Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Add children parameter

We recently added spouse on the basis that musical artists can have notable spouses just like other people, and having the parameter avoids having to embed this template into {{infobox person}} just to include a spouse. The same applies to children. I just noticed this in Woody Guthrie, and had to embed. But all the same rational from the spouse discussion applies. It should just be added too. MB 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Experiences from some 900 parameter cleanups, I noted in § Future considerations that notable relations could have a parameter. Point is to have it limited to bluelinks then. Note: better not interfere with current Edit Request. -DePiep (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I was suggesting that |children= could be boldly added without extensive discussion since we just had one for |spouse= and everything said then about spouse applies to children also. (Of course, usage should be the same as with Infobox person - bluelinks only). MB 04:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
In those ~900 edits, I also met uncles, aunts, partner, etc. imo, one parameter for all should do (including spouse), and requiring bluelinks/noatbility (through documentation etc.). It is my impression that |spouse= is mainly used for non-notable info. Are we expected to remove those non-links? btw, I used |module=Father of Arlo Guthrie constructs to keep the bluelink. -DePiep (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 July 2022

Hello, Music labels are included in the infobox and I'd like to request include music publishers too. Samcarew (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, please get a consensus to add this feature before requesting the template be changed. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

High use/risk warning in doc

Split topic from mixed edits [1] -DePiep (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
...And why do you keep reverting my additions of the High-use/risk template? There is no connection to the protection levels, which of course do not show transclusions like the High-use template does. Anytime the usage goes equal to or above 2,000 transclusions, the High-use template should be applied. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
See es in [2]: hig-use is an out of place, distracting warning. -DePiep (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
T-protected so only relevant for TPE-editors - who already know this. Editors are here for the documentation, not for template-editing
Again, high use is not connected to any protection level. It is placed to inform ALL editors of the high use/risk of such templates. If a non-TE wants to edit a high use page, they will be more careful with their edit requests if they KNOW that a template is high use. They don't have to be a template editor to be informed of this, so please don't revert its usage again. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 04:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
It's the opposite. "high use/risk" and protection are sides of the same coin: do not edit the template carelessly. Which is absolutely not of relevance to the template user (=article editor). They are visiting /doc for usage documentation full stop, not for irrelevant warnings and cruft. It is the TPE (and TPE only) who should be aware of high use risks beforehand -- which is primary part of TPE rights. The removal is improvement of the documentation. -DePiep (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
BTW, Paine Ellsworth, this going offtopic is disrupting the Edit Request. I strongly suggest you disentangle it (new section). -DePiep (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
(Paine Ellsworth This topic into new section by now) -DePiep (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Question for you: how does the TE know a template is high-use if there is no high-use template in the documentation? Many protected templates, fully, template, extended confirmed, are not high-use, and some are substituted, not transcluded. Template editors aren't psychic, so again, please do not revert these again. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: how does the TE know a template is high-use .. - that's their job: find it out. There is a reason for template protection (hint: has to do with "risk"), and there is a reason the editor has TPE rights. Just as that same editor has responsability to check tests, sandboxes, changes, consensus, etcetrera. (Simply: why would you as TPE act differently if the usage number is high or low?). The warning text in {{high-risk}} is clearly not aimed at TPE (who must know this by heart before getting the bit set; or do you read these warnings each time before you edit?), but at inexperienced edtitors (ie, irrelevant). That number, if if were relevant in the /doc at all, should be in a non-intrusive small box top-right at max.
I repeat: this warning box at it is is misplaced and not relevant; it is not helpful. It degrades documentation goals and usefulness. -DePiep (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Jonesey95: Undid revision 1097521377 by DePiep (talk). per the template's documentation and BRD. Please do not edit-war in template space.
First, please clarify why you introduce reference to editwarring this way, while I can see no cause to even mention it.
Second, what is your argument referring to WP:BRD? As used here, you make it an argument by itself (as in: 'the reason is BRD'). While actually, you are foregoing BRD. The B and R here are recent [3] and [4], with Paine Ellsworth initiating the D talkpage discussion here, all fine so far. (Now separated in this separated thread.)
But your edit is without engaging in the existing discussion at all [5], without even referring to the discussion, while introducing your own new argument. In other words, you are imposing your own undiscussed preference. That is not how it works. In fact, by doing so you broke the ongoing BRD discussion, and you actually introduce editwarring yourself.
I propose you revert your edit, and engage in the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
DePiep removed the high-use template. Paine Ellsworth restored it. A discussion should have started after that. Instead, there was another removal. I restored the original state. Now there is a discussion. I will not be engaging further. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
In your edit, you took a position, invoked new undiscussed arguments, did not respect an ongoing BRD discussion. You have not responded to any of my questions here. By now, this is showing IDidNotHearThat attitude. -DePiep (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Try not to be too difficult about all this, editor DePiep, because Jonesey95, myself and other TEs have placed hundreds, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of High-use templates in /doc pages, and so far you are the ONLY editor I know of who has reverted and removed that template... the onliest one. I do not understand your argument. You've tried to make me understand, but you haven't. You say, for example:
that's their job: find it out.
What the fuck do you think the High-use template does??? It helps us do our job by letting us know at a glance whether or not we can make edits soon after other edits without loading down the servers. Then you say:
why would you as TPE act differently if the usage number is high or low?
Already answered just above. TEs have to be careful that we don't load down the servers too much. Frankly I did that inadvertently years ago, and I almost lost my template editing privileges over it. So I'm very, very careful since then. You go on:
The warning text in {{high-risk}} is clearly not aimed at TPE
At last we agree on something! The warning text may act as a gentle reminder to us, but it's really aimed at you, at editors who want to request an edit. Even you should know when a template is high-risk, so you'll be careful just like a TE should be careful, and make certain your edit can be made once and done. For example you once left out an equal sign in one of your otherwise very helpful edits. I caught it in the sandbox fortunately before it went live. No big deal, because we all make mistakes, so that isn't a criticism, just an observation. But it does mean that I check your sandboxed edits more closely than before. So the warning is aimed at all editors as a reminder that a template should be edited more carefully than other templates, so we don't have to keep editing it to get it right, and then possibly load down the servers too much. Finally, you say:
I repeat: this warning box at it is is misplaced and not relevant; it is not helpful. It degrades documentation goals and usefulness.
Congratulations, because your statement appears to make you unique on Wikipedia. You're the only editor I've ever heard that from! And I really do hope you're the only one who thinks that way. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
PE, why do you, again, reply in the wrong thread? Anyway, your shouting (to say it nicely) is not worthy and I did not expect from you. Anything wrong I should know about? -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, PE, since you are overshouting your own reply here: one cannot expect from others (including me) to clean up your language to locate possible content to seriously reply to. You yourself, of course, are free to do the cleanup yourself. -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Well I was going to admonish because I didn't really shout that much, but rather than admonish, and after re-reading what I wrote, I'd like to temper it a little with admiration. You should know that I highly respect the vast majority of your edits, which are good improvements to templates and the project in general. Also noticed the way you help other editors with template editing by sandboxing and testing their edits. You're a good instructor in the way you help them. Don't wanna get all mushy or anything, but I thought you should know. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! One of the greatest responses I met all these years, and more in character :-) Later on, say tomorrow, I'll take some time to see if & how this quest could be advanced here. -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
pleasure, truly! and I've been awake too long; need to catch some zzzs. Catch you later. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

