This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
This is my first attempt to initiate a discussion.
The recent deaths of two members of a Korean Pop group, Ladies Code, has highlighted what I perceive to be a desired change in the implementation of the template for the info box for musical artists.
It appears that the current policy is to list deceased members as “Past Members.” I believe the current implementation of this policy is being applied in a grossly inappropriate manner. In the this case, within a few hours of Miss Go Eun-bi passing away, her status had been changed from “Member” to “Past Member.” Several comments in the article history complained that this was cruel. I agree and believe that to change a member’s status in this situation is also wrong from a historian’s perspective.
In today's society many groups continue to list as members those who long ago passed away. In fact, it is common for various social groups to list their favorite people as members forever. In any event, *for an active group, it is the group itself that defines their own membership.*
The members of Ladies Code were and are bound by many bonds, not the least of those, grief. They are of the same age group, same industry group, same entertainment group, same likes and dislikes. To say that upon death all of these bonds are now broken is not reasonable. To say that someone is automatically ostracized from a group because they pass away is beyond any reasonable jurisdiction of those who are not the decision makers of that group, i.e. the members themselves. In other words, the decision of who is a member belongs solely that of the group itself.
From a historical perspective, to split the membership of Ladies Code, especially as has been done in the article, does not have any source reference that I can find. Polaris Entertainment, the group’s management agency, has given no indication that the group has been changed. Their website still shows all “members” as “members”. No one has been summarily dropped. Their Facebook also shows all “members” as “members”. I can’t imagine that will ever change but if it does, it should be initiated by the Group, not by a Wikipedia author.
I do believe it is appropriate to show that EunB and RiSe have passed away. But that should be done in the body of the article, not in the Member’s box.
Perhaps the answer is to put a moratorium on inventing history for a two year period in the event of an artist’s death. Perhaps it would be to wait for an announcement from the group itself that the group now considers its membership changed. Perhaps a mixture of these two concepts or something else.
Whatever the answer is, it should not be to jump into the documented history of a group within hours of a tragic event and say, “Oh ho! You are now a *past* member.” The pain and suffering such an action can cause to the family members, loved ones and other members of such a group is uncalled for and totally unnecessary. It is especially callous to do so to members of an Korean/Asian group who are extremely sensitive to such kinds of family-like relationships.
One comment was, “Without wishing to be brutal, unfortunately, these two girls are dead, and cannot, therefore, be a "member" of anything,” is incorrect. People who have passed away often remain on the member lists of all kinds of social and historical groups. For example, such lists include Presidents of the United States, Famous Generals, Wikipedia Authors, and more.
I see no reason that Wikipedia’s policy for this topic cannot include consideration for respect and courtesy to the members and fans of a musical group. It is inappropriate to declare a change in the status of a young lady who meets a tragic end without such change being announced by the group itself. Making the change arbitrarily is to invent history, not record it. Enkelisiipi ( talk) 20:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I still disagree and believe it is inappropriate to change deceased members to "Past Members" without some type of acknowledgement by the group itself. Are you saying that you would override a group's specific wish to list all members as members? Enkelisiipi ( talk) 13:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that perspective; I appreciate it. I agree with your perspective on Grimes. And, for example, I also agree with documenting Kim Dahee’s (of K-Pop Group Glam) involvement in a blackmail scandal. However, I don’t consider these topics equivalent to the current question. To be clear, I am not personally involved in this group. I was not aware of them prior to the news item about the accident.
What caught my attention was after seeing the news item and going to Wikipedia to read about the group, I was shocked to find that EunB had already been listed as a Past Member. That struck me as highly inappropriate from a matter of courtesy within the bounds of Korean/Asian culture. In fact, the WP:WBA article you cite includes the following guidance. “Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions.”
