Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 3

message: I have made a similiar template for the swedish wikipedia. Could someone please help me add a inter. wiki-link to sv:Mall:Infobox musiker
:Done.  Xtifr tälk 07:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me add a inter. wiki-link

message: can we pleeeeese get a firm consensus on when, why, and how to use those bloody infobox flagicons? i see them used for place of birth, for nationality, for place of death, nationality at time of death, for place of interment..... either set something in stone—or in the case of wikipaedia, moist clay—or banninate the use of flags altogether. --emerson7 | Talk 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at all the relevant discussion, as well as the latest version of WP:FLAG, it seems that there is really no compelling support for using flag icons here. I'm putting in explcit clauses against usage for all three relevant fields in the documentation. --Unint (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, despite all that, it is a change that would affect many articles. I've self-reverted for the time being. --Unint (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't see what the harm is in including the flags. the only thing that comes to mind is that if the city/state/country of an artists takes up just under one line of text, then the flag would bump it over to 2 lines of text. granted, this can be annoying, but it's just a tiny image. as Unint says, there are already so many articles that incorporate flag-use; might as well just incorporate it into the boxes. another point is that popular music is very country-specific. articles such as British rock go to demonstrate this. having a flag, in my opinion, not only serves a purpose of identifing the origin of the artist, but also, placing the artist into a geographical-sub-genre of music. --Mass147 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, we're neither endorsing nor opposing flagicons. There are lots of articles with flags and lots without. It's a matter of editorial discretion, as the saying goes. Personally, I'm dubious about the proposition that music is generally as country-specific as you suggest. Sometimes, yes, but often not. (British rock is a particularly bad example, IMO, given the huge number of British rockers that have been sued for plagiarism by older Black American musicians.) Anyway, the country should clearly be listed in the origin field, which serves the purpose of identifying the geographical origin and influences just fine. The flag is totally redundant—it adds no extra information whatsoever. But it's harmless. My policy is not to add or remove it from existing infoboxes, and only to add it to new infoboxes when I think it looks right. --Xtifr tälk 10:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Unint's original statement banning flags, per WP:FLAG. The fact that this would affect many articles is no reason not to do this, IMO. Either way, I think it would be better to have a guideline on this than not having one. --PEJL (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The existing guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Not for use in locations of birth and death is pretty clear about discouraging the use of flags in the birth and death fields. I think the arguments presented there are can also be made against using flags in the origin field—flags imply and emphasize citizenship and/or nationality. Strobilus (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A band's "nationality" is defined by its origin. Unlike bands, people (solo artists etc.) can have an other nationality than the nationality of the country where they died/were born. It's wrong to emphasize people's death/birth place as it is not their nationality per se. Bands are different. Emphasizing a band's origin (using a flag) is improving the quick overview quality of a band infobox (As their origin is their nationality). The arguments in WP:MOSFLAG can't be applied to band origin. Kameejl (Talk) 12:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that emphasizing the nationality of a band implies nationality or citizenship of individual members of the group as well. Strobilus (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Origin is just like the headquarters of the company infobox, it does not imply nationality, it implies origin. People have a nationality, things don't. I've continued the discussion here. Kameejl (Talk) 11:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  flagicons 

message: How about adding Grammy awards just as actors have Academy Awards in their infobox? --MrBlondNYC (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that proposal --Remosito (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: As I've been setting up info boxes there have been several musicians who are vocalists, yet they are primarily instrumentalists (NOT non-vocalist). No color for this. Maybe its not a big deal.  - Steve3849 talk 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use "solo_singer". --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background colors 

message: This template's "Background information" heading is redundant, shall we remove it? --Andy Mabbett (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a color strip there is aesthetically pleasing. Maybe that heading could could be changed to something new... "Artist profile" etc, or left blank with the bar of color intact.  - Steve3849 talk 13:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we hide the "Background information" heading iff there is no image? --PEJL (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do so. --PEJL 16:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Background information' heading 

