Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 1

message: Using parameters
*Born = February 21, 1986
*Age = 
is cumbersome, parameters 1986, 2, and 21 could be supplied once and used for both, compare . --Patrick  (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age parameter 

message: 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. ). By allowing wiki control, you could choose it to appear which way you wanted (depending on the length of the actual URL name).
Also, is this the "official" Infobox musical artist template now? All of the references to IMA 2 should probably be removed then. --SevereTireDamage (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Returning to the template, I agree, so have restored the URL setup. Thanks for the alert and apologies for inconvenience. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for returning it to its previous state. --SevereTireDamage (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL / Infobox 2? 

message: 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)
replies: text: If a performer or group has two or more established "turfs", list them all in the "Origin" section by city. Seperate with a break () --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country? 

message: What about a color for performing members of non-classical music ensembles?
Like this 
performing_personnel	Performing members of non-classical music ensembles
--Miketm (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Performing members of non-classical ensembles is covered in the group/band field isn't it? --NeilEvans (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think group_or_band is for the whole band not the individual members. --Miketm (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Individual members of a band who have performed on their own is covered under solo singer. --NeilEvans (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  band members 

message: 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 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unint (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about DJ/producers 

message: I was browsing the Ramones page, which uses this infobox, and I noticed that the infobox displayed "" 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 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok somebody has messed with the template, I yried to change it back but I don't know how to --NeilEvans (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it seems to be fixed now. --Zaukul (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in name field 

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

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.130.209 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox idol 

message: If a "Notable equipment" field (or something similar) were added to this, then it could be used as a replacement for  (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)
replies: text: There is already an instrument field so the infobox can already be used for guitarists. --NeilEvans (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. --NeilEvans (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notable equipment 

message: 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 (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  YES! 

message: 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 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find your infobox's guidelines. What are your projects' standards when it comes to using colours? --Unint (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceased artists 

message: 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 (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they play classical music or compose classical music then I guess so yeah. --NeilEvans (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A classical composer would be considered a solo artist. A classical ensemble is for a group, such as an orchestra. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Composers 

message: 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 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 . --Prolog (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Browsed Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern and it seems like an excellent idea, so I've implemented it on this template. I don't see any ill effects and it should reduce impact of doc changes. Apologized if I've missed anything, but looks like pages using it are still evaluating it properly. --*Spark* (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine. Would help if we need to protect the template in the future. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I've seen this done on other templates, and had been thinking it might be a good idea, but hadn't gotten around to doing anything about it. We might even want to go a little further, and split it up a bit so that important pieces can be transcluded elsewhere (e.g. the docs on the background field, which a lot of people find tricky), but this is an excellent start. Kudos! --Xtifr tälk 00:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Glad it worked smoothly. This is not a template I make a major edit to without more than a bit of hesitation. --*Spark* (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected the talk page back here, as I think it makes more sense to have all the discussions in one place. I did add it to my watchlist, but I don't think that everyone who wants to keep track of discussions should have to do so. --Xtifr tälk 01:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation transclusion 

message: It's too bad the fields in the solo and Band templates are not consistent with the field names here. Makes more work for a switch. Is there a tool that would automate switching solo and Band templates to this one? --*Spark* (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to talk to Kingbotk about that. He developed some plugins for AWB, available here. I have been replacing them by hand, so I would be interested if he could make one. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an idea for making it easier, but don't have the time to try it juuuuust yet. When I do I'll report back here on it. --*Spark* (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I ran a test and am awaiting some answers regarding template substitution. If you look at User:Sparkhead/TemplateTest and User:Sparkhead/BandTest (which was a copy of the infobox code on the Marillion page) when I edited it, I replaced {{Infobox_band with {{subst:User:Sparkhead/TemplateTest and nothing else, saved. It ran the subst, and it almost worked. There are some other issues. I'm no expert with template syntax, nor with AWB plugins. If someone else a little more knowledgeable about template subst wants to mess with it, feel free to do it right in my user space. --*Spark* (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I wrote a little utility that will convert templates. I'm using the "View Source With" plugin for Firefox to launch it. Which means I have to go to the page, hit edit, hotkey the "view source with" for my util, hit "show changes" to make certain all works correct, then hit save. Anyone know of a faster way to edit the wiki on a large number of pages? If I could go to the "what links here" page for the band template, and simply launch tabs for 20 links at a time, I could convert them all in a short time. I'm not familiar with AWB but will check it out to see if it can launch my utility. --*Spark* (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field Names 