I believe there are ways to ensure the correctness and consistency of Wikipedia articles within the bounds of internationally acceptable politeness. I will seek input from others with more knowledge about such matters and ask them to contribute to this discussion. Enkelisiipi ( talk) 20:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason that a 'death cause' parameter isn't in this template? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Infobox musical person}}
and {{Infobox musical group}}
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 22:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to {{ Infobox person}}, which this infobox transcludes. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE ( talk · contrib) 17:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
For musicians whose names are in non-roman script, I've noticed a trend of editors adding multiple lines in the |name= parameter. The first line has the subject's name in roman script, and the second and sometimes third line has the name in native script, such as Korean hangul followed by Korean hanja (Chinese characters). Or sometimes they're all on one line. There is a field in the infobox for native script. Is it appropriate to include native script(s) in the name parameter instead of or in addition to in the native name field? Examples: Cho Yong-pil, Wheesung
Additionally, many editors include native script along with roman script in the birth name parameter, instead of or in addition to using the native name field. Is this appropriate? Key (singer)
How about using various scripts to depict the same name repeatedly in the alias field? Junsu (it says "Xiah Junsu" in Korean and Chinese and "Junsu" in Japanese)
These things are all often done in addition to using the native name infobox below the musical artist infobox. Is it redundant? I realize the native name infobox has a slightly different purpose.
And finally a related question: the native name infobox is designed for names not in Roman script, yes? What about using it when the name of a group is English, but is written in native script only within the artist's home country's media? What I mean is, it doesn't make sense to me to show romanization of words that were English to begin with. Examples: Nine Muses (band), After School (band)
Thank you for any guidance! Shinyang-i ( talk) 16:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
|native_name=
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)For a guitarist (or bassist or drummer or whatever) who is also a backing vocalist, though it is clear that their primary role in a band they are in is as a guitarist. (Take Eddie Van Halen and Michael Anthony (musician) for example.) They are both backing vocalists for Van Halen, but they are also always playing their instruments. If you asked who Eddie Van Halen was, people would say he is the guitarist for VH. But On Eddie's page, he is type "non_vocal_instrumentalist" and Michael is type "solo_singer". They both have equal credit for backing vocals, and have never released a solo album (Or any full album) with them on lead vocals. A further question is Vivian Campbell Who has been a guitarist for about a dozen high profile bands, and has released a single solo album featuring himself on lead vocals. How would he be classified? Thank you very much. — DLManiac ( talk) 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
On Drake Bell's page, should "Drake Bell Entertainment Inc." be listed as a label in the Infobox? Because his EP, A Reminder was an independent release, but Bell called it as being under that name, as shown in his music video for the track "You're Not Thinking", it says "(c) 2011 Drake Bell Entertainment Inc." at the end of the video. -- Joseph Prasad ( talk) 06:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Why no spouse parameter? Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Just for clarification: the line stating that an artist can be considered to be an associated act as a result of "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together"... does this include as a support act on tour? I have been having this discussion with User:Livelikemusic who believes that Cher Lloyd and Demi Lovato should be included as associated acts on the Little Mix article, because Lloyd and Little Mix both toured with Lovato. As far as I can tell, they were merely support acts to Lovato. I believe that to be considered an associated act it means that the acts would have had to appear on stage together performing as a single group, e.g. New Kids on the Block and Backstreet Boys could be considered associated acts as they have toured together as NKOTBSB. Could anyone please confirm this or not? Otherwise as I have pointed out, a group like the Rolling Stones will have had a hell of a lot of "associated acts" over the last 50 years of touring... Richard3120 ( talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
How would others feel about this field possibly being removed? More often than not, it just becomes a laundry list of acts who have any sort of association (however small) with the artist, despite the guidelines opposing this. I don't feel that the field adds very much - any relationships with other bands/artists that are significant will receive mention in the article body, anyway. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 20:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Associated acts sounds like an act that is in a business-related association with another act, when sometimes this can be untrue. For instance, one example of an "associated act" is a group that has spun off from another group, but what if that group left on bad terms? They're not really associated, right? I think "related" sounds more appropriate. Maybe put "Associated/related acts"? Jacedc ( talk) 18:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
associated_acts
as the parameter name, but label that field "Associated/related acts", so that it's more encompassing and more appropriate for a large amount (or what I'm assuming would be a large amount) of situations?
Jacedc (
talk) 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we {{nowrap}} "Also known as"? I think the unnecessary line break looks, well, unnecessary. — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 07:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
First, there's no also_known_as parameter. Second, if you meant alias, which displays as "Also known as" then you would do one of the following
| alias = {{nowrap|Alias 1}}, {{nowrap|Alias 2}}
or
| alias = {{nowrap|Alias 1, Alias 2}}
or
| alias = {{plainlist|
* {{nowrap|Alias 1}}
* {{nowrap|Alias 2}}
* {{nowrap|Alias 3}}
* {{nowrap|Alias 4}}
}}
Look at the code here for this last one, it's not formatting correctlyAll will do what you need but will display differently based on your needs. 04:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see a discussion for the addition for a baptism parameter.
