Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 2

message: ==== Proposal 1 ====
Yeah, Heaven's Wrath has obviously been looking in some of the same places I have. :) I made it into a psuedo-template, though, which is even easier than copying HW's whole table. Just fill in the colors (or colours if you prefer) in order. (A good place to start to find possible colors is at Web Colors). Here's a quick suggestion: 
Proposal #1
I really like the LightSteelBlue. It's much closer to a neutral grey, but still contains enough blue to be obviously colored. I'm not as sure about the SandyBrown, but I do think it's an improvement over the lightcoral (almost anything would be). --Xtifr tälk 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The band colour is well chosen, Xtifr. BTY what IS a non performing personnel? Bez is the only example I can think of ;) --Coil00 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template page lists it as: "All composers, producers, songwriters, arrangers, engineers, and other non-performing personnel." – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition is incomplete. Should be changed to "All composers, producers, songwriters, arrangers, maracca shakers, engineers, and other non-performing personnel." --Coil00 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maracca shakers would be under "non_vocal_instrumentalist." :-) – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I like this. All the colours are pretty neutral and unobtrusive, yet they are still clearly different from each other. I'd personally keep the old primary colour set between non_performing_personnel, group_or_band and cover_band though, as I think the blue (lightsteelblue) fits best to the current WP colour scheme, and the band colour is much more popular than cover band one. The green does look very good, though. --Prolog (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case it wasn't obvious: my thought (with this and #3) was to have similar things use similar-but-distinctive colors, so that even if you see a new color for the first time, you'll get a strong hint that it's similar to things you have seen before. Thus, individual musicians from red/yellow range of the spectrum, groups from blue/green, and non-performers get purple all to themselves. However, given the relative rarity of "cover_band", perhaps "cover_band" and "classical_ensemble" could be switched. (I do like the lightsteelblue.) --Xtifr tälk 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: I mostly went with the color order in #5 due to some strong objections to the use of blue for group_or_band. --Xtifr tälk 10:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I still find cccc99 extremely ugly, and I have no idea what "deserves more than the link /orange" means. I think the orange for non_vocal_instrumentalist has the strong advantage of being similar enough to the "khaki" yellow to make people think they're dealing with something similar (which they are) while still being distinctive. Whereas, making it the color used for cover_band makes that category so completely distinctive from group_or_band that it is potentially confusing. --Xtifr tälk 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "link /orange" - typo there, meant 'pink'. Not sure its a general enough colour for such a widely used category. Everything else looks good. --Coil00 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed colour selections 

message: Yeah, Heaven's Wrath has obviously been looking in some of the same places I have. :) I made it into a psuedo-template, though, which is even easier than copying HW's whole table. Just fill in the colors (or colours if you prefer) in order. (A good place to start to find possible colors is at Web Colors). Here's a quick suggestion: 
Proposal #1
I really like the LightSteelBlue. It's much closer to a neutral grey, but still contains enough blue to be obviously colored. I'm not as sure about the SandyBrown, but I do think it's an improvement over the lightcoral (almost anything would be). --Xtifr tälk 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 1 

message: Ok good, this is a handy template for comparing diff options. I've gone for #cccc99 for bands; as I was saying color should be muted, unobtrusive and mix well with other colours appearing in the band photos.
Proposal #2
--Coil00 (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2 

message: Ok, let's try something else. If we're going to go with green for "group_or_band", then we should pick one thats neither too saturated nor too muddy. And if "group_or_band" is going to be green, then "non_peforming_personnel" can't be. And I think it's more important to have "non_performing" stand out than to have "cover_band" stand out. I mean, honestly, is "cover_band" really worth wasting a whole color on? Anyway, this is what I've come up with. I'm not sure we're there yet, but it's something to contemplate.
Proposal #3
BTW, while I'm here, I want to suggest adding singer_instrumentalist. With a color possibly somewhere between khaki and sandybrown:  singer_instrumentalist  in peach, or something like that. The category certainly seems far more useful than "cover_band"! :) --Xtifr tälk 21:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The band colour is well chosen, Xtifr. BTY what IS a non performing personnel? Bez is the only example I can think of ;) --Coil00 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template page lists it as: "All composers, producers, songwriters, arrangers, engineers, and other non-performing personnel." – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition is incomplete. Should be changed to "All composers, producers, songwriters, arrangers, maracca shakers, engineers, and other non-performing personnel." --Coil00 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maracca shakers would be under "non_vocal_instrumentalist." :-) – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 3 