On Native Names

I have a question regarding the |native_name= parameter in the infobox: Why is it only used for individuals, would it not make sense to use it also for groups which have a different native and English name, such as Molchat Doma, spelled natively as Молчат Дома, or Tricot, which are known as トリコ (toriko) in Japanese, among others?

Additionally, if it remains only for individuals, is it even necessary at all? In attempting to find artist pages with the parameter, I saw multiple which simply showed the native name under the |birth_name= parameter, such as the page for Mariya Takeuchi. Erated8 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 June 2022

30 June 2022
  • Consensus: User:Solidest and I, User:DePiep, have cooperatively developed the /sandbox version from the original (undisputed) goal. The talks are reflected in § Preparation.
  • Tests: see testcases, including Preview checks (but in current setup, {{Main other}} not effective in template space); also checked by previewing in live articles.
DePiep (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Was uncomfortable with the changes. Just not close enough to this subject to know what I'm doing, I suppose. Apologies. And why do you keep reverting my additions of the High-use/risk template? There is no connection to the protection levels, which of course do not show transclusions like the High-use template does. Anytime the usage goes equal to or above 2,000 transclusions, the High-use template should be applied. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
See es in [8]: hig-use is an out of place, distracting warning.
"uncomfortable" is hard to discuss about. I'd expect initiating proposals or comments here. -DePiep (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
(see other topic at § High use/risk warning in doc below -DePiep (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC))
Now, what changes did you have in mind? -DePiep (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: since you already worked in this ER, it depends on your initiatives for completion. As we know, usually no other TPE editor will interfere. So, please continue (AFAIK, perform the edit). -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Made it clear that I'm not comfortable nor close enough to the subject to make these edits. Not to worry because there are several other TEs some of whom are far more proficient than I am. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Current status technically is not the issue, it's the tainting. We'll see. -DePiep (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 Done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 12:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Blue line above website

Does there need to be a blue line separating the website parameter from the rest of the infobox? I mean, I don't see the need for a website parameter at all… but does it need to be separated from everything and add unnecessary space? – Meena • 17:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The blue line is an empty (text-less) header bar. The separation (new subsection) is useful because the type of info changes from the above info rows. BTW, there are more such blue separators. -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Occupation(s) field

Who thought it was a good idea to make this field Occupations, instead of Occupation as it formerly was. Now all articles containing this infobox template must be updated since all of them have "occupation" which currently does not appear unless an "s" is added now. Tinton5 (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This stems from #Template-protected_edit_request_on_30_June_2022 above, implemented by Paine Ellsworth in Special:Diff/1100345502. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, mistake in the update. BTW, it is about lowercase only (occupation → occupations), uppercase Occupation/s Red XN expected to be rare.
 Fixed, thanks for the explanation. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
So yes, singular lowercase should be accepted & shown. Will prepare this. -DePiep (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The fix

Research & solutions: Deprecation was too excessive. Some deprecated parameters be reinstalled: with 50k usage, it is useless to deprecate & edit 50k articles. So I have prepared in the sandbox:
occupation next to |occupations= (already fixed by Primefac)
instrument next to |instruments=
partner next to |partners=
spouse next to |spouses=
these will also differentiate between singular/plural i the LH labeltext: "Partners" or "Partner(s)".
url next to |website=
All correct parameters are whitelisted, otherwise added to Category:Pages using Template:Infobox musical artist with unknown parameters (0)
The "Deprecated" check & warn function is removed altogether. One cleanup to do, through regular Unknown parameter categorisation.
Unchanged: all Capitalisaed parameters are unknown (blacklisted): Label → label.
Expected articles affected (to edit): 1k? I will run an AWB against the category.
DePiep (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep, I think both "partners" and "spouses" still should be removed as 1) they were added only recently and are used in 17 and 32 articles respectively, 2) we should follow things we have in the common {{Infobox person}}, both variants there are sort of deprecated; there's being used an automated plural form switcher {{#invoke:Detect singular}} and plural parameters also being tracked via the categories (to fix them if I get it correctly). Solidest (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
And "url" is also used in 250 articles only, so it's not worth reverting it. Solidest (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
No. Fix first, discussions & development later. There are possiby 50.000 articles broken. (I took the pluralisation from Primefac [9]; url-editing is more complicated) -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

Please replace code with all sandbox code: {{Infobox musical artist}} ← {{Infobox musical artist/sandbox}} (diff)

Change: bugfix, undo excessive deprecation. See #The fix for background. DePiep (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, when I informed you above that "occupation" and "instrument" are used in 64k and 53k articles - somehow you didn't give it much thought? I assumed you'd be the one to hotfix it via bot holders. But now it turns out to be a problem? I suggest we get on with the discussion now though, so that we don't have to do extra and pointless back and forth reverts several times. "partners", "spouses" don't need to be returned to the code as they are barely used (17 + 32 articles), "url" doesn't need to be returned either as it is used in small amounts (250 articles) per https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+musical+artist . Solidest (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Stop it. No reason to interrupt the request. -DePiep (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
No, I insist on intervening in this request, just as you intervened in my request a month ago here and added a lot of redundant stuff to it. This time I prefer to intervene myself, so I've fixed all this stuff in the sandbox and it can now be applied. Solidest (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
So in fact all that needs to be done in the code now is to add back a singular form of "instrument" and then the categories of errors will be freed up to about 1k-2k values. The block of deprecated parameters can also be removed, since this is a rather non-standard and redundant implementation. It is also worth to clean up the block of known parameters from unnecessary and redundant comments. Solidest (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
You are disrupting a bugfix. -DePiep (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
You should start listening to others so that you don't have to roll back twice what you are trying to ignore now. Solidest (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Request withdrawn. Solidest is vandalising the proposal. -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Fine, then if you prefer to take things to the point of absurdity then I will make a request to correct your mistakes myself. Solidest (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Instruments

