Template talk:Infobox Musical artist/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Age parameter

Using parameters

  • Born = [[February 21]], [[1986]]
  • Age = {{age|1986|2|21}}

is cumbersome, parameters 1986, 2, and 21 could be supplied once and used for both, compare Template:bha (backlinks, edit).--Patrick 12:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "age" parameter, because it is hardly neccessary. If you can't do the simple arithmetic to calculate someone's age based upon a given birth date, then you may have a problem. --FuriousFreddy 03:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Template:Infobox musical artist 2

For a group act that is no longer active, all members are to be listed in the "past members" field, reguardless of who was in the group when the group broke up. If it is desired to show the various lineups of the group, do such in a section of the article body, or create a subarticle such as Temptations chronology. Thank you. --FuriousFreddy 14:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me respond to this here.
This method is completely counter-intuitive. And, if you don't believe me, look at how the template is being used. People aren't utilizing it in the way you've expected because people instinctively think of the last lineup as being "the band". (Examples: Nirvana (band), Letters to Cleo, Minutemen (band), Soundgarden.) Most band pages already have sections called "Former members" or "Past members" in their articles, which include people who were in the band and left while it was still active. So using the same descriptor to describe the last lineup of the band is confusing.
The other problem is that many bands don't officially break up. They simply deactivate. (Pink Floyd, for example.) So do we leave them as "current" or switch them to "former"?
There is no reason that the template has to say "Current members". "Members" says exactly the same thing and implies "current" since there's a "former" element already included. Furthermore, the existing musical artist templates use "members" in the same manner.
If you want to be to the one responsible for fixing all of the broken ones, so be it. But I think this is a very short-sighted and confusing way to organize the template. -- ChrisB 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I can think of one contrary example: Genesis (band). Here people have simply listed "current" members under "Members" (that is, the last two people who haven't left the band, not a full lineup) and all members who have left under "Past members", because there simply isn't a "definitive" lineup, and the last lineup happens to be the least popular.
On the one hand, I do think "Current members" is unnecessarily prohibitive. On the other hand, the field name in the old Infobox Band is current_members, is it not?
On the one hand, I do think the infobox should try to show a reasonably iconic lineup; on the other hand, that opens up the gates to all kinds of POV issues again for bands that may have multiple "iconic" lineups.
I don't know which way to go about this yet, but there's something to think about. –Unint 00:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

  1. The template is organized into "current" and "former members" for the specific reasons of preventing POV battles over which lineup of a certain group was the "most important" or "definative" lineup. There's no arging (in most cases, I think) over who is or isn't in a band anymore. The members section is not a place to list your (or anyone else's) favorite lineup of the group. Furthermore, "last lineup" doesn't work either, because with many groups, it's the first, second, or nineteenth lineup that is the "definitive" or "iconic" one. Then, you have the problem of groups with two or more lineups of equal or near-equal importance (Destiny's Child, The Temptations, The Isley Brothers, The Spinners, etc....I could go on for days). This method allows facts to be the determining factor, and eliminates people arguing over who to put in the infobox where. Mention the "iconic lineup(s)" in the lead section of the article; that way, it can be worded as is required for a particular article.
  2. If a group is no longer making music, they are considered "inactive", "broken up", "on extended hiatus", etc. Whatever you want to call it, they have no more "current members" if they aren't currently performing or recording.

--FuriousFreddy 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with this opinion, and will happily remove this template from any article I edit where this issue comes up. The POV nature of which lineup is "most significant" (when you added that text yourself to one of the articles I work on) should be left to the editors of that article, not to the creator of the template. The blistering stupidity of giving equal status to all of the members of a band, including those who only pariticipated for a very brief period of time, is mind-numbing. This is not a fair or reasonable solution. You may not believe this to be that big a deal, but I do. There is no legitimate reason that the new template shouldn't match the original template, beyond your own (in my view, errant) opinion.

