on Morning Musume and Black Flag but so what? LOL. -- Cjmarsicano 17:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. That kind of information (about past members) is better placed in the article itself, rather than in the infobox, which should only give an overview of the current or final line-up. It also will, as Cjmarsicano said, look strange when every temporary member of a band is listed, even if the person was in the band just for a short time period. And if you start selecting which of the past members are important enough to be listed, it will only result in endless edit wars... HarryCane 19:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with HarryCane, it is not a field we need. --Sn0wflake 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is very much a field we need. If and when The Miracles gets an infobox, Smokey Robinson won't be listed. A current or final lineup of The Supremes would disclude Diana Ross, Florence Ballard, and Cindy Birdsong. That makes no common sense at all. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, meaning it primarily deals with items and events in the past, and it should be equipped to properly present that information. There are a lot of groups who still record and/or perform without their most popular members (Bobby Brown is no longer a member of New Edition, only one 1960s-era Temptation remains in the group, Michael McCary is no longer in Boyz II Men, Scott Storch is no longer in The Roots, Left Eye is no longer in TLC, etc. etc.) Let's just add a "past members" or "notable past members" section, and use reasoning as to who to add and who not to add. If somebody was in a group for two months, there's no need to place them in the infobox. However, as it stands now, the infobox is highly innefficient in providing the decent and quick overview of a musical act it was supposedly made for. A caption field is also neccessary, so that the infobox image can be used to identify the members pictured in it. --FuriousFreddy 01:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: If this doesn't go through (and I wholeheardedly agree with FuriousFreddy here), what about some standard syntax in the infobox as it presently stands denoting past or notable past members of still-active bands? -- Cjmarsicano 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

We could always use <del></del>, for example– John Doe, Jane Doe. Or we could put the years they were with the band in parens; anyone with an "end date" would presumably no longer be in the band. For example– John Doe (1980–1982), Jane Doe (1983–). But an extra field seems more ideal. —Locke Cole 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The date annotation could definitely work. --FuriousFreddy 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Cole and Freddy, check the infobox I did for the MiniMoni entry awhile back, I coincidentally did the same thing with the parenthetical years when I did it. BTW, using the <del></del> would look sloppy - and also be in bad taste if the member in question - like with Lisa Lopes in TLC or D. Boon in The Minutemen - were deceased. -- Cjmarsicano 04:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and I somewhat agree with the strikeout effect probably not being appropriate for the deceased. =) The only change I'd make to MiniMoni would be placing years for the other members as described in my proposal to make them consistant. This is assuming we don't get a "past members" section of course. —Locke Cole 05:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That might have to be done case-by-case. Wouldn't the fact that in this particular case (MiniMoni), three of the members were in the band from beginning to end, thus making such a designation irrelevant due to the "Years active" field? Just asking. ;) --Cjmarsicano 20:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll third this, with the condition that it be an optional field, and if not specified the row displaying the information shouldn't be shown at all. This way, pages that don't specify a value won't look ugly and can be updated as necessary. —Locke Cole 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

An optional field sounds ideal. Jkelly 02:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call. -- Cjmarsicano 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not ideal. There is no practical reason why a "past members" field should be provided. To look into the past history of the band or group, the reader can simply read the article. The infobox is supposed to provide a very brief summary of the band's status, and as such, there is no reason for it to list past members, regardless of how notable they are. It might look like a great homage or something along those lines, but nevertheless, that's not the purpose of the Wikipedia. --Sn0wflake 15:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sn0wflake, read FuriousFreddy's explanation above. He makes a very strong argument for. Your arguments against are, shall we say, weak? -- Cjmarsicano 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That argument is, shall we say, POV? Any solution in which a generic decision with no clear set of rules needs to be made is, by default, not acceptable on the Wikipedia. There is no way of determining how relevant a musician is to a band or group, regardless of how much time he or she spent on it. This proposition is quite clearly a way of starting needless edit wars. --Sn0wflake 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No, sir, your argument is the one that is POV. It's also teetering towards BS, and the only needless edit war at the moment seems to be the one you're trying to start. Whatever little problems might occur with this suggested modification to the band infobox can be easily monitored and corrected by admins and other dedicated Wikiusers, just like everything else here. -- Cjmarsicano 18:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Start discussing this issue rationally. Whatever empty accusation you make regarding me will be worth absolutely nothing. I am one of the admins who you are implying will monitor such articles. You might be unfamiliar with the concept, but admins do not say "it will be this way" and people accept it. Admins can moderate discussions, but not make judgements. Put your personal preferences aside and stop to think for one second how ridiculous it is to determine how much importance a musician had or not on the band to be included on some infobox list. There is no fair way of judging that, and including a complete list of past members is irrelevant, and will make the infobox way too big on many cases. --Sn0wflake 20:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am confused by Sn0wflake's position. As I understand it, Sn0wflake is arguing that the band infobox for The Doors should include Ray Manzarek, Robby Krieger, Ian Astbury and Ty Dennis. Perhaps the examples User:FuriousFreddy (and now I) are using are not modern enough, but many bands' final membership would mislead someone giving only a casual glance at the article. Jkelly 03:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds clear enough to me. The ball is in your court, Mr. Sn0wflake. You might as well forfeit the game, LOL -- Cjmarsicano 04:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is quite sad to discuss with you. You feel as if you've "won" something, which simply proves that you have no idea what the Wikipedia is about. --Sn0wflake 16:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the consensus seems to be to add this field with it being optional. If no past members are specified, then the field shouldn't appear. —Locke Cole 05:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. - David Björklund (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Optional parameters