message: If you check any usage of this template, the name of the artist is centered at the top of the template, but the subsection headings (Background info, Members, former members, etc.) are left justified. I believe they should all be centered (just looks better IMO). Comments? --*Spark* (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all centred in my browser. --NeilEvans (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any explicit centering code in the template. Check Rush (band) for an example. The subsection headers are left justified in my browser (Firefox). --*Spark* (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There lies the problem. I am using Internet Explorer. If I knew how to change the code I would. --NeilEvans (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm using Firefox, like Spark, and it's centered for me. Furthermore, the explicit centering code is the part where it says 'style="text-align: center;"', which it says before each of the headings. Spark, I don't know why it's not centered for you, but I strongly suspect that the problem is on your end, somehow. Does anyone else see the headings left-justified? --Xtifr tälk 23:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very very strange - I logged out and viewed the page. Everything is centered correctly. Logged back in, left justification. I have a few css/javascript changes, looks like something is mucking with the pages. --*Spark* (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Found it. My Preferences->Misc->Justify Paragaph was checked, and overriding the centering code. Don't know if there's a way to fix that, but that was the cause. --*Spark* (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centering Subsection Headers 

message: Can someone pretty please change the pink color that gets assigned to instrumentalists? Of all the proposals above, I don't see that anyone is actually in favor of that color. It's killing me. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I have lately been involved in the Esperanza MfD, so discussion has died out. Hopefully we can get a vote going soon. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: Hi. Listen, I'm currently expanding the article for Linkin Park in Arabic  and I'd like to know the code for the Arabic musical template asap. And if there is, can you add the Arabic interwiki? Thanks.
P.S. Here's one interwiki that needs to be added for this musical template: "fa:الگو:جعبه اطلاعات هنرمند موسیقی"
--Qasamaan (talk) 6:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the interwiki, but what do you mean by the code? It is all there on the template page. Just hit edit and you can look at it and copy it. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request:The Template's code (for Arabic Wikipedia) 

message: Did someone update the part of the infobox with the name? It looks fine for most artists, but for some (say, with Japanese names, like Ayumi Hamasaki for example) it's cutting the field off. Would someone mind looking into it? --Shiori (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? I don't see any cutting off. The contents of the name field seem to render exactly the same for me whether it's inside or outside the name field. That is to say, I see "" displayed just fine, and it looks the same here as it does in the infobox. I don't know if that's how it's supposed to be rendered, since my Japanese is very limited, but if there's a problem, it doesn't seem to be related to the infobox. (And in answer to your first question, no, the name field has not been updated or changed in, well, ever.) --Xtifr tälk 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a system-specific problem. You could take a screenshot, upload the image to one of the free hosts (such as imageshack.us) and then link it here. --Prolog (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to only be happening in IE.  (Cropped to make it easier to see). It's fine in Firefox. --Shiori (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried with IE (6.0) now and the same thing happened, so it's definitely an IE-related bug and not just on your system. --Prolog (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I've tracked down the cause. IE doesn't seem to like Template:Nihongo, which adds the small question mark and wikilink to Help:Japanese after the Japanese spelling (as shown on Xtifr's post above). --Prolog (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for solving the puzzle, Prolog. I didn't think this infobox could possibly be doing anything complicated enough to confuse even IE—and sure enough, it's not. Has someone reported the problem on at Template talk:Nihongo? --Xtifr tälk 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to fix it, so I left a note at Template talk:Nihongo. --Prolog (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that is a good point about not using Template:Nihongo in the infobox, especially when the template is already in use in the first sentence of the introduction. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. I'll see if I can think of some appropriate brief comment to add to the docs to cover not just this, but other potentially problematic templates in the name field as well. --Xtifr tälk 00:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree as well. There's already an overuse of kanji (along with excessive capitalization of English) in quite a few Japanese music-related articles, despite the last paragraph in WP:MOS-JP. Using the nihongo template within the infobox would just encourage this sort of overkill. --Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name field problem 