Considering that more than one person has already made it clear that they disagree with your view, I believe you should at least consider an alternate solution. -- ChrisB 03:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So what you want is to start a childish edit war over your singular personal preference? You're not going to get your way by calling names. Here is my favorite quote: "The blistering stupidity of giving equal status to all of the members of a band, including those who only pariticipated for a very brief period of time, is mind-numbing.". Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?
I did indeed consider your opinion, but do you understand the cans of worms and disputes just that simple change would create? The main goals in designing these infoboxes are consistency and flexibility, not just one or the other. The box has to work the same for all articles that require its use. This is the reason why we removed the "notable songs" and "notable albums" fields early on -- POV problems over which three albums/singles to add.--FuriousFreddy 08:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
For starters, I take exception at how you've handled this from the beginning. I tried to make a simple change, you reverted it. I conceded and entered discussion. Then you disappeared for nearly a month until you decided it was time to make this template "the" template for musical artists. That's not the way templates should be designed.
And I don't think removing this template in favor of one that I feel works appropriately isn't a childish edit war. I have no problem with this template being used for current bands. But I do not believe that it's fair to defunct bands and the editors of their articles.
But I'll leave that alone to address the major problems of your viewpoint:
  1. Equal billing to all of the artists who have at one point been a member of the band doesn't make sense in any way. When people say "The Beatles", they think of John, Paul, George, and Ringo. This template gives equal billing as "former members" to Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe, whose contributions to the band were extremely minor in the band's history. That's factually deceptive, and, furthermore, there's no reason that it has to be that way.
  2. Having a "current members" and a "former members" guarantees that the template will be misused. As I pointed out already, having two separate exclusive terms is confusing, and forces people to do exactly what they've done: place the last lineup of the band as "current members" and the former members under "former members". This has happened numerous times already, and will continue to happen. It's unclear in the template how it should be used, and the error has caused disputes on several articles already - the most common result being people editing the variable "current_members" into "members" and breaking the template in the article. People do consider defunct bands in particular lineups. When people think of Soundgarden, they think of Cornell, Thayil, Cameron, and Shepherd. If those four guys happen to end up in a room together, they're Soundgarden, even if the band is officially defunct.
  3. You're talking about "consistency" and "flexibility", yet this move removes flexibility and damages "consistency" given what I mentioned above. There is no consistency, as people won't use the template properly to provide it. You're taking the power away from editors to be able to have their own discussion to solve how to work the template to fit their article. What works for Nirvana might not work for Genesis, Destiny's Child, or A Tribe Called Quest. Making a unilateral decision on all of those editors' behalf isn't fair to them.
  4. Furthermore, we end up with the POV issue as to when to push a band's "current" members into former members. In the modern era, publicists, labels, and managers have done everything imaginable to avoid confirming that a band is defunct. Blink 182 has disbanded, yet their team keeps contradicting that and saying that the band will eventually get back together. So who's right? Are they current or former? And what do the editors of that article do? Delonge, Hoppus, and Barker are members; their status as "current" or "former" is irrelevant.
That's what needs to be addressed, and I don't think it has been. -- ChrisB 17:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, maybe the best option here is to make a list of some articles with varying needs, and outline what their needs, specifically, are. (Right now, I can't keep most of these straight.) Also, possibly get feedback from different articles' communities of editors to see what they want, individually.
I'm making a table here. Fill in articles and additional situations as needed.
Active groups Inactive groups On hiatus groups Ambiguous groups
Current/most recent lineup is best-known 112, Beastie Boys, A Tribe Called Quest, Wu Tang Clan, The Fugees The Beatles, Honey Cone Jodeci
One past lineup is best-known Boyz II Men, SOS Band, Dru Hill, TLC, Four Tops, The Contours, The Delfonics, 3LW Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes, The Miracles, Sly & the Family Stone, Nirvana, Lucy Pearl, Gladys Knight & the Pips
Multiple past lineups are similarly well-known Destiny's Child (who are "in the process" of calling it quits), The Temptations, The Spinners, BLACKstreet, New Edition, The Funk Brothers, The Isley Brothers, The Chi-Lites, Kool & the Gang Martha & the Vandellas, The Marvelettes, The Supremes
No lineup is best-known Menudo Labelle
–Unint 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've placed several groups I know of in each box as they should go. --FuriousFreddy 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Chris, you made a unneccssary change to the infobox without even attempting to suggest or propose such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Why did you automatically think your change wouldn't be questioned? I at no time called you "stupid", though you saw fit to do the same to me. Now, in response to your points:
  1. Yes, when "people think of the Beatles", they think of those four, but the other two were indeed members, were they not? THe whole purpose of the infobox is to present quick, simple facts on a group without having to go into detail; there's not really an acceptable way to identify in a list who in a group was important without (a) having to mention why or (b) creating problems on other articles. Even adding a "significant members" field would be problematic, because you'll have people arguing over "who's significant" and "who's not", with everyone trying to argue in favor of their favorites. All of it opportunities to start POV edit wars over one or two names in a little box. What makes the two minor Beatles "past members" of the group that doesn't make the "Fab Four" past members?
  2. If people can't understand "current" versus "former" in reguards to a group that is itself "formerly" a group, then I don't know what to say. It's hardly confusing. When I did The Supremes, I did not place Mary Wilson, Susaye Greene, and Sherrie Payne (that group's last lineup) in a "current members" section: the group doesn't exist anymore, so all of their members are now "former members" of that group. If the people who were in the group are no longer performing with/in the group, then how are they current members of the group? My only suggestion to this problem of people being confused that is to kill both fields and make one large "Members" list, a suggestion I don't see as being reasonable. The template page specifically states how these fields should be used; if people need examples, more examples can be added to the main page. I really don't see the confusion, at all. If the four people from Soundgarden wind up in a room together, and the group is no longer active, they're Soundgarden having some sort of a reunion or "the former members of Soundgarden"; they're not "Soundgarden' because that entity no longer exists. If a divorced or annulled couple are present in the same room, they are not still "a couple". So, if a group's members aren't actually perfoming together, then how are they still actually members of the group? If Kid saw Play on 19th street, and talked to him for three minutes, does that make them current members of Kid 'n Play? Encyclopedias shouldn't be, in the slightest bit, concerned with what some people consider or suppose when attempting to state fact. Who are these "some people"? And why are they allowed to establish a biased hierarchy of people? The purpose of the two lists in the infobox are to list people, not to go "these are my favorites" or "these are me & some other peoples' favorites", or even "these are the worlds' favorites and the most famous ones". The question is "who were the members of this group", and the answer that goes in the field are the names of those people, with no other order or annotation other than chronolgical order (because you can argue whether Dennis Edwards is more important than David Ruffin, but you can't argue who was a member of The Temptations at what time).