message: Get rid of the colors. —freak([ talk]) 01:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 4 

message: Basically, a milder version of #3. Per Prolog, I toned down the SandyBrown by reducing its saturation to 40, and this is what I got. Thistle is a lot more subdued than Plum. And I think the PowderBlue is at least a little less intrusive than the paleturquoise.
Proposal #5
I'm not sure about "composer_or_conductor", if we end up adding that, but perhaps a tan or brown of some sort would work. --Xtifr tälk 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this. All the colours are pretty neutral and unobtrusive, yet they are still clearly different from each other. I'd personally keep the old primary colour set between non_performing_personnel, group_or_band and cover_band though, as I think the blue (lightsteelblue) fits best to the current WP colour scheme, and the band colour is much more popular than cover band one. The green does look very good, though. --Prolog (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case it wasn't obvious: my thought (with this and #3) was to have similar things use similar-but-distinctive colors, so that even if you see a new color for the first time, you'll get a strong hint that it's similar to things you have seen before. Thus, individual musicians from red/yellow range of the spectrum, groups from blue/green, and non-performers get purple all to themselves. However, given the relative rarity of "cover_band", perhaps "cover_band" and "classical_ensemble" could be switched. (I do like the lightsteelblue.) --Xtifr tälk 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 5 

message: Proposal 5 colors, different order - Today's colors muted a bit. Any sort of group (band/cover/ensemble) have a stronger blue channel in the color (cooler colors), soloists have yellow/orange (warmer), green goes to non-performers (which could be expanded later). --*Spark* (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I mostly went with the color order in #5 due to some strong objections to the use of blue for group_or_band. --Xtifr tälk 10:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 6 

message: This is a variant of 5 above, except haved used lightsteelblue for non-vocal instrumentalist (a fairly widely used template, deservs more than the link /orange. Also, I think #cccc99 would be well suited to classical related infoboxes. --Coil00 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still find cccc99 extremely ugly, and I have no idea what "deserves more than the link /orange" means. I think the orange for non_vocal_instrumentalist has the strong advantage of being similar enough to the "khaki" yellow to make people think they're dealing with something similar (which they are) while still being distinctive. Whereas, making it the color used for cover_band makes that category so completely distinctive from group_or_band that it is potentially confusing. --Xtifr tälk 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "link /orange" - typo there, meant 'pink'. Not sure its a general enough colour for such a widely used category. Everything else looks good. --Coil00 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 7 

message: On the other hand, if we absolutely must have cccc99, it should be used (IMO) on a category that appears rarely. Plus, this eliminates all variants on the baby-blue that several people have objected to. And it leaves open the possibility of using another shade of blue for the proposed new category, composer_or_conductor. Puts individual musicians in the yellow/orange spectrum, bands in the greenish spectrum, classical in the bluish spectrum, and leaves purple for the not-really-musicians-after-all category. --Xtifr tälk 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 8 

message: :Please indicate your support for a color system below.
==== Proposal 1 ====
*Oppose, I think the lightgreen is unacceptable, and the sandybrown and paleturquoise are marginal. (And note, this was my proposal.) --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: *Oppose, I think the lightgreen is unacceptable, and the sandybrown and paleturquoise are marginal. (And note, this was my proposal.) --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 1 

message: *Oppose, I think the lightgreen is unacceptable, the sandybrown and paleturquoise are marginal, and the cover_band color is potentiall confusing. --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2 