message: It is caused by the fact that an HTML sup tag is used to create a superscript ?-mark. It is a peculiarity of the default IE stylesheet that this causes the line-height to be slightly larger. Since the designer of the infobox didn't account for that and tightened the line-spacing, text is cut off.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask you not to try to solve this problem, but to instead refrain from using the kanji spelling in the infobox. You see, the name in roman letters + the name in kanji is, for most artists, too long to fit in the caption. That, and I don't think that such information is needed more than once in an article. We would already have the kanji, and possibly Hepburn, in the lead, so why duplicate in the infobox title? --Shinobu (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good point about not using Template:Nihongo in the infobox, especially when the template is already in use in the first sentence of the introduction. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. I'll see if I can think of some appropriate brief comment to add to the docs to cover not just this, but other potentially problematic templates in the name field as well. --Xtifr tälk 00:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree as well. There's already an overuse of kanji (along with excessive capitalization of English) in quite a few Japanese music-related articles, despite the last paragraph in WP:MOS-JP. Using the nihongo template within the infobox would just encourage this sort of overkill. --Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to question ''from [[Template talk:Nihongo]]'' 

message: Can someone with the know-how archive closed discussions please (page is now 115kb) --Coil00 (talk)) 21:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. See floating archive box for the link. --*Spark* (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was about to do this myself. The page was getting rather large. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: As part of a proposal to try and end "genre edit wars", one of the things I requested was that a Style(s) field be added to this template.
To view this proposal, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Genre wars and the distinguishing of genres and styles.
I would appreciate feedback on this proposal. I am going to push hard for this proposal to be put into action, and I appreciate any supporters in helping me do so. Thank you. -- Reaper  X 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed and rejected (see the archived discussion). --Xtifr tälk 04:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New field: distinguishing genres and styles 

message: has been updated to allow the name of the article with which the template is associated to be added as a parameter (i.e. ) will add this template to Category:Protected pages associated with Main Page articles. --Sandy (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it looks like Selena is no longer on the main page (backlogs are bad for business). If I understand correctly, that sort've renders this request moot. If I continue patrolling these things, I'll be happy to do this for you in the future. You may wish to contact the protecting admin to inquire about dropping the protection, as they didn't specify whether their protection was due to high-use or being frontpaged (or if they did, I missed wherever they specified it). Cheers! --Luna Santin (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  editprotect request 

message: Regarding the occupation field, should only musical occupations be listed? What if the artist has dabbled in a field, say, he was in a couple of movies but didn't really act a lot. Would it be fair to include "Actor"? --Sam (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a judgement call. And no, it's not just for musical occupations. If the person is notable for another occupation (e.g. Ice Cube or Harry Connick Jr.), then absolutely that occupation should be listed. If it's more of a case of dabbling in another occupation, then I'd say it probably shouldn't be listed. But Willie Nelson (who I'd consider a borderline case) has "actor" listed. So obviously some flexibility is allowed. Just don't get carried away trying to make someone look more impressive than they really are. Remember that we're trying to write encyclopedia articles, not puff pieces. Use common sense, and you should be ok. --Xtifr tälk 11:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up. Could you edit the text in the fields table to clarify that? I would do it myself but the page is locked for me. --Sam (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a little bit of information, but just so you know, although the template page is locked, the page with the information is not. It is transcluded from Template:Infobox musical artist/doc. If you would like to edit it further, please feel free. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  17:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you. --Sam (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, and thanks for fixing that typo, I thought I checked my spelling before I saved that. Oh, well. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  20:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox 2.0's spellchecker to the rescue ;) --Sam (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I somehow missed the release of 2.0. I am off to download. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation field 

message: Should I really put all the past members in the infobox? That would be a really long list. I tried to include those who had had major stints with the band, and left out the others, which are listed in the "lineup" section. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Michael Nyman Band]] 