  3. "Flexibility" means "able to adapt to a variety of different situations and uses". A "varity of", not "all". There has to be compromise somewhere, for reasons already stated. Why wouldn't what works best for Nirvana work for the other groups? What's so difficult about "all of the people in the group right now go in here", and "all the people who aren't in the group go in here"? "And if the group is permanently inactive, then how could someone possibly still be in the group?" As far as other editors, that's what asking for an RfC is all about: the opinions of other editors.
  4. You really just have to use available resources to determine whether a group is active or not. When it is known for certain that a band no longer exits, and will not be rebanding anytime in the foreseeable future, and they have completed all touring, promotion, etc. for their final project, then you make the change. If it's uncertain, leave it alone. If you don't know whether or not Blink 182 is still making records, leave their infobox alone.
I just don't get it. I've never run across this problem at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, and comic book superhero team break ups are a lot less definite than music group ones. Also, perhaps adding a "Status" field (like the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics' Template:Superherobox) would be beneficial. --FuriousFreddy 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I Agree on the "Status" thing, could help alot. Also, in extreme cases where there are two completely different "classic lineups", maybe something like infobox album does with alternate covers and double chronolgies could be in order. I.e. "Members 19##-19##", "Members 19##-200#" and "Current Members". Could be problematic as far as length/complexity though.--Oldsage36 01:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course! When in doubt, look to the comics...
Avengers (comics): the current "New Avengers" lineup has been in existence for less than two years, and hardly the best-known by a long shot, but that's what's in the box.
Justice League: there is no current lineup as the book is currently canceled — for just a few months, mind you — and, again, that's what the box says. In fact, there's nobody in there right now (even though teaser images have come out already).
I assume those articles are getting along fine. –Unint 02:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I said that I never ran across the problem, meaning that when I looked at an article on a comic book team, if there were no current members, no one was listed in the box. No one knows for sure who's going to be in the Justice League, so why specuilate off of teaser images. --FuriousFreddy 07:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait, what? I was advocating that approach. Presenting the actual situation and whatnot. –Unint 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
OTOH, see Alpha Flight, a currently inactive group that still lists the last known members. Personally, I don't see the problem with just having Current Members (or better as is, just Members) list the last existing chronological roster of the group. Sure it's not technically "correct", but I think anyone reading it, seeing the group is inactive, will intuit that that was the final incarnation. I'm of the opinion that lumping all the members of a dead group under Past Members simply doesn't read well, and has the potential to get very unwieldy. --SevereTireDamage 02:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Because it doesn't apply to all groups, and the methodology should apply to all groups. As mentioned before, what sort of common sense would it make to pull up a Supremes article that lists Mary Wilson, Susaye Greene, and Sherrie Payne as "members" and lumps Diana Ross and whoever else as "former members". And what to do with Sly & the Family Stone? The last incarnation of every group is not always "the most important one", so trying to discenr "importance" should be dropped altogether for factuality. Readers should have to "intuit" anything; this is an encyclopedia! People are supposed to be given undeniable fact, not be goaded into supposition by poor use of an infobox template with clearly deliniated standards for use agreed upo nby the WikiProject it falls upunder. --FuriousFreddy 07:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
In terms of underlying code, the two templates do match each other: both have current_members and past_members. Only usage varies, because Infobox Band displays "members" in actual usage; however, with no usage guidelines provided at the template in the first place, what do you think people will do when they see a field called current_members? (My point was that Genesis (band) follows FuriousFreddy's method, despite still using Infobox Band.)
I am nervous regarding the idea of a policy, in a place as contested as Wikipedia, leaving details open to judgment. Surely policy should attempt to eliminate potential disputes?
(An RfC already? Just goes to illustrate that point further.) –Unint 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Policy (or, at the very least, consensus) should hopefully prevent arguments and disagreements (and language) like that above. You'd think most people would, when they see a "current_members", put, well, current members, and that a defunct/inactive group wouldn't have any current members. --FuriousFreddy 16:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Except that hasn't proved to be the case. I provided four examples above where people placed the main lineup as "current" and former members as "former" (though you'll have to poke through histories to see them). -- ChrisB 17:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
But, again, not all groups have one "main lineup", if they have a main lineup at all. --FuriousFreddy 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If "current members" is changed to "members", I think it would work in everybody's favor as the editors of each article can decide how to display the members without the unnecessary word "current" creating confusion. It would work in every situation. Members of defunct bands with NPOV iconic lineups (The Beatles) could be separated from minor members. Members of defunct bands where there may not be one obvious iconic lineup can all be placed into "Past members". For active groups, "members" would mean the same thing as "current members", so that would cause no problems either. This would allow editors of each page to come to a consensus on how to display the members (if there are issues) depending on the specific case rather than coming to an overall consensus for EVERY group with an article at Wikipedia. --Musicpvm 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess that standardization, clarity of presentation, and the prevention of POV battles isn't quite as important as trying to please the rockist mindset. Have it your way. --FuriousFreddy 07:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
After some consideration, I will now address how to let each individual article's editors all get what they want.
Use a band navigational box.
We currently have 244 such templates and rising, so clearly they're here to stay. A kind of informal guideline has also emerged, amongst editors, as to how to present members: one row of big names on top, a second row of small names on the bottom. There is no hard-and-fast current/former member divide, as it is optional to restrict the second row to only former members. There is only the unspoken awareness that the second row of people is less important than the first row, but since there's no printed policy anywhere, everyone can do whatever they want.
As for the infobox, we keep all matters of opinion out of it. Otherwise we become the laughingstock of better-regulated infoboxes. –Unint 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