We need to do the same actions with the instruments as we have already done with "occupation". The parameter in singular is used in ~53,000 articles, which makes it pointless to fix it, and the original proposer dropped it from resolving. I guess it will be easier to just implement Module:Detect singular later to use it with singular form. All the necessary changes that need to be applied have already been made in sandbox - {{Infobox musical artist/sandbox}} (diff). Redundant comments about unknown parameters and incorrect usage of the module of deprecated params also have been removed from the code. Solidest (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It must be remembered that Wikipedia makes changes based upon consensus between and among editors. Editors who can find ways to get along with each other are those editors who make positive and lasting improvements to this encyclopedia. One important thing to keep in mind is that such a consensus must be garnered before the {{edit template-protected}} request template is used. So at this time, this edit request is  awaiting consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth, do you really ask for consensus on returning parameter that was disabled for 60k articles because of a single letter that original proposer dropped to fix? And why was no consensus needed for similar actions with the 'occupation' parameter that @Primefac did in the start of this discussion? Solidest (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia asks that disagreements be settled before using edit-protected templates. Template editors are inclined to be very careful, especially with templates like this with over a hundred thousand transclusions and considered "high-risk". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, let's leave it as it is then. For me it was a mistake to return 3 barely used akas. And as for 60k errors in the articles - it will somehow be gradually resolved I guess. Solidest (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Generally, when such "53K/60K" claims are made, one or more examples of the problem/challenge should be provided to help illustrate the gravity. Haven't seen any such examples to help with a decision. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Check anything under "I": Category:Pages using Template:Infobox musical artist with unknown parameters. There is "instrument" in the code, but it doesn't show up in the infobox.
The real number of such cases is somewhere between 40k and 52,5k:
- regex search [10] gives 52,5k (which I roughly remembered and called alongside with "occupation" as 60k);
- this tool [11] gives 41,6k (which may be reduced if this has been worked with AWB this month) Solidest (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
To editor Solidest: the singular "instrument" has been returned in a similar manner to "occupation", and the checks for deprecated parameters have been removed. It will take some time for all of the category entries to leave the category. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth, thanks! But the "occupation" param also seems to be missing from the list of known parameters. It should be added there to clear up the 'unknown parameters' category which is still filled with around 50k articles under 'O'. Solidest (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 Fixed. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I note that |background= is whitelisted but not used. Solidest -DePiep (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep, It is used to define the hCard microformat if the infobox is about one person or a group of people, as there is no other way to do it now: Template:Infobox musical artist#background. Solidest (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I am only noting it to be solved. DePiep (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 July 2022

Can someone please add the |former_members= parameter back to this template? -- PK2 (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. In other words, there was already a consensus to remove it, so you'll need to get a consensus to re-add it. Primefac (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@PK2: parameter |past_members= is available for this. Hope this helps. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is the blue line above the website param rendered for when embedded?

Any reasons to have a blue line rendered above the website param when embedded into Infobox person (for example: BoA) as module1? I can understand the blue line segregation when the Infobox is used standalone however including it when embedded and when used in conjuction with languages Infobox templates (for example: Infobox Korean name, Infobox Chinese) is frankly out of place. I couldn't find any discussions on the rationale and/or consensus for such changes as the blue line is certainly not there a few months ago, and I just noticed it today when checking around articles of South Korean artists (which is the topic, I'm always editing on) that has website as part of Infobox musical artists. Can this be tweaked using #if so it doesn't rendered when embed is true? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hence would like to request to push sandbox code to production. The diff is here with the logic changes to header19, header21, and header30 using #ifeq to check if embed is true (yes) and if is false then generated the nowiki tag which was already in production. For header19 and header21, the same logic changes were made as without it, the blue line will continued to rendered. Ignore the occupation in the diff, that changes was requested by another editor and was already pushed to production, I only copy-paste the coding from production to sandbox hence it appears in the diff. The testcase is here. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 13:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Language details

Is there anyway to add language details in infobox. As many music artists (singer) work on multiple languages. MaxA-Matrix📩 talk 07:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Like |associated_acts= and |spouse=, I feel this is another parameter which could be open to misuse and misinterpretation. As you have stated, many, MANY artists have used multiple languages across their careers, but you would need to set an arbitrary level to define whether they really worked in those languages or just used them occasionally, and this would be original research. The Beatles sang in German, Spanish, French, garbled Italian, and even Sanskrit during their career, but nobody would seriously consider them anything other than an English-language band. And the German DJ Sash! became the first artist to release his first four singles in four different languages... but he didn't sing on any of his records, so while the songs were in multiple languages, the artist is not. Richard3120 (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, India playback singer work in many indic languages like Papon (singer), who works in both Assamese and Hindi as a playback singer. Similar Arijit Singh, KK (singer), and many other artists.

Thank you
MaxA-Matrix📩 talk 00:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Propose: parameter 'relatives='

I propose to add parameter |relatives=. The documentation should point out that it is intended for bluelinks only or mainly.