message: Look, forget all the other issues for one minute here about why one is better than the other.  There is one thing that disproves comma breaks should be used.  I don't have a problem if the genres fit on the same line, however, if there are more than a few genres comma breaks cut genres in the middle (for example heavy being on one line and metal on the next) and everyone agrees that this is a bad thing.  It can only be solved with the nowrap thingy, but we must keep to KISS and keep it simple.  Therefore, comma breaks can not be used and the only solution is line breaks. Navnløs (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The example that editors are given on the template main page uses commas to demonstrate what a properly formatted infobox is supposed to look like. The lean for other infoboxes from other projects is commas. And the consensus from previous discussions here on this template is also for commas. And my opinion matches consensus view in that commas are the better choice for spacing. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YOu may think there is a lean, but your opinion is moot since obviously not everyone agrees and we are having this conversation.  It is only your opinion (like Pejl) that more prefer comma breaks.  I happen to think more people prefer line breaks and that not enough speak out. Navnløs (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comma supporters certainly speak volumes in the edits that they do. PEJL, Skeeker, Funeral, Scarian, Twsx...etc, etc, etc... Wiki admins Cholmes75, Nufy8...etc, etc, etc... correct infoboxes on articles that are on their watchilists. Editors on the WP:MOS talkpage comments copied here support the use of commas in all boxes for multiple valid reasons. And, as already mentioned previously, the example shown in the template guideline matches the consensus rules that were agreed upon by the album project. Community consistency = community consensus. 156.34.223.191 (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: But see you are wrong again.  There must be at least as many supporters of line breaks if not more.  Almost every single band page I visit (and I visit a ton) always have line breaks and when someone changes it someone quickly reverts them.  As far as I'm concerned the line break people are in the majority and when we talk we use sense whereas the comma break people only think their in the majority because everytime someone else suggests line breaks a ton of them say "no, no" but give no reasons whereas the line break people have given many reasons. Line breakers are the majority.  Their are just a few die hard comma breakers who won't let go and won't listen to reason. Navnløs (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: These durn infoboxes - I generally see them causing time being wasted in not editing the articles themselves, which is a shame. I generally think unless there's a good use for navigation around what a reader might be 'surfing through' the varieties of links they provide, they're more trouble than they're worth. That said, I would like to suggest a solution: The guidance could state that only the main genre be in the field and that styles/sub-generes, with the cites that should not ideally be in an infobox, be in the text of the article, where it can be put into context. So, for example, many of the heavy metal bands would have 'Rock and Roll' as the genre, any citable/verifiable styles/sub-genres (as all music and such sites list them as) should be written up in the text. The problem of commas or breaks is thus made entirely redundant.--Alf melmac 22:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you Alf that that would be a fantastic idea. But it might create problems with: "If only one genre should be used, then what genre should it be?" - It could get bogged down in even more debate... ScarianTalk 22:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Scarian and his comment after mine: If you would read I made unsubstantiated claims on purpose to prove a point to the edit before me who was doing the same.  I do not need to explain myself to you or why I take the issue so seriously but I can tell you that I and others are getting tired of reverting edits my comma break people. Navnløs (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments

message: I wish the armistice would continue and until someone starts a "fight" it may continue.  However, User:Twsx has continually edit warred on two pages (Dissection (band) and Amon Amarth).  He has recently said that he retracts his agreement of the armistice.  He claimed that me and Kameejl were breking the armistice, which is a lie.  We were reverting Twsx's edits (as he continued to change those 2 pages) after he had agreed to the armistice. We never changed any genre delimiters on any pages excpet those two after Twsx changed them.  I reported Twsx to WP:ANI for edit warring and had the support of User:Scarian to do so.  I have held off on reverting Amon Amarth and Dissection until ANI talks it over, though it doesn't look like they're doing anything (they rarely do) but eventually I will rv those pages and when I do I believe Twsx will go on a full out war and change as many pages as possible.  Twsx refuses to work with others, it seems, and he has already created a page about genre delimiters where he says some very biased things about me and points out many of my mistakes and older edits in the past.  It seems to me, though, that other useres are starting to realize that I am not the one with the problem.  Despite some of my older edits and two blocks for edit warring I want to contribute to wikipedia and I have enjoyed the armistice.  All I want is for Twsx to get blocked as well for edit warring and doing the same thing as me.  This porbably won't happen, though.  I regret some of the older edits I have done but Twsx is intent on pointing them out to as many people as possible and show them how I am the "bad guy".  I even saw on his talk page now that he said I was "rude".  I have never been rude to him except for once calling him a dick when I first made an account on here quite a while back, for which I apologized and told him I was trying to cite WP:DICK which I would not do again. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't take it anymore... User Twsx is playing games and is now massively changing genre delimiters to commas (totally inconsistently so it seems). I really want to talk to him and did my best to do so for months but it didn't work. I cracked. I reverted some of his changes and now I feel it wasn't a good idea, but then again, what was I to do? I've did some research and composed some articles: User:Kameejl/Line breaks versus commas. Kameejl (Talk) 00:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the armistice over!?