URL / Infobox 2?

Why was the URL type changed? By de-wikifying it, not only did it corrupt many of the pages that used that field, but it gives less control over how it actually appears on the page. Right now it forces the address into a external reference (i.e. [1]). By allowing wiki control, you could choose it to appear which way you wanted (depending on the length of the actual URL name).

  • Returning to the template, I agree, so have restored the URL setup. Thanks for the alert and apologies for inconvenience. Regards, David Kernow 11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for returning it to its previous state. --SevereTireDamage 05:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, is this the "official" Infobox musical artist template now? All of the references to IMA 2 should probably be removed then. --SevereTireDamage 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Country?

Any thoughts on a "country" parameter? This might be obvious in most cases where "origin" is provided, but I can think of a few examples where a distinction might be needed. (For example, Apsci was formed in New York City but considers both the US and Australia as home turf.) Or is this too redundant in most cases to be worth the trouble? -- H·G (words/works) 04:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If a performer or group has two or more established "turfs", list them all in the "Origin" section by city. Seperate with a break (<br />) --FuriousFreddy 05:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

band members

What about a color for performing members of non-classical music ensembles?

Like this

performing_personnel Performing members of non-classical music ensembles

--Miketm 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Performing members of non-classical ensembles is covered in the group/band field isn't it?--NeilEvans 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think group_or_band is for the whole band not the individual members.--Miketm 02:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Individual members of a band who have performed on their own is covered under solo singer.NeilEvans 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How about DJ/producers

Given the popularity for DJ/producers like Tiësto and Ferry Corsten, how would they fit in in this infobox? And how about the people that only DJ and don't produce tracks at all, or people that produce tracks and perform live but not in the traditional DJ way but with a laptop (like Brian Transeau does with an Apple and Ableton Live)? Rafert 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you'd put something like "Producer / DJ" or "DJ" alone under Occupation, for the first two respectively. As for the last... just use different terms, perhaps? But some people mix with both turntables and computers, surely. Is there that big of a divide that you need different terms?

Error in name field

I was browsing the Ramones page, which uses this infobox, and I noticed that the infobox displayed "{{{name}}}" instead of the actual name, "The Ramones". I notice the same error on this infobox template page and in several other uses of the infobox. I don't know how to change it, but I hoped posting about it here would bring it to the attention of someone who could fix it. - Zaukul 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok somebody has messed with the template, I yried to change it back but I don't know how to--NeilEvans 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Well it seems to be fixed now.--Zaukul 21:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Font size

The size of the text should be at least 11px/8pt/90% and no larger. That's the size on Infobox_Band. Arual 22:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Classical Composers

If i was going to make an infobox for modern Classical composers, such as Philip Glass or Karlheinz Stockhausen, would I use the Classical ensemble color or should we use something else? help! Andrzejbanas 10:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If they play classical music or compose classical music then I guess so yeah.--NeilEvans 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
A classical composer would be considered a solo artist. A classical ensemble is for a group, such as an orchestra. --FuriousFreddy 05:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox idol

Has this infobox been made obsolete by the musical artist infobox? My inclination is to say yes. It would be nice to have a seperate color for idols in a singing group, though.

Deceased artists

Could somebody please add a colour for this to the background field? In the actor infobox, the colour grey is used to signify dead actors, but that's already taken here. I'd suggest changing 'temporary' to something less miserable and allowing grey for deceased artists. I tried fiddling with it but I got way out of my Wikipedian depth! HamishMacBeth 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find your infobox's guidelines. What are your projects' standards when it comes to using colours? –Unint 01:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not actually part of the project; I just noticed that dead actors had the silver background, and though something similar might not go amiss here. HamishMacBeth 18:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this plan is that the colors are used to distinguish different classes of individual musicians (as well as ensembles). If a single color were used for dead musicians, then the existing color-coding information would be lost. However, if, say, a darker version of the appropriate color were used for dead folks, that might work. Eris only knows if anyone's brave enough to attempt to code that, though. -- Xtifr tälk 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
No need to have separate colors for living and dead persons. No professional work would make such a distinction, and neither should Wikipedia. Having gray for deceased musicians, actors, etc. is a poor idea, and somewhat in bad taste as well. --FuriousFreddy 05:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable equipment

If a "Notable equipment" field (or something similar) were added to this, then it could be used as a replacement for {{Guitarist infobox}} (which has a "Notable guitars" field) This would be very nice, as it would allow articles adopted by WikiProject Guitarists to use this infobox. It would be particularly handy for guitarists who are members of a band where the band and the other members all use this template already.) It would also allow listing notable equipment for musicians who aren't guitarists. Guitarists aren't the only ones who obsess over their equipment. I can think of a couple of keyboard players whose articles could use this.  :) Xtifr tälk 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: perhaps "notable instruments" would be a better name. Xtifr tälk 07:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There is already an instrument field so the infobox can already be used for guitarists.--NeilEvans 11:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Completely different. The instrument field is where you put "guitar" (or "violin" or "piano" or whatever). That would be a redundant field for the guitarist infobox, since a guitarist's instrument is always guitar. The "Notable guitars" field in the guitarist infobox is used for specific models or custom instruments associated a guitarist. See, for example, Eric Clapton or Jimi Hendrix. Without a "Notable instrument(s)" field, this infobox is not a viable replacement for the guitarist infobox. -- Xtifr tälk 15:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason why one cannot link to a certain model of guitar in the instrument field. Instead of linking to guitar, you just link to Fender etc.--NeilEvans 17:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, you could do that, but it would be inaccurate and potentially confusing. "Notable instrument(s) owned" is simply not the same as "instrument played". (Usually, it's a subset.) And whatever you or I might think about the need for a "Notable instruments owned" field, the Guitarists WikiProject is using that field, and this infobox is not an adequate and complete replacement for their infobox without it. No matter how much we try to pretend. Plus, it's easy to add the field (I could do it). And it wouldn't have any effect on anyone not using it. I'm not seeing the downside. -- Xtifr tälk 19:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok if you feel it has relevance then go ahead and change it. I have no problem with that although I would simply do as I said before, but go for it.--NeilEvans 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Undent: I'll leave it as-is for a day or two, in case anyone else wants to comment. In the meantime, I made a sandbox prototype, and you can see it in action (for now) on my talk page. Xtifr tälk 07:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.--NeilEvans 21:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, new field added to the template, along with some documentation. The example on my talk page is now "live", rather than coming from a sandbox. I'm going to go try to persuade the guitarist workgroup to accept this as a viable alternative. -- Xtifr tälk 02:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Guitarist Infobox