Having edited some 1200 parameter fixes in this infobox recently, it occurred to me that many bluelink relatives shoud be removed, or be added in a construct like |module=Sister: [[some name]]. I think that if a relative is notable (so, bluelinked), that name is appropriate for inclusion here. DePiep (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"Relatives" could mean anyone... third cousin, step-uncle, great-great-great-great-grandfather. Yet another (in my view, completely unnecessary) parameter that could get completely out of hand without drawing some arbitrary line in the sand. Richard3120 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree, is why I noted the "blue link" requirement. And as with any info added: up to the editor to use good sense when adding. Point is: when there is a relevant relative, we should give option to mention it (likely that person is already in the article). DePiep (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I really don't like the "good sense" bit... even with blue links, there's nothing to stop editors adding distant relatives with trivial connections to the artist's career. If it's already in the article as a relevant relative, I see no need to mention it in the infobox. But this is a personal opinion – I was against the addition of spouses to the infobox as well. Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
"If ... I see no need to mention it in the infobox" -- well, that's what the WP:INFOBOX is about actually. Anyway, adding too much trivial info is always an issue, and that is what editing is for. OTOH, a pity we would forbid to add relevant info. -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid I completely disagree with what you just said... the infobox is for key information about the subject, and I do not see that mentioning relatives is in any way key information about the subject. In the majority of cases they are absolutely irrelevant to the subject's career – Julian Lennon and Albert Hammond Jr. may have extremely famous musical fathers, but those fathers have had zero relevance to their sons' musical careers. Elle King has a famous father, but Rob Schneider has never made a record in his life, so it's difficult to see how he would be a relevant relative, apart from also being famous. But this discussion certainly needs input from others. Richard3120 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
It depends, and "good sense" does apply. Omitting John from Julian Lennon's infobox, or Andrew and William from Julian Lloyd Webber's is not a service to readers. Every mention of Takesha Meshé Kizart, as does she regularly, mentions Muddy Waters and Tina Turner. In a different way, relatives can be quite defining. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I still don't see how that's defining to her as a person or to her music... it just sounds more like name-dropping to me. And what I meant was that we can't rely on editors to have "good sense", past experience tells us that they will add anyone remotely connected to the subject in this parameter. Anyway, there's no point in repeating myself, I won't say any more on this topic. Richard3120 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Richard3120: FYI, this template can be made a child infobox so the oputer one (say {{Infobox person}} still can add lots of info, technically not limited, to the article infobox. Also, conversely, it takes modules, see module, module2, module3. I mention this to illustrate that infoboxes are not that strict. You think that Julian Lennon should not have John Lennon mentioned? -DePiep (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I just don't see how being John Lennon's son is key to Julian Lennon or his career – in fact, he's spent his entire life trying to get away from just being John Lennon's son. I can just see this parameter being misused if some basic requirements are not set – does the relative have to have played an important part in the subject's career? Do they have to work in the same field as the subject? How distant can the relation be to be considered important? I mean, Beyoncé is related to Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain (yes, really), and there are reliable sources stating this... I doubt any of the three of us would consider the Queen should be added to Beyoncé's infobox, but you can bet some fan will add it and then argue it should stay as there are reliable sources confirming it. All I'm saying is that if consensus determines that this parameter could be added, there should be some guidelines as to which relatives can be added. Richard3120 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
most points by Richard3120 already addressed in earlier posts, OP. I can add: 1. Being John Lennons child can also imply a musical (upbringing/educational) influence. 2. Whatever issue one sees, current |spouse= has these too (not even having the bluelink &tc requirement). 3. "Prevent bad edits by forbidding good edits" is not the right way to go. We cannot prevent bad edits. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Genre or subgenre?

Is the infobox parameter for genres or for subgenres? Because I see many, many, MANY artists with genre lists that seem redundant to me. As a concrete example, Thomas Rhett lists country, country rock, country pop, and R&B. And the reference for the R&B is to an article titled "Brett Eldredge and Thomas Rhett Take Their R&B-Tinged Brands of Country on the Road". Seems that this could all be listed as "country", with the text explaining that some of his songs fall under these various subgenres. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that as long as the subgenres are being listed there's no reason to also include the genres under which they fall? I would treat this the same as categorization, where more specific options are preferable. Provided they're sourced, of course. DonIago (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I would think that as an infobox the broadest classifications would be preferred, with the details in the text where such things can be explained more elaborately. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems we have arguments that can be made in either direction. If nobody else chimes in, I'd recommend dropping a note at WP:MUSICIANS to get more involvement in the conversation. DonIago (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

|subbox parameter request

|subbox= should be added, as Template:Infobox YouTube personality and more have. This will allow editors to use Infobox musical artist as a subbox with colours etc., instead of an embed without this. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

|height parameter request

|height= should be added, so that editors can use just this Infobox, rather than having to use Template:Infobox person or other alternatives. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Height is not a relevant parameter for musical artists. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Unless the person is well outside the normal range there really isn't any need to list this at all. Is it supposed to list "height at the current time" (when is the current time and how do we know? and what if they are dead?) or "height at time of the subject's greatest success/level of notoriety" or something else? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue this point. It's fine how it is now. Something I'd definitely like is what I mentioned at subbox parameter request Strugglehouse (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

native_name working?

In this version of Gul Panra, the |native_name= does not appear in the infobox. Should it? If it should appear, why does it not? If it should not appear, does that mean |native_name= is no longer supported? – Archer1234 (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it works with lang-ps in the template code... you will have to use Nastaliq or nq instead. Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I tried that. Still does work. I even removed everything from |native_name= and |native_name_lang= and then put foobar as the value for |native_name= and that does not appear in the infobox. So it seems it does not work even with just latin characters. – Archer1234 (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Mmm, well, coding is not my forte... hopefully one of the editors who usually make edits to this template will see this thread and will be able to answer your question. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
|name= can't be blank, otherwise the #if statement running everything exits early. I've fixed it in the article in question. I question whether we need the {{#if:{{{name|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}} at the head of the |above= value, but I'd need to do some thinking about that to know for sure. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 15 November 2022

Death cause

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
Death cause

FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I would imagine that the editor is asking for "cause of death" to be added as a parameter to the infobox, so that the infobox can be filled up with yet more padding. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah, good call. If there's consensus, sure, but I feel like most bio infoboxes these days don't include that information. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Bot removal of associated_acts field?

I'm still finding a crapton of associated_acts usage across Wikipedia. Should we use AWB or a bot to remove them? Seems like it should be easy enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Are you asking if a bot should remove "associated acts" entries from Musical Artist infoboxes? If you are, I would say definitely not. Editors can use those to create "current member of" / "past member of" entries, or "spinoffs" / "spinoff of" entries. There's not a one-to-one correspondence, editors need to spend a bit of time figuring out what applies to what. But the current "associated acts" entries provide a very valuable starting point for that. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with the above (as the primary bot-to-replace-params operator); it's not a simple replacement, so unfortunately it needs to be done manually. Primefac (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

New parameter vote

How do I cast a community vote on a new parameter a “Producer(s)” parameter? I believe this parameter will be important as it’s important to know the main producer/mentor of an artist throughout their career, having it easily readable in the Infobox will be extremely helpful to readers and quick glancers. Bra1nwashin (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Could tou please explain why it is important? At some point we really are going to need to revision MOS:INFOBOX... "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose." But editors want to do the exact opposite of this. Richard3120 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Very few artists stick with one producer, and many will employ multiple producers on the same album. This is the same problem the associated_acts field had; there's just no way to quantify it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree, this just seems like "associated acts" again by the back door. Also, how would we know the "main producer" of an artist without involving original research? U2 are most closely associated with Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno as producers, but the band was famous and successful before either producer ever met them. Eminem will forever be associated with Dr. Dre, but Dre hasn't produced as many of Eminem's tracks as Jeff Bass or Luis Resto. Richard3120 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

How many past members is too much?