message: Like I said in the Standardizing genre delimiters section of this talk page I'd like to discuss the "aim for generality" rule. Many editors ignore this rule, including me. I don't think it's a problem to have a detailed overview of genres. In fact, I see problems leaving detailed genre descriptions out of the infobox. Leaving them out will move edit wars to the body of an article. And what about articles like The Jackson 5? Should it just state pop? Or Bob Dylan? country? rock? folk? What's the generalization of symphonic black metal? symphonic metal? black metal? metal? rock? What's the generalization of deathgrind? grindcore? death metal? metal? hardcore punk? rock? punk?
It's too arbitrary, genres often can't be generalized.
And it's convenient to have an overview of all genres.
Any opinions? Emmaneul (Talk) 20:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a firm supporter of the aim-for-generality rule.  It helps reduce infobox clutter, which is an issue at FAR.  Genre clutter was one of the reasons cited for the failure of the recent Frank Zappa FAR, for example—and Zappa is someone who has really worked in multiple major genres.  Specific subgenres (and sub-sub-sub-genres) can be discussed in the body of the article.  They don't all need to be shoved into the infobox.  Some people seem to like to cram as much information as possible into the infobox: I think this should be discouraged.  The infobox should provide a brief overview.  As Unint pointed out in the previous discussion, this infobox already tends to be among the very largest on Wikipedia.  In cases where the genres can't be generalized, that's ok.  I got Zappa down to four, but I don't think it's possible to reduce any more.  But when it comes to sub-sub-genres (nu-metal and symphonic black metal are clearly subgenres of metal which is a subgenre of rock), it's obviously possible to reduce.  As for moving edit wars to the body of the article: that's a good thing!  That's where they belong!  Often, these sub-sub-genres are more matters of opinion than clear fact, and in the article, and in the body of the article, that can be made clear.  In the infobox, it looks as if it were being presented as fact, not opinion.  Xtifr tälk 21:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it's too arbitrary. To illustrate it I'll use your examples: nu-metal isn't considered a subgenre of metal by many metalfans (like the people from Encyclopaedia Metallum). And there have been debates on whether metal is a subgenre or just a descendant of rock. (just like disco is a descendant of funk and soul is a descendant of R&B. In fact, disco, funk and soul could all be seen as subgenres of R&B (even rock could be seen as a sub-subgenre of R&B)  (having The Jackson 5 article in mind). Insisting on generalization will lead to needless debates. By the way, your argument for not having a standard delimiter (Standardizing genre delimiters "On the other hand... ...things the way they are") could also apply to this ("Overspecifying", "FAs which don't even follow the guidelines", "danger of violating WP:CREEP", "does it matter", "people are just going to ignore the "rule" anyway", and "they're still going to make good articles"). Emmaneul (Talk) 08:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think our positions are as far apart as you seem to think.  It says "aim for generality".  It doesn't say, "be as general as possible".  It just says aim in that direction.  You can be specific--just don't be overspecific.  It's a flexible guideline, and I like flexible guidelines.  Part of the problem, though, is that if you're overspecific, a lot of people will have no idea what you're talking about.  I like a lot of metal, but I have no idea what "nu-metal" is (as you may have guessed).  Articles should be targeted at a general audience, not just hard-core fans.  So that's a good reason to aim for generality.  But to me, the big issue is avoiding category clutter.  If a band is indisputably nu-metal, I don't mind if the genre field says that, but if they have been variously categorized in seven different subgenres (or loosely related genres) of metal, then I'd rather just see "metal".  Ditto for a disco band vs. a band that's worked in funk and soul and disco and R&B.  So I guess the bottom line is, I'd support changing the current wording if it's changed to emphasize avoiding category clutter, rather than only saying "aim for generality".  But I still think some degree of aiming for generality is good.  In general. :)  Xtifr tälk 11:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "aim for generality" rule 