Should this infobox be used to replace infobox guitarist? As this covers all the information that the guitarist one does and it looks nicer as well to boot. I've replaced it before but only had it immedialy changed. Andrzejbanas 01:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The future goal is for the Guitarist Wikiproject to adopt this template as theirs as well. The idea behind adding the notable instruments section was to be able to use this template in place of the {{Infobox Guitarist}}. The answer to your question though is yes, it is meant to be used as a replacement. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The guitarist project will get very snippy if you go blindly replacing their template however. Thre seems to be some lingering paranoia based on whatever happened to the first incarnation of the musicians project (I don't know the details, since I wasn't around then). I'm trying to negotiate some sort of common-sense common ground with them, but I'm having to be extremely diplomatic, and it's still tough going. My advice is to not do any replacement at this point unless you discuss it on the talk page of a given article first. Xtifr tälk 07:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I replied at the guitarist infobox discussion as well, but let's bring this to a close. I'll step up and say, "sorry for being snippy" and "sorry for being paranoid". Xtifr, your advice is good advice, guitarist article or not. Good grief, Heaven's Wrath. When you started this project up again, I approached you and requested communication and collaboration. You blew me off, and instead you are in here telling your membership to replace our work with yours. That's not helping matters, because it looks to us like you're going to do whatever you want despite the discussions we are trying to have. Xtifr has done a great job communicating with us, even though I don't sometimes see the point of something right away.
What is the overall point of swapping out infoboxes? Since they have the same content, is it purely aesthetics? If so, I am agreeable to that, but I request the pink color be changed. I do think we need to communicate openly and not post things like "it is meant to be used as a replacement" when that has not been widely agreed to. I have even talked to Andrzejbanas about discussing changes on article talk pages, and you decided to ignore that as well. Let's clear the air here and improve some articles, shall we? --Aguerriero (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'd like to say that Aguerriero is not who I meant when I said "snippy". He has, in fact, been very helpful at expressing the guitarists project's concerns to me, and has definitely influenced my thinking on the whole matter. And, for what it's worth, I agree with him about the pink (or red or whatever you want to call it). Definitely a sub-optimal choice, IMO.  :) Xtifr tälk 18:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image size

Do people feel the size 220px is sufficient -- Ashadeofgrey 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia? Probably. For a fan-site? Probably not. Now if only we could figure out which Wikipedia should be.... :) Ok, actually, I'd like to see what articles Chowbok had in mind before making a final judgement, but I'd also like to see more of a discussion before making such a wide-ranging change, so thanks for the rv. Xtifr tälk 21:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait. Maybe I screwed up. If I made the default 400px, I apologize--that wasn't my intent. I just don't think that the maximum should be 220px. Infoboxes shouldn't straitjacket the editors of individual articles. Is there a way to make it so that the default is 220px, unless otherwise specified (on either side)? —Chowbok 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that 400px is half the width of some people's screen! On the other hand, it seems like a minor increase over 220 would not cause any widening of the infobox on the vast majority of articles I've looked at. I'm torn between wanting standards and wanting freedom for article editors, so I'll vote neutral on the basic notion. (Not that we're voting here, I hasten to add.) I think the ideal solution would be to make the image size proportional to the user's thumbnail preference setting, but I'm not sure that's possible. But I'll investigate. Xtifr tälk 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that image size should be input by the article editor. If an image is smaller than 220px then the image will be stretched to fit that size and make the article look ugly. If a size parameter was included then the image can be made a suitable size so that resolution of the image is not affected.--NeilEvans 20:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You should already be able to specify a size for images smaller than 220px. If that's not working, link me an example, and I'll try to fix it. Xtifr tälk 20:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see Bauhaus (band). That's a great picture, but you can barely see it at 220px. It really needs to be larger, but I can't make it so because the template is tying my hands. —Chowbok 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
That's possibly not the best picture to be placed into an infobox. Maybe that should be moved to another place in the article where it could be made bigger.--NeilEvans 21:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
One the one hand, I definitely sympathize, as I'm having similar issues with another article. On the other hand, I think maybe people think of the infobox too much as a picture frame, and not enough as an INFObox! The point of the box is to provide standardized information (more or less). If the picture doesn't work well inside the box, maybe it should go outside! I edited the Bauhaus article (and quickly reverted) just to show how this might work.
I will say, the infobox was clearly designed for portrait images, and does not work well for landscape images (most concert photos), and I'm definitely starting to think that this is something to address. But I'd rather address it with, say, a landscape option of some sort, rather than an "anything goes" option. And in the meantime, I've offered a not-terrible alternative you can use till we get this sorted out. Xtifr tälk 21:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Update (and outdent): Ok, first I want to say that I think we should increase the standard width to 240px. At least for me, that makes the image fill the infobox without stretching it, while 220px leaves some blank space. Does that sound reasonable?