message: Hiya, I'm not very familiar with infoboxes and the procedure for adding things to them, so sorry if this seems like a silly question. I was wondering if it was possible to get a 'notable roles' section added to this ibox template. It's just that many singers are also actors so I thought it would be handy to have their roles in the box as well as their music stats. I had a look through the available iboxes and can only find one for actor and musical artist and not a mixture of both. I thought I would be able to just add '|notable_role = ' to the specific artist's ibox (on their page), but it doesn't seem to show up when I save, so obviously it cant be done like this (unless i'm doing it wrong). --Gungadin (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant to respond to this before. In order to add a new parameter, you actually have to add extra code to the template's page. Even so, I cannot think of any musicians that would really require a "notable roles" parameter. Most of the time, the musician is only notable because of his or her musical exploits, not any acting roles. I think that it might be more useful as prose in the biography section of the article. Also, the unclear definition of "notable" roles might lead to edit wars or inconsistencies in the content when compared to other articles. The infobox is supposed to display very non-controversial facts (although genre disputes have been known to cause problems), and I think a "notable roles" section might be too subjective. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding notable roles to the ibox 

message: Two issues regarding the origin field:
# Sometimes people read it as "where the band members were born" rather than "where the band formed". Is there a way to phrase it better?
# Do we actually need flagicons in the field? There are some fierce debates on whether flag icons are overproliferated. My personal thoughts:
#* Flag icons are most often used to save space where it would be too cluttered to write out country names in full, or at all. The origin field must write out the geographical location in full, and therefore the flag icons cannot ever reduce or replace the text.
#* Therefore, the only possible use for flag icons here is to provide a visual cue that is redundant to text already 100% clear in meaning.
What's the opinion on these things? --Unint (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion on the flag's in infoboxes is that they really don't have to be there. They are mostly used so infoboxs don't have to squeeze in large country names (like for movie or album release dates in specific countries). I really don't think they need to be in the country infobox, it just clutters them. --Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you both on this; not only does it seem to me that the flags are a source of clutter, they are also a source of needless edit-warring and controversy; should Simple Minds, for example, be adorned with the Scottish or the British flag? My view is that we should remove this option from the template. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Flags. --Guinnog (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion has now been moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. --Guinnog (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the other issue, how about displaying "Career origin" instead of "Origin" as a clarification? --Unint (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per discussion there, and as no objection has been raised here, I'm going to remove the reference to the flag icon in this infobox. --Guinnog (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins and flags 

message: I think any pages for a musical group should be merged together so that a band history, list of members, and complete discography are included on ONE PAGE. I'm somewhat new to wiki, but I think that seems more logical than having separate pages like AC/DC discography, Past members of AC/DC, etc. Anyone agree? --Thomaslikespigs (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. First off, I moved your new topic to the bottom of the talk page so people can find it. I'll explain why on your talk page. Now, as for your question, there are arguments on both sides, and there's no easy answers. The biggest problem with your proposal is that there are technical limits on article size. Very large articles cause problems with many browsers, especially when you try to edit. Also, many people consider large articles unwieldy to browse (especially, I think, those with tabbed browsers). There's no one answer that will satisfy everyone, so we just muddle along as best we can. I do think that the main article about a band should include at least a summary of the the membership, discography, etc., but beyond that, we absolutely have to split some things up. There are other issues—your question does not have simple answers—but that should do for a start. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 20:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: this is also off-topic for this infobox. Further discussion (if any) should probably be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. --Xtifr tälk 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Page Per Artist 

message: What is the appropriate type for an individual band member? It appears that group_or_band would be for articles on the band, not its members. --Joltman (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what they do within the band. If they sing and play an instrument, use solo_singer and if they only play an instrument, but do not sing, use non_vocal_instrumentalist. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  01:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that kind of contradictory to list a band member as a solo singer? Perhaps we should either change the wording or create a type just for members of a band? I think that a type just for band members would be best, because why should a singer get their own color but every other band member be the same? --Joltman (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're correct. There should be a "band_member" category with the same color as the band color. Maybe add the wording "Member of /band/" up top, like singles have "from /album/" on them. --*Spark* (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What ended up being called "Solo_singer" was meant for use by all articles pertaining to a singular singer, whether they perform with a group or without one. Instrumentalists (meaning people who never or very rarely sing) should be tagged with the instrumentalist color. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual band members? 