message: Shouldn't we add fields that are in more general templates, such as spouse, children, religion, political party, and maybe an All Music Guide link? Tim Long 21:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spouse, children, religion, and political party are mostly irrelevant to a musician's career (and even more so to a musical group).  Several of those have been discussed and rejected before, and the ones that haven't (religion, political party) are even worse, IMO.  I would actually advocate removing some or all of those from many other infoboxes (especially some of the crufty actor infoboxes).  As for an All Music Guide link, I'm not aware of any infobox that has one.  The album infobox has a field for reviews, which frequently features links to AMG reviews, but musicians and musical groups are rarely the subject of reviews per se.  Note that some of the fields you mention are relevant and/or important in some fields of endeavor, such as politics or religion or royalty (which is arguably not a field of endeavor, but no mind).   Finally, this infobox is already subject to regular complaints about its size.  Adding more fields for what amounts to gossip-column trivia would only exacerbate the problem.  Xtifr tälk 01:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Religion and political party may be irrelevant, but Kirsty MacColl erstwhile spouse and Ozzy Osborne's children are notable and significant. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be mentioned in the article; it doesn't have to clutter the already-huge infobox.  Experience shows that if we add something like this to the infobox, it will be used in every possible place it can be used, as opposed to merely in those few places where it's more-than-usually notable. Xtifr tälk 10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Xtifr tälk. Politics, religion and etc are only relevent for very few artists. Often they are apolitical anyway! A music focussed box doesn't need to be wholistic.  - Steve3849 talk 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other fields

message: I think the natural choice of parameter for an individual would be birth place, not origin. The latter is highly ambiguous when applied to an individual and could easily be understood to mean where the person was brought up, whereas place of birth, I believe, is the unequivocal standard for what a biography should contain. __meco 09:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Birth place is also widely used in other templates - standardisation is good. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Origin" should not be used for the birth place or the place the person was brought up, it should be used for the place where the career originated. The field "Born" is for the birth place. See Template:Infobox musical artist#Fields. --PEJL 13:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth place 

message: *I see that DJs are listed as non-performing personnel.  However, DJs (not the top 40 radio ones) do play live and perform, often creating new remixes on the fly, or do stuff like turntablism.  Shouldn't they be grouped under non_vocal_instrumentalist rather than non_performing_personnel?  I've been doing work on DJ articles such as Steve Lawler and Phil K, so I'd like to know which coloring to use.  Thanks!  Wickethewok 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree, there are people called "DJ" who fall on either side of the non-performing-personnel line, and they should be categorized appropriately.  Common sense should be a good enough guide, but if there's some question in certain cases, I would probably consider factors such as: are they credited as if they were musicians on any albums?  Similar arguments would apply to MC, which was traditionally a non-performing role, but since at least the days of Funkadelic, has been more and more applied to performers.  Xtifr tälk 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alritey, thanks for the advice.  :)  Wickethewok 05:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I for one am pretty unhappy with the murky status of nightclub DJs with respect to the background color code. I would like to see a separate scheme for this group and I would argue that their status in the dance music industry warrants a separate focus on this group. Perhaps a little gaudy I kinda like the look of the background color chosen for Dominik Eulberg ("aqua"). __meco 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See arguments against adding more colors above. --PEJL 16:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And indeed, I would agree in the case of singer-instrumentalists that a new subdivision is not called for. I do however consider the case of the club/event DJs significantly different, and that this basically new category of performers is so prevalent and distinct that a separate scheme for them should be implemented. __meco 07:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DJ coloring

message: As of now, the last transclusion of this depreciated template has been eliminated and replaced with the universal template  so I nominated it for deletion. Please provide your comments on:
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_19#Template:Infobox_Guitarist. 
Thank you. --Kudret abi 22:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Infobox Guitarist}} up for deletion 