Next, I've gotten a landscape option (as discussed above) working in my testbench, so we can add that if everyone approves. The question then becomes, what size(s) do we want to have as default/max with landscape images? We don't want people to abuse the feature, to make giant, monstrous infoboxes, so my suggestion is that we limit the height to 200px, and allow the width to go as high as, say, 360px. The aspect ratio will be preserved, so the 200px height will be the constraining limit for all but the widest and shortest of images. Xtifr tälk 04:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have mentioned: if anyone wants to see my testbench (which currently also includes some experimental new colors as well as the landscape option), it's located at User:Xtifr/IMAtest, and includes examples. Please leave feedback here, rather than there. Xtifr tälk 00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that looks great, and is a good compromise. Let us know if/when you add that to the template, and I'll add it to the Bauhaus (and Mike Love) articles. —Chowbok 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm probably going to tweak it a little bit first before I add it, but yes, I'll let you know. Thanks for the feedback. Xtifr tälk 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I also think it looks good, and suits some of the wider images better. (Some wide pictures can hardly show any members of the band.) Even with the increase in size, I do not think it intrudes too far into the article (At least on my screen size.) – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the landscape option has now been added and documented. Xtifr tälk 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

360 is far too large. I suggest cutting down to 300. --FuriousFreddy 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you even look at the examples? In most cases, the bounding limit will be the heignt of 200; 360 (or whatever) won't even enter into it. But as for the default (non-landscape) size of 240, that was, as I said, chosen because it fits the infobox perfectly, without widening it, as you can see from my test-bench page. I'm really not sure why you have a problem with that. Xtifr tälk 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've set the default width back to 220px, which is what it's been since Aug 2 (i.e. for nearly half its active lifespan) while we discuss this. We don't want to convince people they've made a mistake by switching to this infobox and have them start reverting to infobox band! Xtifr tälk 21:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

YES!

I'm very glad to see that we've made the move to deprecate the old music infoboxes and create this, single, unified one. Great work, wikipedians! --Anthony5429 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that may have been a bit premature. I generally prefer this infobox myself (though I think it could use some work, especially with respect to colors and ease-of-use), but the notion of replacement was still fairly controversial not too long ago, and I don't see any real signs that a consensus for wholesale replacement was ever achieved. We seem to have gone from "this infobox was designed to replace" (a statement of intention) to "other templates should be replaced" (a statement of policy) without crossing some necessary middle ground first. On the other hand, I strongly support the use of this template (and have pledged to help maintain it even if the musician project folds again), so I can't complain too much. :) Xtifr tälk 20:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Include a minor warning?

Maybe we should add a small note, saying "This infobox is an accepted standard of the Musicians workgroup, and is in use on thousands of Wikipedia articles, including many featured articles. Please do not make major changes without discussing them first on the talk page." Or words to that effect. Xtifr tälk 07:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I added a notice at the top of the page. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. Good job tracking down an appropriate box to use (the main reason I didn't simply do it myself). Xtifr tälk 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
A lot of band articles are still happily using the old template, the first that these editors will know of the project is this warning. On this basis I think a warning is a bad idea, and would only serve to alienate primary editors from the goals of the project. To be fair, most editors are just guys working on their own, and most don't know about this kind of back office stuff. The natural, human, reaction is to feel agrieved when such changes are imposed. Also, it's worth considering that a number of editors, including FA's, have reverted the infobox changes, and that there is a view that this project is acting unilaterly. I have to say that I came to this page with fire and brimstone in mind, but have since been impressed by the reasonable and toughtful editors working on it.
I'm objecting to this on the basis of erosion of credibility, also in the interest of consensus. - Coil00 23:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
F***, just realised ye were talking about text in the template space rather than in the body of the infobox.
- sigh - to explain: that is how I felt when Sex Pistols infobox was changed, and I appreciate the large number of articles involved and that talk page consensus is very difficult, but it came from nowere (to me); just an 'on the ground' view.
Anyway, sorry for being so thick, and unnecessarly agressive. - climbing down from high horse - Coil00 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