I made the members-related parameters optional. The past members-parameter have been discussed here earlier, and the current members-parameter seem like a reasonable thing to make optional, the template now works for single artist also, see Bob Dylan for an example.- David Björklund (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Very nice! Righteous job. If I were an admin, I'd give you a star. :) -- Cjmarsicano 16:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You can do it without being an admin too. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would, but I don't want to overstep my boundaries. :) (Oh, to be an admin...) -- Cjmarsicano 19:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just glad to help... Oh, a star. That would be a dream come true :) - David Björklund (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

I think it might be useful to standardize image size for this template. From looking at pages that use this, it just seems to be completely random, with some images being resized larger than others, and it changes the size of the entire template. What needs to be done is an automatic preset size as is the case with Template:Album_infobox. --Comics 03:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Will be a lot of hard work changing all of the pages which use the template but it really needs to be done I think. SaltyWater 18:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and change this later, as long as there's no major objections. It will be a lot of work but beneficial in the long run. SaltyWater 20:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be kept the way it is for now, because unlike album covers, pictures of bands/artists don't all have the same format. A picture of a band with each member next to each other might have to be 250px wide for the viewer to make out the individuals, while an upright photo of a single artist might seem to large at that width. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Years active

Why do some bands, such as The Police have two sets of years for years active? What does the second set signify? —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TabWiki Link

Could we add a link to the artists' tabwiki pages to this template? Tabwiki has started adding artist header templates (same idea as the infobox band templates) to our pages and a link from Wikipedia would help tabwiki out alot and give your guitar/bass/drumming members a link to our resources. We don't have pages for all the artists you have, so perhaps the template could be created like the following example so that only pages that have tabwiki=true would have a link:

[edit] Infobox Code

|- class{{{tab_wiki|}}}="hiddenStructure"
! Tableture Available:
| [http://www.tabwiki.com/{{{band_name}}} Yes]

I have brought this up before in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TabWiki_Links, however i thought this would be a more appropriate location to bring the discussion to. --137.122.27.46 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (TabWiki Admin)

---

K, a little update, the conversation has continuted at its origonal location (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TabWiki_Links) and there were some concerns raised about the legality of tabwiki however no one (on either side) really knows for sure its legality currently and as such i'm going ahead with the edit (be bold) in a few more hours. I know you could say i'm being quiet the opposite of being bold with editing, but i just really don't want to start a revert problem/war/whatever --Diploid 04:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (tabwiki admin)

Sorry but why does this belong in an infobox? I'd say they probably wouldn't even belong in external links. What are people's thoughts on this? SaltyWater 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing. It smells a lot like spam. And I don't suppose tabwiki are particularly scrupulous about respecting copyrights, so we probably shouldn't be linking to it at all. Is the parameter in use in many places? I'm going to remove it from the template, anyway. Flowerparty■ 14:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also not the kind of "primary detail" which belongs in an infobox. --kingboyk 20:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example with band?

Wouldn't it be helpful to also have an example with a band here on top, not just with a single artist? Afterall, it is called band infobox. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any example. Flowerparty? 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Management

For use if the band have a famous, bluelink manager (a band I'm about to write up - Brilliant (band) - are less well known than their manager Bill Drummond). --kingboyk 15:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. But would we also want Brian Epstein to get a link in the Beatles' infobox? It's probably unusual for a group to be best known for their manager, but it might be worth having as an optional parameter. Flowerparty? 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMG Link

A slot in the infobox for a link to AMG might be handy. --kingboyk 15:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmnygh. Dunno. I know imdb gets a link from the film infobox, but I don't really like the idea of giving prominent page space to link to what is essentially a commercial content provider. And since there's already a slot for the official website, it's going to look like the external links section has just been plonked in the box instead of where it normally goes. A link at the bottom of the page should be enough. Flowerparty? 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albums parameter

Maybe an "albums" parameter can help someone trying to fing the X th album of a band, do you think it is a good idea to add something like " {{#if:{{{albums|}}}|<tr><th>albums</th><td>{{{albums|}}}</td></tr>}} ?
If there is any sintax error, it is because I really have no idea about html or whatever code is that, only cpoied + pasted changing the name for albums. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 18:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that should just go in the article. Pretty much every band article already has a discography section. We don't need to cram everything into the infobox. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why using HTML table tags?