message: {tl|ediprotected}}
Would it be possible for an administrator to add a footnotes field on a par with the one on Infobox Officeholder? There are several pages on which I think it is needed to explain the information displayed in the infobox. Thank you. --Hera1187 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is stopping you from using a footnote in the infobox? The note will still appear in the references section in the bottom. Why does it need the parameter? (An example of it in use would be helpful.) – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  03:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Katie Melua plays the violin, but this is not widely know and I would like to put an explanation and cite to prevent it being deleted by well meaning editors who don't know this. An unintrusive footnotes field would do this. For an example of such a field in use, see Ehud Olmert. --Hera1187 (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That can go as a regular footnote. There's no reason to have a special field for a standard feature. I've removed the editprotected request, as we seem to be far from having a concensus on adding this. --Xtifr tälk 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes field 

message: I propose to add spouse to this template. --Astorknlam (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussed fairly recently (scroll up a little). I'm still opposed to the suggestion. --Xtifr tälk 09:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spouse 

message: Someone should provide the possibility for image to be set at its size, as, when enlarged, it gives bad results as in Carlo Bergonzi. --Attilios (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size (Feb 2007) 

message: Would it be possible to add a nationality field? Often the birth place and origin of an artist do not share their nationality. For example, Regina Spektor is an American but if you only looked at the infobox on her page you would think she was Russian. Katie Melua has joint British and Georgian citizenship but her infobox only states her birthplace in Georgia. There are many more examples of this where a nationality field would clear up any confusion. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm dubious, but not totally opposed. Nationality has been the subject of numerous contentious edit wars in the past {see WP:LAME#Ethnic feuds for some of the more extreme examples). Also, I'd prefer not to encourage people to just look at the infobox. If nationality is worth mentioning, it's worth mentioning in the lead, and I think mentioning it in the lead should be good enough to solve the presented problem. And if history shows us anything, it's that people will try to fill in every field of an infobox they possibly can, even when it's not particular appropriate or called for. This field seems like it would be redundant in many (probably most) cases. Or, if it's not redundant, then we'd want to go through and re-edit several thousand articles to add it in. So...I cringe a little at the suggestion, but won't stand in the way if others also feel it's a good idea. But I'm glad you asked (protection aside), because I don't think it should go in without at least a little further discussion. --Xtifr tälk 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  again after further discussion has taken place. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. --Ian Manka (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are too many possible combinations and permutations of what could go in there - ancestry, place of birth, residence, etc. It would make the infobox too confusing. I'd put explanations of stuff like that in the article itself. --Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality field 

message: What about adding an "if" string for signature, I'm sure it won't be very useful but I need to use  on the Carl Reinecke article. Thanks. --Walter Humala Godsave him! (wanna Talk?) 03:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where exactly do you want to add the signature? --NeilEvans (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G.D. signature 

message: How are we to define this? --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely that's just common sense. --NeilEvans (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not really...particularly for classical artists. when does it actually 'count' for career start? ...first recital? ...first paid performance? ...first acclaimed performance? it really isn't all that clear. --emerson7 | Talk 03:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with first recital, to compare that with modern artists, an artisat could be active for many years within a small niche of music and known to only a small number of people. They may then have a breakout hit in the pop charts some years later. But you wouldn't count the start of their career from the breakout hit would you? --NeilEvans (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the dilemma. I'd say the musician is technically "active" from the moment they start to play an instrument or define themselves as a musician, whenever that is. --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think years active is meant to be a definitive date, as you would not be able to find an exact date of any musician, if you looked for the first time they played an instrument. Something like first recital, I would think that someone could easily research that in regard to classical musicians. --NeilEvans (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the first available date in reference to doing something musical or definitely the first performance? --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say first performance, but I guess you should just use your own judgement for classical artists. --NeilEvans (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Years active"? 

message: Hi, new here, but with a question: Couldn't there be a category not just for "Instrument," but for "Voice Type"? My issue is opera singers. On Jussi Bjorling, I just tried to change "Instrument: Vocals" to "Voice type: Tenor," but I see the template itself would need a change.
The only problem I see is that people would start trying to categorize every pop singer as an alto, tenor, baritone, etc., which isn't useful information for a pop singer, and would simply add clutter. For an opera singer, though, it's often one of the first things you need to know, like what instrument they play. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like it might be worth further discussion, but for now, I recommend something like "Vocals (tenor)". I agree that people trying to classify pop musicians would be a problem (and would frequently constitute original research, even if correct). There might be a way around that, but I don't see it at present, so I think my workaround is probably the best bet until someone comes up with a better suggestion. --Xtifr tälk 21:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the only way to do that would be to have a different set of options used only for classical musicians (in other words, make it optional) --Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: theres's no question that this template is biased toward contemporary music forms, but technically, the voice is an instrument, and it's perfectly appropriate to indicate the voice range in that field. i've been using, voice: soprano (voice: soprano) --emerson7 | Talk 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice Type 