message: *Oppose, I think the lightgreen is unacceptable, and the sandybrown and paleturquoise are marginal. (And note, this is my proposal.) --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 3 

message: *Neutral, I think the colors are useful for identification, but this does have the advantage of not using any colors that anyone has objected to. :) --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 4 

message: * Support Very subdued and nice color selection. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  21:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 5 

message: * Support Like 5's colors, think the assignments are wrong though. --*Spark* (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 6 

message: *Support Per Xtifrs reasoning above with a few swap arounds. --Coil00 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 7 

message: *Support while I still have mild reservations about the puke-green, it could grow on me, and this does have the advantage (IMO) of making similar things similar-but-distinctive. --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 8 

message: Since proposal 6 seemed the clear preferred choice, I've implemented the changes. --*Spark* (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Thanks for being bold. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it was definitely time. (Would have done it myself if I hadn't been sick the last couple of days.) However, since the color names aren't part of the W3C standards, I've replaced them with color codes. I also took out the aliases that Spark had silently added because A) I'm not sure they're a good idea--simpler is better, and B) if they're going to be done, they should be proper aliases, not just additional cases. We can discuss it at length later, but for now, I think the status quo is more sensible. --Xtifr tälk 17:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. Looks great. --Coil00 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem: The selected color for bands is almost exactly the same as the color used in template:album infobox for studio albums, this might cause confusion in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightmare X (talk • contribs).
Suggestion: I have found that some Singer-instrumentalists do lead vocals and others only backing vocals. I therefore propose an addition to the Color selector of an appropriate new shade for backing singers, instrumentalists and otherwise, including session backup singers. A shade that dovetails into the existing new Color selector code should allow the viewer to differentialte between lead singers, backing singers and non-vocal instrumentalists. --B.C.Schmerker (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 6 Implemented 

message: I've hit a problem with coloring. What do you do with people who perform both solo and in a group on a regular basis? Please leave a note on my talk page if you answer here. --Mgm|(talk) 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NeilEvans responded here. Solo exploits take precedent over group ones, so "solo_singer" would be used. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, maybe I've been misinterpreting this. I've been assuming that band membership has nothing to do with anything, and that individual musicians should all be classified as either "solo_singer" (if they sing lead) or "non_vocal_instrumentalist" (if they play an instrument and don't sing or only sing backup). That, of course, leaves us without a category for someone who is only a backup singer, but then I think few such would be notable enough for an article. But basically, I didn't think it mattered whether they were a member of a band or not. If I'm wrong about this, let me know, because I have a bunch of articles to correct. And if I'm right, maybe we should elaborate a bit in the documentation, as this isn't the first time this (or similar) question has been raised. (In fact, we should probably elaborate in the documentation a bit either way.) --Xtifr tälk 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct being part of a band makes no difference, if they sing or play an instrument then that is what should be entered in that field in the infobox. --NeilEvans (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I added "lead singers" to the "includes" part of the description for solo_singer. That should help make it a little more clear, I think. --Xtifr tälk 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coloring snag 

message: add if expr. for pages without images eg. Will Champion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kandy Talbot (talk • contribs).
:It is already, just you have to make sure there is no spaces or anything after the = sign. In the Will Champion example, I removed the space and the field disappeared. --SeveroTC 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've disabled the editprotected request. The issue seems to be resolved. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: Upon reading the feedback from discussions with WikiProject Guitarists, I propose, as a fallback from an experimental Infobox I have in alpha, the addition of an Audio_sample field in its own sub-box (as is currently done with Notable instrument(s), Current Members (band or group) and Former Members (band or group)). An audio sample datum is provided for in Template:Infobox Guitarist and would be a useful addition to Template:Infobox musical artist. I am developing the alpha Infobox to study whether the data currently in Template:Infobox musical artist will still be readable at a reduced scale consistent with Template:Infobox Guitarist. --B.C.Schmerker (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose the idea. I opposed adding it to the guitarist infobox, and I opposed adding it to this one, even though I was basically leading the effort to keep the infoboxes in sync at the time, and I still oppose it. We have much better way of presenting audio samples; putting one in the infobox is simply a bad idea. --Xtifr tälk 08:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. What Templates are currently designed for calling up audio samples at this time? (I am relatively new to this datum class.) --B.C.Schmerker (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Field Proposal 