message: Right now there are two sections for members, current, and past.  When a band disbands, all members are moved to "past".  The problem with this is there are some bands that have so many past members, that there isn't a clear way to note either the last lineup, or the lineup that was together the longest.  Could another section be added, just for bands that have disbanded, for "Last Lineup" or something similiar? Example X Japan, which has 13 "past members" not including the 5 members that were in the "last lineup" - making a total of 18. Denaar 10:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many cases, the "last lineup" is no more notable than several of the others. However, some people have take nto listing the "last lineup" in the "current_members" field ("Current" was removed from the actual display text of the template after much arguing over the fact). The "most famous" lineup(s) of a group should ideally be mentioned in the lead paragraphs of the article prose. When the original version of this infobox was designed, it was specifically tailored to avoid POV battles over which lineup of a group/band was the "most famous", especially in cases where more than one lineup is significantly notable. It's much easier to factually determine who is in a group and who isn't versus whose version of the group was more important. --FuriousFreddy 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Lineup

message: I have an idea. Whenever this template is transcluded and nothing is in the Background field, the page it is transcluded on would be added to a category automatically. The only way to take it out of that category would be to put something in the Background field. Does anyone agree with this? FMAFan1990 05:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, the category would be called "Non-standard musical artist infoboxes" FMAFan1990 06:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've considered that possibility before.  The main objection I think is that it's generally preferred to have maintenance categories on the talk page, not the article page, unless it's something major, like uncited, challenged facts.  Perhaps an error message would be a better choice, as it's also more likely to be noticed and fixed sooner.  Xtifr tälk 09:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a corresponding category for albums at :Category:Non-standard album infoboxes. There is some precedent for keeping such maintenance categories in article space (see the CfD for what is now :Category:Album articles without cover art). That said, an error message might work. --PEJL 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the maintenance category, I can watch the category and clear out the category when it needs to. FMAFan1990 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about if some kind of template was put on the page which didn't put anything on the page. Then you could see what uses that template via that template's What links here. -Joltman 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clever! --PEJL 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too clever. I've just tested this method, and it doesn't work. All articles using the main template are listed as linking the sub-template, even if the transclusion is conditional. --PEJL 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background field addition 

message: There should be a "raised" field. I mean, it's not the same as "origin", is it? Funk Junkie 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, its another source of confusion. Where is the musician based? vs Where did they originally come from? A lot of people moving around throughout their careers. New Orleans musicians are great example as many musicians raised elsewhere had moved notably to New Orleans for their careers and after Katrina moved out. "Raised" might not be only the term to consider.   - Steve3849 talk 03:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not the same as where they were born or their origin as a musician, then it probably doesn't belong in the infobox, though it certainly belongs in the article.  Not every piece of trivia about someone's history needs to be stuffed into infoboxes.  In the case of an "army brat", a "raised" field might well need dozens of entries, which is definitely not what we want.  (In the case of New Orleans musicians who were born elsewhere, on the other hand, the Origin field is probably the right one to use.)  Xtifr tälk 08:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: though i wouldn't be in favour of a 'raised' or 'reared' or 'brought up', i would like to see a field for nationality. as far as i can tell :template:infobox actor, and :template:infobox musical artist are the only two that have this field omitted. --emerson7 | Talk 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raised

message: Anybody think this color should be changed? Is it just me, or this colour is awful?--Tasco 0 21:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just you.  :)  Seriously, there are no colors (including "no colors") that everyone will like.  However, this particular color is pretty much the only color that was retained from the first incarnation of the template with no objections.  And there have been several instances where someone has come by to say "I like the color for solo_singer, but can't we do something about the color for X?"  I've had this page on my watchlist for nearly a year now, and to the best of my recollection, this is the first complaint about the color for solo_singer.  You're actually probably not alone, but I tend to suspect that you're in a pretty insignificant minority.  (I'm personally pretty neutral about all the colors.)  Xtifr tälk 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I think that another color would be better. I just think that the color is "out of line".--Tasco 0 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "solo_singer" background color changes? 

message: I propose that we remove the whitespaces from the code so that it looks like this:

Rather than this:

It is only a minor change but will use less code when in many articles. It uses 22 characters more than it needs to and think about how many articles this is being or will be used in. -- 16:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The current format is more legible. A pipe character looks similar to other characters, so the fields names would be harder to read without spaces. The current format is also consistent with other music infoboxes, such as the album/single/song infoboxes. As for saving 22 characters, see WP:PERF. --PEJL 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whitespace

message: Suggest splitting of long lines in the last example. (To make it appear better on ordinary screens - and also make editing possible without sideway scroll). See edited documentation ("current version": Oceanh 22:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this change as well, partly for the same reasons as in the topic just above, and partly for consistency with the section "Code". I've moved the infobox to the top instead. --PEJL 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started to say 'agree'... but after checking the template now (the documentation page), it turns out that the long lines (in the example) still disturb the the whole page, at least on my 'small' screen. I have to scroll sideways all the time, to read the text.  In edit modus it's even more annoying (after preview), because I have to scroll sideways to reach the vertical scrollbar. Will NOT recommend this solution. But leaves it for others to judge. Maybe everybody else use broad screens...  Oceanh 01:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem with your solution is that it inserts  elements into the markup. Besides being inappropriate HTML for the infobox, this makes the margins between some lines larger. You shouldn't have to scroll sideways to reach the vertical scrollbar. What web browser and screen resolution are you using? --PEJL 08:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. I was not aware of the unwanted effect of " elements in the markup". The suggestion was based on appearance on the screen, in a bit old web browser (MS Internet Explorer, version 5.50.4134.0600) which normally works fine though. Scrolling sideways to reach the vertical scrollbar in the edit window is a minor problem, as it only happens in edit modus, after pushing the Show preview button. I agree that the example should show what is recommended when applying the template. If breaking the lines has unwanted bi-effects, my suggested "workaround" is no good, because most important is that the template displays fine in the "main" articles. Oceanh 10:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Internet Explorer generally has poor support for CSS, and that version is something like seven years old. You should consider upgrading your web browser. --PEJL 11:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. Have checked on another machine, and the page looks fine. Oceanh 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion - last example

message: Wouldn't it be neat to have a show/hide button for past members? A button like the Infobox actor has. See the award part in the infobox e.g. Jack Black. Kameejl (Talk) 00:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (An example of an actor infobox which uses such a section can be found here.) What exactly are the benefits? One benefit I can think of is that it puts greater focus on current members than past members, which should be appropriate in most cases. Since this section is at the bottom of the infobox we're not really cramped for space, and no other infobox content would move higher up if we did this. One disadvantage is that it means a user has to take an extra step to get to the information. Another problem is accessibility. --PEJL 08:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The past members section could be visible by default. So no extra step would be needed to get the information. Users will have the choice weather they want to hide the information. Many other wiki element use this show/hide functionality (even this new donation ad at the top of the wikipedia page). It does not seem to be a accessibility problem. To be sure, I have posted a question on Wikipedia:Accessibility and a user told me it's only a problem for CSS incompatible browsers. As far as I know CSS incompatible browsers will show the content by default, only the show/hide button won't work. I have tested this on Lynx, a text based web browser. Accessibility is not a problem. I really feel this should be implemented. Kameejl (Talk) 12:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Making it visible by default certainly diminishes the accessibility problem, but it also makes it quite redundant. Why would anyone bother to hide this information? I think we should either keep it as it is, or make it hidden by default. As we're talking about an infobox that (hopefully) summarizes content elsewhere in the article, I don't think the accessibility problem is severe enough to rule out the latter. --PEJL 06:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The test infobox is now hidden by default. Kameejl (Talk) 09:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we decide to do this, the code needs some work. The nested table gets an additional margin, which means the table headings don't line up. That shouldn't be too difficult to fix. --PEJL 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Past members

message: I propose that there be a section (that has a hide or show option) for awards the artist has won. There may already be one, but it's a good proposition. This way, we can put the amount of Grammy Awards the artist won, the year he/she won it, and what category it was in. Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 06:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: I think it would make sense to add a second example, that illustrates the group_or_band specific fields. Thoughts? - Cyrus XIII 07:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. Kameejl (Talk) 11:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add the Audioslave (featured article) template to the page as an example of a group_or_band. I'll have to wait because the page is protected now. Any thoughts? Kameejl (Talk) 15:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't adhere to our guideline to delimit the labels using commas. --PEJL 15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: now it does Kameejl (Talk) 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which made it noticeably inconsistent (commas, line breaks, commas, line breaks), so I delimited the associated acts and genres using commas as well. Too bad we don't have a guideline for this stuff... --PEJL 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm... there we go again, consistency is not an issue, comprehensibility is an issue. First it didn't adhere to our guideline, now you introduced unnecessary made up guidelines. I'm not going to discuss this, I've done it before. I've changed my mind, I don't want a second example. Kameejl (Talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't introduce any guideline, I just edited the article. --PEJL 17:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo caption should not end in a period as it is not a sentence, but a noun phrase (see WP:CAP). Strobilus (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am somewhat surprised to read this thread, having twice removed the second example as a result of an editor's comments in the ongoing break/comma discussion below, and being twice reverted by Kameejl who here states "I've changed my mind, I don't want a second example." - "Gobsmacked" I think the word is.--Alf melmac 13:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second example 