message: I think we should at least have a couple of artists of height, like 5 or 6. Happy Editing! --Trampton (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but if you're asking for a height field to be added, then I disagree. Height is pretty much completely irrelevant to a musician's career. If there are any exceptions, then the height issues can be discussed in the body of the article. Adding a field to the infobox would result in people trying to add the information to many musicians' infoboxes, which would be extremely pointless. Hair color is probably relevant to more musicians' careers than height is—but still irrelevant to the vast majority, so I'd strongly oppose adding a hair-color field as well. --Xtifr tälk 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: This template is protected, and should be tagged with , or another suitable protection template. Thanks --Qxz (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: I have been working on creating a new entry for a Classical Conductor and was going to base it on what has been done elsewhere. Looking at a few sample conductors I don't see this Infobox used, and I think it probably should be. So the question is what "background" value should I use for a classical conductor? Are they considered an instrumentalist? If so, it might be nice to add that to the description as an example. Thanks. --Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually it is being used...ref: Michael Tilson Thomas, Leonard Bernstein, Yehudi Menuhin and Pierre Boulez just to name a few. ....works well with orchestras too! ref: San Francisco Symphony and London Symphony Orchestra. although this infobox is arguably waaaay contemporary-music centric, it works relatively well, but i'd be interested in what additionally you'd like to see. --emerson7 | Talk 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the value "classical_ensemble" being used in most of the examples you cited, but one is left blank. Surely the background "classical ensemble" isn't really accurate when it's just one person, is it? I don't mind classifying a conductor as an instrumentalist, but we should be using some sort of individual classification, rather than implying that the person is an ensemble. --Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the ensemble is the orchestra. what good is a conductor.... --emerson7 | Talk 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also come across a conductor being listed as "non_performing_personnell", ref: Zubin Mehta, which I disagree with. There really does not seem to be an appropriate background in which conductors fall. I agree that putting a conductor under instrumentalist would be better, but then could that be added to the description. Ideally, I think a separate category should be there for conductors. --Xunvala (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Conductors 

message: Someone just added a Soviet flag to the Regina Spektor infobox, making it appear as if she is Soviet, whereas she now has U.S. citizenship. Why doesn't the infobox include the nation where the individual currently lives and/or holds citizenship? --Badagnani (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use the Origin field for where she started her musical career. --Unint (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't it include the nation in which they currently live? 

message: Perhaps the inclusion of another section for live members (in between the ones for the current and former members) in order to include any additional personnel performing only in a live capacity, but not as full time members? --Inflammator (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live members 

message: I'm trying to fix up the Keiko Fuji page, and wanted to list her legal name (her current legal name) and birth name (with maiden family name) separately, but see that this is currently unavailable in the template. Why don't we add a legal name item? --mitcho/芳貴 (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sort of thing standardly goes in the Alias field. Details (such as that one is a legal name or maiden name) are better in the body of the article. --Xtifr tälk 22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal name 

message: Why dont we add a "management field" to the infobox. e.g. 50 Cent's would be Violator Management --Wikien2009 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that level of detail is really necessary or appropriate for the infobox, though I don't feel strongly about the matter one way or the other --Xtifr tälk 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Management field 

message: What background colour would a DJ be. --Wikien2009 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non performing personnel would be the best fit. --NeilEvans (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background colour help 

message: I recently marked up this template with hCard microformat classes, but I'm not very happy with the results, because its; not easily possible to determine whether the template is being used for person or a group. In the former case, the name should be wrapped with HTML class="fn" (as happens now), but in the case of a group, the wrapper should use classes "fn org". Any suggestions as to how this might be achieved? --Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Note that it may take some time for existing transclusions to be updated. --ais523 08:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. It seems to be working for both solo artists and groups. --Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microformat 