message: Should distributing label be included in labels line? I mean, Eminem is signed to Shady and Aftermath, and their distributing label is Interscope, so should Interscope be included in the list of labels? Thanks! --Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the nature of international distribution, especially in earlier years, I would tend to say no. I'm not sure, but I suspect that including distributing labels would easily triple the number of labels listed for, e.g. The Beatles or Buddy Holly, once you factor in European and Asian labels and such. But I'm also not an expert on how labels work, so I may be completely off-base or missing some obvious counterargument, so I'll just say: use your best judgment. --Xtifr tälk 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labels 

message: Yesterday I noticed there is a special infobox for guitarists. I'm not sure if here is the place to address this consistency problem, but I'd like to see if there are more people here that have the same thoughts on this issue. In the Steve Vai and Charlie Hunter articles f.e. the Template:Guitarist_infobox is used. This infobox seems redundant to me and I think it makes artist articles look inconsistent because (all?) other instrumentalist articles should feature the genuine artist infobox. There is no use for a special guitarist template, just like there is no use for a special band template which has been deleted.
It survived a AfD in September 2006, maybe it's time for another one? Any thoughts on this? Cheers --Kameejl (Talk) 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, at the time of the last AfD, this infobox was fairly new and still controversial. I believe that it has much broader acceptance now (especially after various tweaks to the colors and whatnot). Nevertheless, I don't think an automatic conversion is possible (since a bot cannot distinguish non-vocal guitarists from singer-guitarists), so I think the best approach would be an RfC to mark the guitarist infobox as deprecated, and then we can start cleaning up the articles that use it, just as we are doing with . I believe the proper place for this discussion is at Template talk:Guitarist infobox. However, the discussion does seem to be heating up on several fronts, so I'll probably go ahead and file an RfC in the next few days, and advertise it at various places where interested parties may reside. --Xtifr tälk 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with the deprecation process to date. I currently have, until the end of June, an experimental Infobox for review, combining elements of both the existing Template:Infobox musical artist and Template:Guitarist infobox, as a readability study, in order to find the best practical scale and width for Infoboxes related to Music (as there is currently no consensus thereon to my knowledge). Post any suggestions on scale and colors to User talk:B.C.Schmerker/Template:Experimental_Infobox1, which I've opened for the purpose; I'll pass any recommendations on to WikiProjects Musicians and Guitarists. --B.C.Schmerker (Talk) 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been a week since I posted my concerns. I see no objections to file an RfC (or has it already been done?). --Kameejl (Talk) 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was persuaded that an RfC would be overkill, but I notified several potentially-affected Wikiprojects on 1 June. The current plan is to make a final decision after 7 June. --Xtifr tälk 13:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll wait till then --Kameejl (Talk) 13:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guitarist infobox is now officially deprecated. The decision was unanimous. --Xtifr tälk 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there plans to request a bot to convert the existing instances of the guitarist infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, "I don't think an automatic conversion is possible (since a bot cannot distinguish non-vocal guitarists from singer-guitarists)". It might be possible to adapt an editing-assistance tool like AWB to help with the conversion, but a human would still need to be involved. Unfortunately. --Xtifr tälk 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Guitarist_infobox]] 