With Yes recently earning good article status, the detail that all 15 past members of the group are listed in the infobox stuck out to me. As I'm doing work on Cardiacs, another group with many previous members (20 including crew who are officially listed as members), I was wondering what the cap off point is where it becomes superfluous to list every member.

For instance, Megadeth's page simply adds a link to the former members heading of the list of band members article a similar way to how awards are handled, with 24 members. They also do not have their own section in the members heading of the main article. On the other hand Swans, a band with the same number of past members, lists all of them in a drop down menu, though they do not have their own article to link to. Mayhem provides two options of either the members section of its own article or the standalone list page, still not listing its seven "notable" members out of the 19.

Which is the optimal option and should any of these articles be altered for consistency? Miklogfeather (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is up to the editor's own judgement whether to list the members in full or not in the infobox as there's no hard rule about it. Inclusion or omission of members should be determine by editors of said articles through consensus in their talk pages as different band/group have different membership structures. Lulusword (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't have an answer, but "it is up to the editor's own judgement whether to list the members in full or not in the infobox" to me, is a bright neon sign encouraging editwarring. We need at least a guideline for this. Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians would be a better venue. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I have added my comment to WikiProject Musicians to hopefully reach a consensus Miklogfeather (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree on establishing a guideline for a maximum number of names listed in the infobox. There's no reason the infobox should be cluttered with another list of names when the article body has a section for past members and the article's lede would mention any notable members. A past members list in the infobox is especially unnecessary if a portion of past members aren't notable names or important to the band's notability (such as short time as member or no writing contributions to a band's albums). MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form." An alternative may be inserting a collapsible list in the infobox parameter, but presently it's not very compatible as the template's title parameter clashes with the infobox parameter. Lapadite (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The collapsible list option is currently being used at Santana (band), but I think we would all agree that this list would be way, way too long for the infobox if it wasn't collapsed... Richard3120 (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
So there is a way to hide the title parameter. This is a viable alternative, but it is definitely too long a list without collapsing it, and the MOS itself indirectly discourages it. I don't think such a list in the infobox adds anything or helps readers; the lede should mention and contextualize for readers the former members who are important to the band's history. I think there should be a guideline about the aforementioned or at the very least a suggestion in this infobox template to use the collapsible list for the parameter if there are over x number of people and/or the list includes people who are not important to the band's notability. I'm sure many editors aren't aware that the collapsible template is an option in the infobox. Lapadite (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What to do regarding self-released artists with no label?

I've seen it either being dropped all-together, be the legal entity the artist wholly owns (such as their LLC), or even say self. I have not seen the standardized procedure in these situations, and would like to be informed. If possible, it should be considered to be added to the label parameter. Mehrpw (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Usually "self-released" or "independent" is used, but I agree that we should settle on one format and use that as standard.
I've also seen editors adding distribution services such as AWAL as the "record label" - see Jvke, for example. Personally I disagree with this... I don't think this counts as a record label and shouldn't be in the infobox, in my opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2023

Please add a line to add the official logo of the artist. ABAL1412 (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
yes that would be neat. FMSky (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Are the deceased members current or past members?

Hi, I'm Hatto, a Japanese Wikipedian. Actually, there is an editing war (ja:ノート:Sumika#メンバー欄の表記について) going on in the Japanese Wikipedia over the infobox, where some people are trying to change the deceased members of the musical group to current members instead of past members, and some are reversing the changes back to the past members. I pointed out that if the person is deceased, it would be wrong to make them a current member, and I corrected it to a past member, but it was reverted. The user who undid my edits claimed that "the band still recognizes the deceased as a current member, so he is a current member, not a past member" and that "fans would be hurt if the deceased member was made a past member". These are absolutely outrageous claims! What would happen if we edited the English Wikipedia to change deceased members from past members to current members in the infobox? Perhaps it would be reverted? For example, if I move Freddie Mercury from past members to current members in Queen's infobox, wouldn't that be considered vandalism? What are the rules for deceased members on the English Wikipedia? --Hatto (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there is currently an edit war going on in the Sumika article on the Japanese Wikipedia, is there any user here who understands Japanese? If so, please join the discussion here. --Hatto (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
There are undoubtedly semantic and cultural differences at play between the ja and en Wikipedias, but I do agree that "current" should not include dead people, unless they are somehow preserved and brought on tour with the group. Unfortunately, jaWiki is perfectly able to find consensus on their project to use the infobox in the manner described, and enWiki can't really do anything about it. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Hatto - we have had people trying to keep deceased members as current members on J-pop and K-pop articles - the only name that comes to mind is Ladies' Code (sorry it's K-pop) where there are 2 long discussions on the Talk:Ladies' Code page " "Past Member" versus "Member" " and "RiSe and EunB". These are perhaps best summarised by the final post at the first discussion "This is English wikipedia. It is about facts not feelings. The FACT is that they are no longer members".
Of course, the Japanese Wikipedia is entitled to make its own decisions - what we decide on the English Wikipedia, only relates to the English Wikipedia. Good luck - Arjayay (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Just remembered another article with similar arguments - Shinee (K-pop again) - you will need to read the archives. - Arjayay (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I do realise the Ladies' Code is good and over by now, but I could see an argument for putting them under past members with (deceased) or similar, since it appears the concerns are mostly about people quitting. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Putting "deceased" in the infobox would contradict the current template documentation "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names." - Arjayay (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
That's what I get for not reading the /doc before commenting... struck. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
As per this edit history, an IP user (perhaps from Japan??) had just moved a member who died in February 2023 on Sumika's article to current members, so I have reverted it back. That's utterly appalling! --Hatto (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that Kuroda only died a few days ago, they might have not known. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
@Goroth: Thank you very much for editing the Sumika article on the German Wikipedia as per this edit. An edit war has broken out on the Japanese Wikipedia over the inclusion of the members of Sumika and the punk rock band Hi-Standard, who died in February 2023. I requested that the Hi-Standard article be protected, and it is now protected because of an edit war. On the Japanese Wikipedia, edit wars sometimes occur because there is a constant stream of users who list deceased members as current members, claiming that they are current members. Is it normal for the German Wikipedia to list deceased members as past members in the infobox? Also, what do you think about deceased members being listed as current members? --Hatto (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I discuss how to handle the description of deceased members on the Japanese Wikipedia in ja:ノート:Hi-STANDARD#死去したメンバーの表記の扱いについて. One user suggests that a distinction be made between "deceased members" and "past members" in order to avoid an editing war. However, that would mean, in the case of the Queen article, listing Freddie Mercury as a "deceased member" and John Deacon as a 'past member', but I still feel uncomfortable about listing all articles in that way. What do you make of the distinction between "deceased members" and "past members"? --Hatto (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I would say "no" to having a new section containing deceased members. Every band member who dies is assumed to be moved to the past members section, unless the band specifically says they are retaining the person as a band member, using their previously recorded music while projecting images of them, or maybe even creating a 3D similation of them. Which is to say 99.99 percent of deceased band members would be past members, not current. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Hatto: thank you very much for tagging me: In German Wikipedia it is normal to put deceased band members in the Past members section if they are not founding members of the band. I do not exactly know how to handle founding members but in Seevetal articles I have seen the year of death has been Put in the founding member section. But if the deceased band member is not a founding member, this musician is put in the past member section. --Goroth (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Goroth: Am I correct in understanding that if founding members die, they are not listed as "past members", but if any other members die, they are listed as "past members"? For example, is this the case with the Motörhead article where Lemmy Kilmister is a founding member? --Hatto (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Quite an entertaining dicussion however not sure why is this discussion even doing here and also not closed when it doesn't pertains to the Infobox template exactly but rather about disruptive editing. And also, why are we even concerned about what sisters Wikipedia are doing when this is clearly English Wikipedia, if they are doing something difference than that is their own problem, if there are such concerns that it should be discussed at those sisters Wikipedia instead. While do understand that there were dispute over deceased subject being move back to "current_members" param however common sense should apply (unless you're telling me the subject was somehow miraculously resurrected lol then I'm not sure what to say) and if those disruptive editing continues then request for protection at WP:RPPI. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Hatto:: It is not very clear. In some cases they are not listed in past members section, see Lemmy Kilmister. Personally, I personally would put the member in the past member section is well if the musician deceased. If the founding members of a band are unknown (or if it is unclear who started a band) I would just put the name of the musician in the past member section as the founding member section is missing. --Goroth (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Binksternet: and @Goroth: I thought you were right, since you both seem to be uncomfortable with listing deceased musicians as "current members". Thanks for your response. --Hatto (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Paper9oll: I'm very sorry. As I mentioned above, I wanted to get the opinions of various users outside the Japanese Wikipedia, as the Japanese Wikipedia has been in an editing war due to a number of users listing deceased musicians as "current members" in the infobox, so I included them here. With hindsight, I think it might have been better not to write here. Should I remove the "Are the deceased members current or past members?" section? If you feel it should be removed I will remove it. --Hatto (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Hatto No worries, you can just wait for it auto archive once there is zero future replies. We don't remove discussions that was already has replies. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternative members parameters