message: Apparently, putting any value in the Img_size parameter breaks the infobox (does not recognize size, and puts the image in full size). Is this intended or not? --ReyBrujo (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean, it breaks the infobox. The parameter for image size does work. --NeilEvans (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be breaking again. Adding Img_size makes it look as though the image link does not exist (red link). --Just64helpin (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, it's not the image size value, it's the appended "px". if only the value is added, it appears to work. example gut: img_size=200, example nicht so gut: img_size=200px --emerson7 | Talk 03:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size (Jan–Apr 2007) 

message: Further to the note above from the Composers Project, there is also a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera that these boxes are not being used on opera articles. Thank you for your cooperation. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I again see no consensus there; just a draft statement from you, posted after the above comment, with which one other editor has agreed. --Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look again at the various discussions on both the Composers and Opera Projects talk pages you will see that members of the Opera Project have been unanimous in deploring the use of biographical infoboxes. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Only Linishu has offered halfhearted support for them. --Folantin (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opera 

message: This infobox has been added to many "classical" composers' pages. I just wanted people here to know that there has been a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers that infoboxes are not a net-positive for these articles, and so they should not be considered a standard part of these articles. Just wanted to let you guys know so no one gets bitten while trying to add infoboxes! :) Thanks, Mak (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no such consensus on that project's talk page; only on-going debate. AIUI, there's a wider biography-project consensus that infoboxes should be used. As I said in that debate, what is need is not the removal of infoboxes, but changing the existing infobox to make it more suitable - or, if that's not possible, and new, "composers" infobox. --Andy Mabbett (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus was reached on April 12/13 in which all the regular Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers editors participated. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those editors do not own the articles concerned. Debate is continuing; ergo no consensus has been reached. --Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why this infobox was deemed appropriate for composers to begin with; the fields needed for popular musicians are clearly at cross purposes with those needed for composers. Also, the background colour documentation clearly only covers "non-classical composers". --Unint (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the discussion fully and I think you'll find a reasonable consensus. This is not a policy matter. --Moreschi  Talk 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composers 

message: Please change line 6 from
  |px|
to
||
This solves the problem discussed at WP:VPT that setting Img_size = 150px with that "px" at the end causes the image to be linked instead of shown. --Pomte (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like it will badly break things if the Landscape option is used, and will allow overriding the standard maximum sizes by the simple expedient of adding "px" to the end of the size, which is highly undesirable! --Xtifr tälk 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The landscape option doesn't break because it remains the same as before. I agree though about increasing the size being undesirable, so I've withdrawn the edit request. But we still need to fix all the "px" uses. If someone wants to do it with AWB or something, that'd be great. A way to do it manually is to add a dummy category :Category:Musical artist articles needing maintenance when the length of Img_size is greater than 3. The latter method would require an edit to the template. --Pomte (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the template so that it checks if  is a number; if not (such as if it ends with px) it is replaced by 300. --Patrick (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite right either, as it should only be 300 if the landscape option is set; otherwise it should be 220. But aside from that detail, this sounds like a good approach. --Xtifr tälk 08:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is changed to 300 before applying min, so it becomes 220 anyway. --Patrick (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok, cool. I didn't look closely enough, sorry. --Xtifr tälk 10:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accounting for ''px'' at the end of Img_size's value 

message: i am proposing adding cause of death to the infobox, other sites like IMDB, answers.com list cause of death. it is useful information for most people and i feeel it should be listed above the fold. --Randywilliams1975 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's something that needs to be in the infobox, I think just put it in the article. --Joltman (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i concur with Joltman...everything needn't be infoboxed, and i'd like to see a lot of other things before cause of death. --emerson7 | Talk 21:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I am not a member of the Project, but I do a lot of work on biographies. I wish you folks would revisit the idea of adding "cause of death" to the info box. It would mean adding just one more line (after the date of death) and would be a quick and easy source of this information. Thanks. --Michael David (talk)) 14:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause Of Death 

message: Could someone add an interwiki link to the French template (:fr:Modèle:Infobox Artiste musical), please? Thanks. --131.111.100.155 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The interwiki links go on the documentation page, which isn't protected, so you don't need an admin (or even an account) for this. Done. --Xtifr tälk 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French interwiki link