ensuring clean supercession from replaced templates

Many articles (controversially at least) use a band logo in their "title" field rather than including it as a separate image further down the page. I presume it might be a UK-based trend based on my experiences of its use - Coldplay; The Kooks; Kaiser Chiefs; Ash (band); Franz Ferdinand (band) etc. etc. etc. being examples I can think of. The majority of these pages still use the {{Infobox band}} template and therefore don't have an issue, but the problem is that if they are converted to this new "standard", the coloured background for the title field would look pretty awful (as per Arctic Monkeys. Given that the old template has no colours in it, I feel the need to question the usefulness of having a coloured background in the title field. Converting many pages to this template would involve a lot less aggrevation if small differences between orignal templates and those they are meant to be replacing are addressed. DJR (T) 11:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the possibility of converting the images to png format and making them translucent? As per The Kook's logo (or Coldplay's). Although I would think that it would be a large job to convert any images that need it. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
In many cases, I think a translucent/transparent background might be worse, as the background color might clash even more noticably if it bleeds through like that. Probably not a big problem with black-and-white logos, but there may be colored logos out there. That said, the more I consider this notion, the more I think it's a bad idea in general, for any infobox, not just this one. Since my objections are general ones, not specific to this infobox, I've started a topic at the WikiProject talk page. However, if a concensus develops that we should allow or encourage this sort of thing, I can easily modify this template to allow a plain background only for logos without disrupting the thousands of articles that don't include logos, so I have no technical objections to the proposal. Xtifr tälk 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
After seeing this new template imported in Nightwish, I have to agree with DJR. It doesn't look good for transparent logos with black text and will most likely look horrible for the ones with non-black text. Using logos in the infobox is not a UK-based trend; see Beherit, Ensiferum, Korpiklaani, Children of Bodom, Moonsorrow, Sonata Arctica etc. As for having logos in the infobox, I think the informational purpose exceeds the possible unencyclopedic value. At least with metal bands, the logo is often more recognizable than the band itself, any of their members or any of their album covers. Prolog 19:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I also notice The Beatles is using a logo. And they've got their own WikiProject. On the other hand, they don't seem to have a problem with black text on a blue background. Checking through the history of the article, they've tried several approaches, and they seem to be with the current one. Anyway, I'll agree that the practice is widespread enough to deserve better support. But I also don't want to encourage people to go crazy with the notion. So what I'll do is make a mockup, sometime in the next couple of days, and then notify some of the people on this thread, so they can try it out, and if everyone's happy, I'll merge it with the template and add some documentation on how to use it, and when not to. Unless Heaven's Wrath or someone else strongly objects. Cheers. Xtifr tälk 08:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Xtifr's suggestion. Although I think it might be better to just eliminate the background around the title altogether.
Another idea though, would be to include an additional box (or parameter) that would allow for a logo at the bottom (or top) of the infobox. Similar to the system for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums (see here). (Where the {{Extra album cover}} template adds an alternate cover to the infobox.) In this case, it would add a logo for the band. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  20:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks HW. Yeah, putting the logo at the bottom is a good suggestion. In the meantime, it occurred to me that it's possible to do quite a lot without modifying the infobox. I went ahead and set a white background for the logo on the Nightwish page (you can see exactly what I did by checking this diff). But in the long run, I prefer the idea of putting the logo below, so I'll give that a try. Cheers. Xtifr tälk 22:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been going on about this all by myself at the project talk, having not noticed this section. I guess I haven't been paying much attention.
In fact, I agree that separating the logo (in another field, presumably) would be the best approach; articles like Daft Punk and Emerson, Lake & Palmer already approximate this. A few of my concerns, briefly:
  • Should we have guidelines as to what actually consitutes a logo?
  • Are we running into fair use issues regarding manually extracting a logo from some album cover, as some editors seem to be doing?
Also, I made a subpage on my user page last night to keep track of pages where this is an issue. Would it be helpful to have this around publicly for cleanup use, comparisons, etc? –Unint 23:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Those are good examples Unint. I think that adding another section (like the members header) titled "Logo" or similar under the members section would look good. That would ensure a white background for the actual logo, but still include it in the infobox. It think that it would also limit the number of articles with logos to those that had really distinctive/important ones.
I think the subpage you made would be very helpful. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  03:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Here it is: User:Unint/List of musicians and musicians' articles with logos. I decided to also keep track of all artists with legitimate, iconic logos, as well as some other sublists.
Since this seems to be largely an imitative affair, so at some point we should check every page with a template in Category:Band templates (doesn't really happen for solo musicians, I find). –Unint 03:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked at the subpage that Unint gave above, and it seems that the page for Gorillaz has a good compromise. It uses a picture of the band and also includes a logo in the image field of the infobox, that way the background is white and doesn't look strange.--NeilEvans 04:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for pointing that one out. Gorillaz actually has the logo in the caption field! That's clever and elegant. As for solo artists, I've seen at least one, Amy Grant. There's probably more. Unint, your page looks amazingly useful for this discussion, thanks! In answer to Unint's questions, yes, I think we should have some guidelines, but to make good guidelines, we have to study what people are doing already. Therefore, continuing to expand that list will be extremely valuable, in my opinion. And no, I don't think there's a problem with fair use as long as it really is an actual logo, and is only used on the band or artist's article. Xtifr tälk 05:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have to correct myself on one thing. There may be a fair use issue after all! The new WP policy is that fair use images should not be used unless "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" (emphasis mine). That's Wikipedia policy, and WikiProject policy can't override it. Now for a logo, no fair use equivalent really can exist, but at the same time, the name of the band can easily be expressed in plain text. I can see arguments on both sides, so this may be something we want to take to a higher level before making any bold moves. Xtifr tälk 20:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
(Later) After making the previous post, I asked about possible fair-use issues on the Fair Use talk page, and the only response so far has been supportive. So I think we're fine to move ahead if we still want to. Do we still want to? We've found a number of options that don't involve modifying the infobox. Perhaps we could simply document those for people somewhere in Wikiprojectspace? I'm willing to help either way. Xtifr tälk 04:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Your comment at project talk addressed all the points that I couldn't get out the first time. Accessibility, encouragement of cruft, etc.
I'm still worried about the extremely minimal feedback. (But then, I've always had little luck soliciting feedback at the large-focus talk pages.) I'm thinking it might be sensible to pull in people from some places, somehow, but that would require knowing which articles are actively maintained by editors who are interested in Wikipedia-wide policy in the first place. And I have no idea how to deal with at the moment.
FWIW, I'm still in favor of a separate field for the logo, à la {{Infobox Company}}. (You did mention corporate logos...) –Unint 05:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The old template didn't have a background color because it wans't designed for flexibility and use for all types of musical acts. This one is, and the color serves as an organizational tool similar to that used for the Albums WikiProject. --FuriousFreddy 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(S)

Several field(s) of this template have these parenthesized plural(s). For example, "Genre(s)." After a couple of attempts, I don't see them working.

Left to their own devices, they freely line break just before the (s) (for example, Johnny Cash currently does this for me in Internet Explorer). And, it seems, although there are two possible HTML zero-width joiners, neither one works in all browsers we probably care about.