I propose that the current and past members parameters be customisable to better suit different articles, for instance core/supporting members (The Wiggles), principal/early members (The Beatles), fictional/real members (Dethklok), or simply to show a group's final lineup as is often done in a members section. A final members paramater at least would be particularly useful. Miklogfeather (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"Formerly of" too ambiguous

I believe the label for past_member_of which currently is "Formerly of" is ambiguous as it doesn't specify what the artist was formerly. Producer? Member? CEO? I think it'd be more clear if it was changed to match the parameter: "Past member of" as that's what it means. —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 14:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

New parameter vote (Protégé of)

Hello. I was told to begin a discussion post here by Binksternet, to cast a vote the inclusion of a new parameter to reasonably replace "Associated acts". This parameter, "Protégé of" will be specifically reserved for Musical Acts billed as Individuals. Theoretically, this parameter will serve the same function as "Spinoff of" with musical groups, giving readers the ability to see which artist, producer, or talent manager discovered the subject of the article.

The inclusion of this parameter comes adds encyclopedic value as the figure who discovered an artist is a key characteristic of how the artists' career plays out event-wise, what makes them distinctive, and will be information that is found in the article. In the modern day music industry and the future, an artists success is nearly based entirely on connections and collaboration.[1] Readers need the ability to briefly skim at the infobox and see which individual is best associated with the success of the article subject – adding to the encyclopedic value of why that artist is worthy of a Wikipedia article. In many cases, an artist is most known for being under the wing of another artist or producer, or in other cases, a reader may not know who was the individual to sign (to their label), mentor, or executive produce the career/discography of an artist. If this is new information to the reader, it may serve as incentive to read the entire article and give context behind their discovery.

This parameter will tie-in seamlessly with all other information on the Musical artist Infobox as well as the article. A rule for this parameter is that the individual must already be mentioned in the article and cited, must executive produce their breakout project (album or EP that launched their career into mainstream notability), and must have a proof of signing to that individuals record label or company. "Protégé of" will consist of typically no more that 1 name mentioned – however in some cases of a joint-venture signing, there may be 2 or 3 names mentioned.

In conclusion, this parameter will simply be a version of "Spinoff_of" except for individual artists. Associated acts, over a period of time got too cluttered and spammy; this resolves that issue and provides readers a meaningful replacement that incentivizes further research, extracts important information, justifies the subjects encyclopedic notability, and gives otherwise unknown information to readers of Wikipedia. A makeshift version has been implemented by myself and other members including @JuanBoss105 and @Rosie McConnel without my prompt or awareness, however they were reversed due to lack of consensus on here. When I added with this edit, it has been met with acceptance and non-revertion among editors. Here are examples of how this parameter will be used:

StreetKnockerzEnt (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Poll

  • I 100% support the parameter of Protege of. If there is anyway i can support on a talk page, i will show support. JuanBoss105 (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
note that JuanBoss105 is a sock of the proposer, who is himself a sock of User:ChristianCanada, who has already made a similar proposal in the past (link) --FMSky (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean I'm a sock of ChristianCanada? I dont know who that is. It is possible we mightve been on the same page but do not accuse me of that. You dont know me JuanBoss105 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Any information about one artist being a protégé of another should first be described in the article body and cited to a reliable source. StreetKnockerzEnt has demonstrated a resistance to describing these sorts of relationships in prose supported by sources. For instance, StreetKnockerzEnt added a "producers" module to the infobox of Jim Jones (rapper), naming three producers notionally connected with Jim Jones, but this addition was performed without any of the producers discussed in prose, and without supporting sources.[12] After that, StreetKnockerzEnt added a "Protégé of" module to the biography of Fabolous without any supporting sources or prose.[13] The same unreferenced additions to the infobox were performed by StreetKnockerzEnt at many more rapper biographies.[14][15][16] What I'm seeing here is not a good-faith request to accommodate the protégé concept in the proper manner, but an excuse to continue adding unreferenced stuff to biographies. My stance is that the "Protégé of" concept must be described in the literature and summarized in prose in the article body, and such a summary is perfectly sufficient for the biography. We don't need a new infobox parameter. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
If the argument is that my edits are unsourced, it’s simply not true, and based on the definition of "Protégé" in contemporary music, I already stated 3 requirements to narrow inclusion and to block unsourced or unreliable statements before they are even included.