Last time I was here, the tempalte was using the much dreaded hiddenStructures. I'm glad to see it's been replaced with ParserFunctions (#if), but why is it now using <tr>, <td>, etc., instead of Wiki table syntax? B.Mearns^*, KSC 13:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just read WP:QIF#Correct usage. B.Mearns^*, KSC 13:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New infobox.

I have created a proposal for a new music artist infobox, Template:Infobox musical artist 2, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. Let me know what you think of it. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 23:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using Images in Band Name Field

What is the consensus on using images for the Band name field. Like is done for the Arctic Monkeys article. sharpdust 00:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there is any consensus - has it ever come up before? I'm against the use of the image, though. Unless there is any particular reason to use an image instead of text (Led Zeppelin IV is the only possible exception I can think of), it just looks.. tacky. Flowerparty☀ 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a few of these. Oasis has a fairly established logo, for instance. However, now people are doing it for groups like The Flaming Lips too, where there is no "standard" logo as far as I know. –Unint 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the use of images instead of text should be highly discouraged in this case, as WP:FU states that "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible" and that such images "must contribute significantly to the article (...) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." This use of logos clearly fails those criteria. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 08:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the use of the band's logo definitely contributes to the article, and it makes a lot more sense to use it in the infobox rather than using it as its own image somewhere else in the article. Band logos such as those of Oasis and Arctic Monkeys are intrinsically linked with the band and would be expected in an article such as these. IMHO, of course! DJR (Talk) 20:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which template to use

Currently there's two infoboxes that are used for bands: Template:Infobox Band and Template:Infobox musical artist 2. While the first one in band-specific, the second is a general infobox for all musicians and groups, that nevertheless contains the same fields. Could we agree on one standard infobox to use? CG 08:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's quite a bit of overlap between the two. There's elements of both that are good; "band box" just lists members as "members" rather than "current members", which makes more sense for retired bands, and "musical artist 2" has the associated acts section, which is quite informational. Tarc 03:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Having "Current members" doesn't make sense - the identifier "current" is completely unnecessary. Several people (myself included) have actually swapped the templates for defunct bands back to "Infobox band" because of the confusion generated by the "Current" part. (I tried explaining the problem on Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist_2, but FuriousFreddy didn't seem to want to enter the dialogue.)

This is the deal-breaker on 2 for me. I'm not going to use it if it means having every past and present member of the band listed equally under "former members". -- ChrisB 19:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding to you at the talk page for 2; I encourage others to also take the discussion there. –Unint 00:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed want to "enter the dialogue", but there is life outside of Wikipedia to attend to at times. I explained my rationale for why "Current members" and "Past members" are the way they are, and should not be changed (or any extra band-listing section added) at the talk page for Template:Infobox musical artist 2. For those curious, retired/broken up bands have all "past members" and no "current members". What is so confusing about that? --FuriousFreddy 07:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist 2 was specifically designed to make Template:Infobox Band obsolete. --FuriousFreddy 07:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nowrap

Genre(s) and Label(s) needs a nowrap of some sort because otherwise it creates a break before the (s). Alternatively, this should just be set to Genres and Labels. ~ trialsanderrors 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clan template

For the Counter-Strike wiki, I'm trying to make a clan template based on this band template. I really don't know what I'm doing, so if anyone could stop by and fix any mistakes I made and make the template work that would be awesome. Here is my attempt at it. CoastTOcoast533 18:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Past members?

Maybe this is just the article I used it on, but when I used the past members field, the title "Past Members" is broken to two lines, which is somewhat distracting. (ie: either Past Members is too long, or the TH column is too narrow. I'm not sure how widths are determined, but if anyone has thoughts on this? (edit: same with years active) TheHYPO 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example

Band Name
Origin	Origin
Country	Country
Years active	Year - Year
Genres	Genre
Labels	Label
Members	Members
Past members	Past Members
Website(s)	Website.com

[edit] lyriki

I added a field for a link to the band's page on Lyriki if it exists. I'm not very expirienced with templating so someone probably should check my work to makes certian is good. It works though. Olleicua 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. If the website ("the Lyrics Wiki") is not notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, it most certainly does not belong to a band infobox. Alexa Traffic Rank is 539,080. Prolog 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I know this discussion is inactive, but there is also the issue of contributory copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. This link should not be added, nor should any links to lyrics published without permission of the copyright holder. Mike Dillon 18:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associated acts listed on Infobox Band page?

Associated_acts is incorrectly (I think) listed on the Infobox Band template page.

This is not a valid field, only for the Infobox_musical_artist_2 template.

Maybe someone could remove it from the Infobox_Band template page?

As can be seen on the top of this template's page, this template should be replaced with {{Infobox musical artist}}. So any instances of {{Infobox Band}} should be replaced. Even though the "Associated_acts" parameter is not used by Infobox Band, its inclusion would allow for a more seamless change to the Infobox musical artist. But if you need it changed, be bold and make the edit. – Heaven's Wrath ^Talk 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)