message: How should URL's be formated? Some articles have Xxxyyy.com, others www.xxxyyy.com, and others Official website
Is there a right format? --Kameejl (Talk) 18:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to think that www.xxxyyy.com is what is meant to be used, as that is what the example at Template:Infobox musical artist#Sample template uses. I also think it is most appropriate choice, because Xxxyyy.com misrepresents the URL (as www.example.com and example.com are different URLs) and "Official website" is redundant and means less useful information is shown (consider a printed copy of an article for example). --PEJL (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that some URLs fit into the box better than others. I like to stay flexible. --Xtifr tälk 07:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL 

message: There are seven background options. Three deal with bands or ensembles, one is for temporary collaborations, one for non-performers. That leaves all individual performers as either "soloists" or "non-vocal instrumentalists". It seems obvious to me that no matter what genre one is working with, this does not cover it. There are instrumentalists who sing, there are singers who are not soloists. --LordAmeth (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you suggesting, more background colors or wider criteria the existing colors? --PEJL (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Steve3849 said on 15 June 2007, I think the addition of "vocal_instrumentalist" would be nice (f.e. for an artist who sings and plays guitar) because some singers are noted for their instrumental skills, not for their singing style (Stevie Ray Vaughan comes to mind). "singers who are not soloists" are just singers, if you ask me. --Kameejl (Talk) 16:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Said where? --PEJL (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care about the colors, but I do think there need to be more categories. Right now we have "solo_singer" and "non-vocal_instrumentalist" - we should add "non-solo singer" (or just "singer") and "vocal instrumentalist". --LordAmeth (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want more colors, we don't need more categories, redefining the existing categories will do. There is no point to having more than one category render as the same color. --PEJL (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to PEJL: My statement "Background color" is 4 posts up. Instrumentalist+Vocalist would be good, as many instrumentalists are not NON-vocalists... as a new category it would need its own color to carry on the coding system that is set up.  - Steve3849 talk 19:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Steve3849 gets what I'm talking about. When I said I don't care about the colors, I did not mean to say that I don't think we need more colors. What I meant was it makes no difference to me how many colors we have, or which categories are assigned which colors - my comment was motivated by a desire for better categorization, not by aesthetic concerns over the appearance of the variety of colors. Of course, any additional categories would need new colors, but that's not the crux of my argument. --LordAmeth (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sorry, grepped for "15 June 2007" and didn't find it.) This sounds quite backwards to me. Basically the only purpose background categories serve is to generate the color in the infobox. The only reason we have different colors is to help users visually determine what type of artist it is, by recognizing patterns in colors between different artists. Users don't see the names or descriptions of the background categories, they just see the colors. We should instead be approaching the problem from whether there is a need for a new color, and if so create a new value for that color. --PEJL (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 14 June 2007... Damn too late... --Kameejl (Talk) 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, PEJL, so what do you suggest we do for singers who are not soloists, or instrumentalists who are not non-vocalists? What color should they be? If the colors are there to help distinguish between different types of artists, then does it not make sense to have enough different colors to accurately reflect the different types of artists? This isn't even a matter of lumping things together and failing to distinguish within a category (within a color) - it's a matter of a whole swath of artists not having an appropriate color to represent them. Imagine if they were colorcoded by nationality - blue for American artists, red for British artists, and yellow for Chinese artists, and then someone came along and said "but there's no color for French artists. What am I supposed to do?" Would you give the same answer, that you don't see the need for a new color because the readers don't know the meanings of the colors anyway? --LordAmeth (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said before, I'd also like to see an extra color for vocal_instrumentalist. These kind of artists are now part of solo_singer which is OK most of the time but when I consider artists like Jimi Hendrix (categorized as solo_singer) primarely known as guitarist, Louis Armstrong (non_vocal_instrumentalist) known by many for his singing style, Phil Collins, James Hetfield, etc I think an extra color (red or beige?) might be appropriate. --Kameejl (Talk) 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you guys are reading way too much into what is really only an arbitrary text string never seen by readers. It could be "glerkzel" and "frobnitz" as easily as "solo_singer" and "non_vocal_instrumentalist". The intent here is really to separate singers from non-singers, and "solo" is more of a historical accident than a defining characteristic. That said, I'm not entirely opposed—in fact, I've argued for adding singer-instrumentalist before—and if we do decide to do this, I previously suggested using peachpuff for singer-instrumentalist, which is a nice shade in-between the colors used for singers and non-singers IMO. --Xtifr tälk 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Xtifr's suggestion; "peachpuff:" singer(vocalist)-instrumentalist.  - Steve3849 talk 06:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Example can be viewed at my workbench, User:Xtifr/IMAtest. --Xtifr tälk 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for posting examples. On my LCD screen the new color is harldy discernable from non-vocalist. The new color needs more yellow and/or non-voalist more red. It might be helpful to see them in the format that is on the template page as well - Template:Infobox musical artist#Background color  - Steve3849 talk 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how this category can seem like a good fit with the existing categories, but I'm not convinced it's a net gain for users. This category makes the distinction between categories both in terms of color and meaning less clear. Like I said above, I think the colors need to be very clear and very distinct to be useful to actual users who haven't seen what they represent. (Adding this option also makes the category choice less objective, which could lead to edit wars, similar to the current edit wars over genres.) --PEJL (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve3849, why not "PapayaWhip"? See color example User:Emmaneul/IMA --Kameejl (Talk) 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: PEJL, could you name artists where the difference between non_vocal_instrumentalist and solo_singer is not clear? --Kameejl (Talk) 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I can't, that's the point. The existing categories are quite clearly defined, both in terms of color and meaning. --PEJL (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm, sorry.. I meant the difference between vocal_instrumentalist and solo_singer. --Kameejl (Talk)  18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpret vocal_instrumentalist as including all back-up vocalists who are primarily instrumentalists and all lead vocalists who usually play an instrument. Maybe what we need to do is loosen up the existing definitions instead of adding a color, such as something synonomous with "primarily vocalist" "primarily instrumentalist." ...also to list distinct examples of popular vocal_instrumantalist briefly, here are a few: Sting, Jimi Hendrix, John Mayer, Eric Clapton, ... There is an unsigned post above that lists a couple more.  - Steve3849 talk 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: By current definition "solo_vocalist" then should be the catch all for musicicians who do any singing at all. "non-vocalist" being specifically that.  - Steve3849 talk 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I find myself agreeing with PEJL. The only thing the reader sees is the color, so the question we need to ask is not: "will adding a new 'category'" help anyone, but, "will adding a new color help anyone? And I think the answer is no. Furthermore, adding singer-instrumentalist would only increase ambiguity. At the moment we have questions about people who sing so rarely that it's hardly a defining characteristic. Adding "singer-instrumentalist" would not resolve that question, but would add a new one about people who play an instrument so rarely that it's hardly a defining characteristic. Mick Jagger, for example, picks up a guitar once in a while, but even so, referring to him as an instrumentalist is a bit of a stretch. And there are others who's claim to being an instrumentalist is even more tenuous. In my youth, it was common for bands to hand a tambourine to a female vocalist, so that she'd have something to do during instrumental passages. (In fact, calling someone a "tambourine player" became a slangy way of implying that she was sleeping with someone in the band.) Is someone who sings and occasionally bangs a tambourine semi-rhythmically really a singer-instrumentalist? I think that's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, bottom line, I don't think a new color is really going to communicate much of anything useful. At least not a color for singer-instrumentalists. I'd rather discuss where we draw the line between our existing colors than add a new color with new vague boundaries. --Xtifr tälk 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the articles to which I've added boxes there have been several musicians who are primarily instrumentalists, yet do occassionally sing. Is anyone willing to discuss altering the current definitions so that "instrumentalist" is not so strictly "non_vocal." The current guidelines are weighted towards vocals.  - Steve3849 talk 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly endorse using non_vocal_instrumentalist for someone who rarely or never sings. --Xtifr tälk 19:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backgrounds seem awfully limited