In the article for Fabolous, for instance, the inclusion of DJ Clue being a "Protégé of" was already extracted from the sourced information in article per the quota that I stated for being included in the parameter. The article for Fabolous states (in the Career section), "He was invited to rap live on American record producer and music executive DJ Clue's radio show, then on New York City…DJ Clue subsequently signed Fabolous to his record label, Desert Storm Records." In this case, inclusion of the parameter was in good faith and not based on the desire to add "Unreferenced stuff"; merely based on information that was already sourced and in the article. For reminders, the requirements for DJ Clue warranting a place in the protégé parameter was "already be mentioned in the article and cited, must executive produce their breakout project (album or EP that launched their career into mainstream notability), and must have a proof of signing to that individuals record label or company". In this case, All 3 requirements were satisfied and DJ Clue would correctly warrant a spot in the Protégé section. As with any information that goes in the infobox, it MUST be removed if not sourced. This is likewise with all of the edits I’ve made that have been reverted by Binksternet for not having an unbiased group consensus on here.

As for the example with Jim Jones (rapper), it was already stated in Jim Jones discography that all 4 of the producers mentioned worked extensively with Jones on full collaborative projects; I am not advocating a "Producer" parameter as it would require independent research not stated in the article, thus "Protégé of" corrects that issue and would be a better inclusion.

The "protégé" concept has been prevalent in music for perhaps the past century, and with the rules I’ve set for a name to be mentioned in the parameter, accommodating this is the correct decision for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreetKnockerzEnt (talk • contribs) 23:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: here's the thing... edit requests are only for edits that are uncontroversial. Edits that are contested or opposed in any way must first be discussed and consensus built and garnered before submitting an edit request. Please achieve consensus before reactivating the edit request template. Thank you very much for your contributions, and everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.mi.edu/in-the-know/importance-networking-music-industry/

"Template:Infobox Musique (artiste)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Infobox Musique (artiste) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 5 § Template:Infobox Musique (artiste) until a consensus is reached. SWinxy (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

Can somebody please add a parameter for "producer"? For example, on Tally Hall, the producer would be Bora Karaca, so the infobox would have the parameter of |producer = Bora Karaca QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable but we normally give some time for other editors to comment on proposals like this, in case they have been discussed previously — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Please review the discussions in the archives before making a new request for this parameter; link to any relevant discussions and explain why it makes sense to add this parameter now when it was rejected as recently as seven months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Another spinoff question

A group has members A, B and C. The group breaks up. Later, B and C form a new, different group. Is that a spinoff? I would think it would be past_member_of, but that doesn't seem to apply well to groups over individual artists. For reference, this has come up at Daft Punk. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The template documentation doesn't provide any real guidance: "Groups which have spun off from this group. For example, sub-units". This appears no better than the |associated acts= it replaced (and added with almost no discussion). Plastic Ono Band is a spinoff of the Beatles, Audioslave is a spinoff of Soundgarden? Both have only one member is common – at least associated acts required two or more. It seems that the bar should be higher, such as requiring a reliable source that specifically makes this point. Otherwise, it's just personal opinion/original research. This doesn't help with your immediate problem, but the continuing confusion over how these are applied should be addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed; with the amount of unresolved discussion around this, both on this page and in the archives, it seems that there are still refinements to make. I understand that the previous change had some drama so I can understand why editors may not want to re-litigate this. I also see that spinoff_of is not used on one of the most prominent examples of an actual uncontroversially-defined spinoff in pop music, that of Hot Tuna from Jefferson Airplane (which I intend to address right after this), so there seems to be a real issue here. Yet I don't have a great solution myself, other than to maybe bring associated_acts back with stricter documentation. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The Jefferson Airplane/Hot Tuna example is one of the best for the spinoff/sub-unit idea. But it doesn't seem that there are that many more more genuine cases out there. Infobox details should be limited to key facts as presented in the article. If important, predecessor/successor/associated bands should be discussed in the main body, where they can be presented with more context. Infobox parameters like these just invite unsourced cruft and I favor removing them all together, which was the consensus last time. As you mentioned, it may be too soon to get others interested in redoing it. Meanwhile, articles that don't have referenced material that actually discuss something arguably close to spinoff, etc., are fair game for removing them from infoboxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Birth name parameter display

Is there a reason why birth name has its own row in this infobox when displayed rather than being included in the born section like most other infoboxes for people? Miklogfeather (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

Could somebody add a parameter for "Discography"? I proposed this about a week ago in the section above (and also notified WikiProject Musicians), and the idea appears to be uncontroversial. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

To editor ModernDayTrilobite: this has been [sandboxed], and a [test case] can be observed. If this meets your approval, it can go live. If you want to alter it, maybe place it differently, then just change the sandbox and let me know. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: The test case looks perfect, thank you! Feel free to take it live. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggested value for death_date causing preview error

The suggested value for blank inclusion of death_date causes to populate {{Death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}} in its field value. Which shows an error.

I feel the templatedata should be edited to show this in

<!--{{Death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}--> format so that it does not show an error and users can use it if needed. Ghazilenin (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Discography parameter proposal