message: Please replace the following references in the template:
*Template:Infobox musical artist/color selector → Template:Infobox Musician/color
*Template:Infobox musical artist/hCard Class → Template:Infobox Musician/hCard class
Thanks in advance. --PEJL 15:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we've got many, many references throughout wikipedia advising people to use the old name, not to mention many many thousands of instances of articles using the old name.  Which, btw, is one of the reasons why I think the move was somewhat ill-advised.  (But I've been busy recently, so I didn't really have time to give the debate the attention it maybe deserved.)  I've also cleaned up one double redirect so far; we need to be on the lookout for others.  Xtifr tälk 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I would have preferred more discussion before making this move as well. I didn't notice it had been put up at WP:RM until it had already been moved. Since then, I've been updating quite a few references to this template, so hopefully most of the documentation will soon be updated. --PEJL 22:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, why was it moved in the first place?  There had been discussion where several users had stated they liked it better as Musical artist, and it was then listed under the Uncontroversial proposals section.  17Drew 01:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a large thread about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Consensus. Let's continue this there. I'm removing this editprotected request for now, until we decide what to do. --PEJL 01:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Done - Nihiltres(t.l) 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Req: Cleanup after move 

message: Can some thought be given to adding a "nationality" parameter to this infobox, in line with other infoboxes such as  and ? Cheers, Jacklee 11:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed previously. Search for "nationality" on this talk page to see where. We already have fields "Born" and "Origin", which make a distinct field for nationality redundant in most cases. --PEJL 11:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nationality" parameter 

message: 
Please move to Template:Infobox Musical artist, per WT:MUSICIAN#Consensus. --PEJL 19:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - please let me know if there are leftover inconsistencies from the move. Nihiltres(t.l) 19:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Req: Move 

message: 
I've created a sandbox and testcases, and made some changes to the sandbox, to decrease the line-height slightly. Please apply the current sandbox. --PEJL 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two whitespace changes were made to the live template after the initial request was made. One of those was redundant and conflicts with the changes in the sandbox. The other change has been merged into the sandbox. Please apply the now current sandbox instead. --PEJL 08:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Done Nihiltres(t.l) 00:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Req: Adjust line-height 

message: What about strict rules for associated acts? We should only allow spin offs ("Acts from which this act spun off; acts which spun off a group act"). We shouldn't allow (insignificant) projects/bands featuring 1 of the band members. It's ok for the band member's article but is not important for the band as a whole. To give an example: Audioslave is associated with Rage Against the Machine because Audioslave is Rage Against the Machine minus singer: a Rage Against the Machine spin off. The Nightwatchman however is only associated with Tom Morello, and only indirectly with Audioslave. It should not be included. Any opinions? Kameejl (Talk) 12:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't experienced too many problems with the current guideline. The wording could maybe be tightened up a bit, but I think what you're suggesting goes too far. Using your example, I'd say The Nightwatchman is significantly associated with Rage and vice versa. Strobilus (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Associated acts

message: It would be appreciated to add 'Influences' and 'Influenced by' into the template, like the comedian infobox. Kanye West, for example, has admitted to being influenced by RZA, while Lupe Fiasco, in turn, is influenced by Kanye. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discuss•edits) 19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template already has an "influences" field. I believe that's generally used to list influences on the subject of the article. I'm a little hesitant about having an "influenced" field which would allow legacy to be packed into the infobox, though. Shouldn't things like this be discussed in prose? I think the way this appears in Richard Pryor looks a bit strange. The "influenced" field exists in  but that template doesn't seem to be used much.  Gimmetrow 05:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  - no consensus for change. Neil ☎ 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message:  → 
please 16@r 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Just added an infobox to CéU. Which is a singer-songwriter but has a fix band.
Thus I added both musician only and band only fields. Which certainly is not clean.
Which made me start to wonder what is generally done when the name of the band is the
name of the lead musician. Should that page be broken up into two pages. One for the 
band and one for herself and the biographical info of her moved over? She/They just won
a grammy nomination. Does that nomination go to her only or to the band?
Remosito (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  musician/band confusion 