Besides, it occurs to me that constructions like "Genre(s)" are ugly anyway. I propose the template be changed to support either "Genre" or "Genres" (and similarly for other such fields) but not "Genre(s)." -Stellmach 23:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree that the construction is ugly; it is quite standard. However, I'm not opposed to a change on technical grounds of browser limits, if an acceptable alternative can be found. I do have to wonder why the issue has never been raised before; I'm not seeing the mentioned problem, and I can't help but wonder if it's not due to some odd, non-standard settings on your system. If this is a widespread problem that all or many IE users experience though, then something should definitely be done. (I can't check because I have no access to IE nor any ability to run it.) I don't think the template can be made to select between "Genre" and "Genres" on-the-fly at present, though there are some features in the works that might allow it in the future. But I don't think they've been enabled on the current version of Wikipedia. I'll do some tests to confirm. But, barring that, I'm not sure what the best solution is. I'd like to hear feedback from others on whether they observe this phenomenon before doing anything drastic though. If a decision to change is made, I'd recommend the singular for "Genre" (too many people are abusing this field by listing dozens of sub-genres), but plural for the rest.
Technical side-note: zero-width joiners seem to have to do with ligatures, especially for languages like Arabic, where ligatures are much more widely used and standardized. I don't think they were ever intended to serve as "non-breaking non-spaces". So I think throwing them in is probably futile, and describing them as not working is probably incorrect. Xtifr tälk 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone recently changed the joiners, claiming that the were wrong, but now they seem to not work in Firefox or Internet Explorer. There is a little symbol, and in IE it breaks. Is anyone else having these problems? Should it be reverted?
And I do not mind the "(s)," as I find it common usuage. But, Xtifr, if you can make that work, I think it would be better if it could change on the fly. Otherwise, I have no problem with it. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow. If you're seeing funny characters in IE, and problems with Firefox on Windows, then I will simply revert to the version with the Byte Order Mark for now, and talk to User:Smjg. And I may revert to the version with nothing, depending on what he says. (None of these changes have had any visible effects for me.) Edit: I found Smjg's comment at User talk:Stellmach#Joiner; BOM fails on Mac.
As I suspected, the m:StringFunctions simply don't work on Wikipedia yet, so my on-the-fly idea is out, for now. Our remaining options are: 1) find a glue character that works for most people (may not exist), 2) give up on glue characters (no other infoxes have them), or 3) arbitrarily choose singular or plural for each field. Option 1 would be ideal, but it may not be possible. Option 2 is ugly in proportion to how many users suffer Stellmach's complaint (unknown, worth investigating), and option 3 is just ugly. I did some mock-ups of option 3, both ways, and I'm simply not happy with it. Xtifr tälk 14:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Genre

Genre of an artist according to allmusic.com is generalised (Rock covers metal and R&B covers "urban"), with "Styles:" being used to specifiate the artist from the pack somewhat (Thrash Metal, Pop-Rock). Ergo I have decided to add "Style(s):" as this will allow us to source the information using allmusic.com. This will not damage the template as existing usages will remain in function. As i'm adding descriptive extras not removing existing info it's not a major change. Or at least it would be minor if the "styles" part displayed, which it doesn't so it's invisible not minor. lol.--I'll bring the food 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I see it now, it just takes time for the update to work its way into the system. Weird.--I'll bring the food 16:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I realize what you're trying to achieve but I don't agree with this change at all, and something like this definitely requires discussion and a consensus. 1. This is heavily biased against All Music Guide, which has been proven to be a bad source for at least metal music; mixing up subgenres, using neologisms and self-supported terms. 2. Per WP:NPOV we can't choose one source to use. We have to provide all the common views. 3. Style is factually inaccurate. For example, funeral doom metal is not a style. It's a subgenre of doom metal, which is a subgenre of heavy metal music, which is a subgenre of rock music. This is horribly mixing things up and will only add more fuel to the "genre wars" already going on in many articles. The template should just use Genre, which can hold all the genres separated with <br />. Prolog 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Addition: Now that I visited AMG again, I see that you probably got the idea to separate genres from styles from there? On Wikipedia, music style redirects to music genre. This means that the template is no longer consistent with the genre information on WP. I haven't seen other external sources to list genres like this either, so WP shouldn't shouldn't adopt to one website's form of listing genres, even if the website is well-known and respected. Prolog 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a nice idea, but probably not necessary - a link to the genre is sufficent, in that that article will explain the parent style. The first thing I tought of when I saw the suggestion was metal too, can you imagine the chaos at Cradle of Filth (who currently have 'debated' as their genre!). I'm against labeling per ce, to be honest, esp. considering the amount of band that get crushed under the wheels of bandwagons. - Coil00 20:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Very bad idea! AMG should not be considered a reliable source for anything except publication data! And genre/style tends to be a bit subjective, i.e. POV. POV debates do not belong in an infobox! (I think we should make that last into a WikiProject policy or guideline.) The proper way, IMO, to deal with these type of situation is to put a very general genre into te infobox, as the instructions say, and then, in the body of the article, deal with the matter of genre/style as per WP:NPOV: "all significant published points of view are to be presented", and "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one" (that last is the biggest reason why "style" doesn't belong in the infobox). So, if AMG says a band's genre is "X" and their style is "Y", then, in the article, you write that as something that AMG says, not as a fact! The genre field is already being warred over in several articles (Slipknot (band) is another); a style field would simply spark more wars! Xtifr tälk 23:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Genre" is supposed to be brief and general for the purpose of keeping the infobox from listing 18 different types of rock one rock band plays. If a band does happen to play eighteen different types of rock, it's best to express and explain this in the body of the article, in prose. --FuriousFreddy 23:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like we've basically got concensus against this, so I reverted the new field out. Sorry, Food. Xtifr tälk 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw this earlier, and now that I have come back home, I see that it was taken care of. I agree with the comments above. Maybe we should change the warning template to read, "Please do not make any changes without discussing them first on the talk page." As it still is being ingnored. ;-) – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  01:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)