Hi all - I was thinking that it might be useful to include a Discography parameter in this infobox, which would be used to link to an artist's standalone discography article if it exists. I took a look at past discussions, and while the idea appears to have been rejected when it was previously raised, the discussion was a lightly attended one that occurred more than a decade ago. I think it's now worth discussing the idea again. For other figures in the arts - directors (e.g. Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick), composers (e.g. Bach, Beethoven), occasionally actors (e.g. Marlon Brando, Robert Downey Jr.) - it's not uncommon for their infoboxes to link directly to standalone articles about the person's body of work, and I personally find it to be a convenient navigational tool. I think it'd be beneficial if we could do the same for musicians. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats actually a very good idea --FMSky (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea, MDT! Anyways, @HPSR asked on my talk page if it only applies to bands or solo artists. I'm also wondering what we should do if an artist has multiple pages regarding their discography, such as with the Beatles and Radiohead, or even an unreleased songs/bootlegged records page, such as with the Beach Boys and Nirvana. What if the discography is too small to warrent another page at all? Should the parameter still redirect to the section? Carlinal (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi! My current thinking on the matter is as follows:
  • The field applies to both bands and solo artists. However, for solo artists who have previously had their discography linked in a "Works" or "Notable work" section (e.g. Beyoncé or Eminem), I've opted to leave that in place instead of replacing it with the new parameter.
  • When an artist has multiple pages for their discography, the practice I've been following thus far has been to link to each discography in the section, with line breaks separating them ordered in an hlist (the infobox on Kanye West has one example of how I've implemented it).
    (Edit: After filling in more examples, I've actually ended up changing my mind on this point, and find myself preferring hlist formatting now.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I haven't been linking to pages about unreleased songs or bootlegs (or "List of songs recorded by X" pages, which I've seen on some older artists), but I don't have a strong opinion on this point.
  • Personally, I think it's best to only link to discographies that have a dedicated page.
These are all just my own opinions and instincts, so I'm happy to continue workshopping them if you have any feedback or thoughts. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Tkbrett hello there! I've noticed your reverts on these edits so I thought I'd ping you here so you can know what's going on. I'll be happy to hear your opinion. Carlinal (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Carlinal. I am generally opposed to anything which further bloats infoboxes, which I think applies here. A link to the main discography article is already normally located at the top of the discography section of an artist. Tkbrett (✉) 18:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea. If it helps to find discographies more easily, I'm all for having a discography section in the infobox. Honestly, I don't think it's truly necessary as it's a little repetitive and the discography can already be found at the bottom of the page where it lists all studio albums as well as works of the bands and artists. Just doesn't look right. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • What do you think of the current location of the link? I think the middle of the infobox is a bit out-of-place. In my opinion it would be neater if the list of works would be after the main characteristics of the person/group, i.e. right above the section of members (maybe even separated by a dividing line) or even the most bottom of the infobox, as this is additional information and a list, not a direct characteristic of the musician. That is, what we normally put in the most bottom Related/Module/Notable work parameters. Solidest (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
    (To avoid having separate but concurrent discussions about the new parameter, I weighed in on this point in the "Discography" section below. Just providing a note here to make the thread of conversation easier to follow.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Discography

This parameter feels very redundant to add on its own, I think it would be interesting to replace it with "Works", like in Infobox person. This way, groups that have videography and live performances pages can have such content added at the beginning of the page. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I say groups specifically because many solo musical artists pages (i.e. Beyoncé, Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift) use Infobox person instead of Infobox musical artist. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Retitling to "Works" would be fine with me! When I initially proposed "Discography", my thinking was that the more specific title would be useful for making the parameter's scope unambiguous; however, if that isn't covering all of the applicable use cases, I'd certainly support adjusting the parameter to have a more universally useful name.
To also reply to the point that Solidest raised in the other section: personally, I find myself preferring that the Discography/Works parameter be placed relatively high in the infobox. If a person or group is notable for their work in music, my feeling is that it makes sense to give a prominent placement to the music that their notability is built upon. However, I can definitely see the merit in your suggested approach as well, so I've got no strong objections if that's what people generally prefer. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 00:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this. Maybe awards could also use a parameter, Britannica articles include Awards And Honors and Notable Works in the sidebar for bands Miklogfeather (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
An Awards parameter would definitely make sense to me! Infobox person has that already, but there are definitely plenty of musicians (solo artists and groups alike) who only use Infobox musical artist and thus could benefit from the parameter. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there an education parameter for this template?

Gone through the documentation page, can't seem to find it. Or it is not necessary for artists? HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There is not currently an education parameter. I cannot say whether or not it is necessary, but if it is desired on an article this infobox can always be embedded in {{infobox person}} or similar. Primefac (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting new parameter

While there is already a parameter for spinoff bands, perhaps another, named "Other related bands", may be considered. For example, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath have more than one member in common (Ian Gillan and Glenn Hughes), but at the same time neither band can be called a spinoff of the other as they both formed with no prior band member connection and it wasn't until 1983 (15 years after Purple's first record and 13 years after Sabbath's first record) that they shared a band member. Not saying this should be a necessary parameter but just putting it out there as a suggestion. Aaw1989 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You are re-inventing the "associated acts" parameter which was removed from the infobox in May 2022 per this discussion. You would need to overcome that decision with a new discussion and stronger consensus to include. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I personally don't feel strongly about adding this as a parameter, just a suggestion. Aaw1989 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

Change the "Discography" parameter to "Works", as seen in Infobox person. This will allow users to also include the links for a group's videography and live performances. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Given this is would change the meaning of the field, I'm going to defer this to consensus. I'd suggest notifying WT:MUSICIAN and WT:WPBIO of this proposed change. SWinxy (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Spinoff parameter: hammer out the requirements

Now that we have a spinoff parameter (which was added with very little discussion) we should establish some ground rules about what qualifies. I have some suggestions:

  • The listed spinoff band should have a Wikipedia article written about them. The infobox is essentially a navigation template, allowing fast access to important facts. If the spinoff band isn't notable, then describe it in article prose but don't put it in the infobox.
  • The spinoff band should have at least two band members in common, which was the rule for the earlier "associated_acts" parameter. But two members in common does not automatically make it a spinoff. (See WP:No original research.)
  • The spinoff band should be described as a spinoff using explicit wording to that effect; something like "emerged from", "spawned" "the progenitor of", etc. If it just says that two members of one band formed a new band, then we can't assume it is considered a spinoff by the media.

We got rid of the "associated_acts" parameter for a variety of reasons including that it was too vague, too open to interpretation. It doesn't make sense to replace it with a new parameter that is even more open to interpretation. Let's tighten the requirements. 22:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

So if a band with only one member in common is explicitly described as a spin-off in reliable sources it shouldn't be included? I'd disagree with that notion. Miklogfeather (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to add a signature parameter

Would be nice if there was one. Arsabent (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

There is one for Infobox person already, most solo artist pages use that template already. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to add a citizenship parameter

Some people acquire additional citizenships or it changes during their life. So it should be optional. Infobox person has this too. -Artanisen (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the discography parameter

I think the "Discography" parameter should be changed to "Works", as seen in Template:Infobox person. This will allow users to also include the links for a group's videography and live performances. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Default image alt text duplicates caption

This code for this infobox when embedding an image contains |title={{{alt|{{{caption|}}}}}}. When the alt= parameter is empty or missing, this results in the image's ALT text getting set to the text of the caption. (example) This is an improper ALT text: The alt text is intended to be read out by screen readers just before the caption, so avoid having the same details in both. (MOS:ALT) This behavior is also unhelpful for sighted readers in that it repeats the caption right below the image. Opencooper (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_17&oldid=1223357362"