message: There is currently an influences field which can be seen on the Leona Lewis page. I propose adding an Influenced field like  has for musicians who influenced many artists that came after them, like Eva Cassidy‎ and Leona Lewis. --Hera1187 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I objected to this  above. I'm a little concerned how the "influenced" field tends to fill up with people influenced in different ways and in different degrees. This sort of content needs to be discussed in prose. If we can figure out a way to avoid huge lists like the one at G. K. Chesterton, I'll add the template code. How about - nothing should be added to these fields which are not 1) cited, and 2) discussed in the article? Gimmetrow 19:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No personal view, but noting that Edgar Allan Poe had these in the infobox and in this edit they were removed as a result of the Featured Article Candidacy feedback which stated "just one comment for now regarding the last three sections in the infobox. They seem somewhat unnecessary and long; I counted 21 names in the last section alone. Poe's influence is already adequately explained in the lead, so I wouldn't miss a little bit (or a lot) of trimming in the infobox. :)" although the editor said they would be "be okay leaving no more than three or four names each", they obvious felt different about it by the time the edit was made and removed them all, along with the field.--Alf melmac 20:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have concerns about this as well. Even if we require that citations and in-article discussion are required, I expect we will still be facing the similar type of edit-warring we see in some articles with regard to music genre. I would rather see "influences" and "influenced" discussed only in the prose of the article, where it encourages editors to add context and encourages proper citing of sources. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Influenced field 

message: What about label years in the label section (example 1 example 2)? I think it can be informative and it is not disruptive. Shouldn't it be accepted? Kameejl (Talk) 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone object to the use of years in the label section? Kameejl (Talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 07:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labels 

message: i want to add interwiki, but this article blocked. so it's anybody can add interwiki?--Abigail alderate (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the template is being used in thousand of articles, it is indefinitely protected because of the danger it implies (as the template at the top of this page reads). If you want to add an interwiki, you will have to request an administrator to do it for you. Just add the interwiki you want to add here, and use the  template so that we notice someone wants to edit this page (in fact, the  template can be used in the talk page of any protected article when you want to modify it but you cannot). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki 

message: *Q: Is there a legitimate way that the "born" field can be used if the background field is set to group_or_band?
*A: I would assume so, if the subject in question is a duo composed of identical twins.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: What should be done in the case of bands that have somewhat loose memberships, such as The Tractors? The only real "official" member now is Steve Ripley; the rest is just whoever happens to be in the studio when they cut an album. Any suggestions? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say to list the one official member in the infobox and list the rest in the article body. Strobilus (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bands with loose memberships

message: pl:Szablon:Artysta muzyczny infobox
Zwiadowca21 Write 20:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Note that interwikis go in Template:Infobox Musical artist/doc, which is not protected. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Firstly, this is not a proposal for adding another category or colour or altering colours. I think it would be advantageous to change the labels solo_singer and non_vocal_instrumentalist to vocalist and instrumentalist respectfully to better reflect their usage, so they are less likely to be altered in articles to something non-defining (eg singer, rapper, vocal_instrumentalist) by editors who do not realise that it only affects the colour (for example, a lead singer and instrumentalist of a group is not a solo singer and this would be altered or removed). The old names should still work (and no mass conversion required), and the new names would be defined in new cases. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, mattbr 12:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone have any thoughts? mattbr 09:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes more sense in terms of ease-of-use (adding solo_singer to an article like Kim Deal isn't obvious, as she's never been a solo artist). CloudNine (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Never encountered it as a problem before, personally. Then again, I don't edit many articles with a lot of traffic. I don't see a down side to it, really, besides maybe some confusion if the new names become very common. Zytsef (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  solo_singer and non_vocal_instrumentalist background colours name change