I am opposed to its addition. It's a person parameter and has no bearing on most musicians. This sort of parameter has been discussed and rejected in the past. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
"It's a person parameter"So far as I am aware, almost all musicians are people. There may be the odd singing horse, of course. I'm sure other spellings can be added if required. Please link to the prior discussion Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change was added without discussion. Admin who made the change has not given a reasonable explanation as to why it is required. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
|baptised=
, either.
Alakzi (
talk) 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC){{ Infobox musical artist}} | {{ Infobox person}} | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Thanks. By the way, as I said, the classical music project does not prefer to use Infobox musical artist. I'm not sure why you're insisting on using it for this subject. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I've made these changes in the sandbox:
{{Infobox musical artist/sandbox|birth_date=1981|baptised=1982}}
|
| ||||
{{Infobox musical artist/sandbox|birth_date=|baptised=1982}}
|
| ||||
{{Infobox musical artist/sandbox|birth_date=|baptized=1982}}
|
|
Alakzi ( talk) 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Does_being_a_singer_and_songwriter_equate_to_being_a_singer-songwriter AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The doc now advises use of {{ birth date and age}}, which requires a full date. However, as per WP:DOB the exact birth date should normally not be inclued in articles unless it is widely published already, or has clearly been published with the approval of the person. Many editors seem to be automaically following this documetation and insertig full dates of birth where they should not. I have now included a warning about this in the doc. DES (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I just had an edit war because a band was added because their label released a split album with that band. Because the editor felt this work is a "collaboration ... on an album". I tried to say it has to be multiple time and the two actually have to be recording together for it to be considered a collaboration. See As I Lay Dying/American Tragedy. So the question is, should this be considered an actual association or not? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
"Associated acts" was designed to link acts who have long-standing music-professional relationships with other acts: for example, Eddie Kendricks, Jimmy Ruffin, and The Temptations are all associated acts of David Ruffin: Ruffin toured extensively (for at least a decade) with Kendricks and they recorded together multiple times, same with Jimmy Ruffin (also David's brother), and David of course was lead singer in The Temptations. Van McCoy produced two David Ruffin LPs in the 1970s: as of the current edit, he is not listed as an "associated act", nor should he be. I think the problem is people try to overthink the field, or have it in their heads that every single last artist, band or producer someone work with should be listed there (this happens a lot with hip-hop acts, who tend to have featured artists on multiple tracks per album, though in about 70% of the cases these collaborations are financial/favor exchanges often done without the artists ever even meeting). It should really only be reserved for a few acts where, in casually speaking about a certain act's most important works, these other names will come up easily and therefore are important to an encyclopedia article on the subject. -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 08:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Should we indicate that labels should not be added for solo performers unless they have released solo works? I have seen instances where the labels of the bands they have played in have been added, however, the bands and not the individuals were signed to those labels. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This template has a parameter supports instrumental musicians' instruments (i.e. piano, guitar, trumpet) Shouldn't it also have a parameter to support vocal musician's ranges (i.e. baritone, contralto, tenor)? p b p 15:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we add the signature
parameter? For many musicians there are available their autographs, and, as most signatures are below the threshold of originality, they can be added here. --
ɴõɴəχүsƚ 22:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The instructions for the template currently disallow listing producers as associated acts, but aren't there instances where producers have a deep working relationship with an artist, and thus warrant inclusion? The best example I can think of is the Beatles with George Martin, who produced all but one of their albums. A few other examples I can think of are the Ramones with Ed Stasium, the Rolling Stones with Jimmy Miller, the Ronettes with Phil Spector, and George Harrison with Jeff Lynne. All these artists, and most likely many more, are heavily associated with these producers, some probably more so than with the acts currently listed in their infobox. The associated acts field should be broadened to allow producers with which an artist has a longstanding history. Seltaeb Eht ( talk) 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I discovered an issue with the template. The name parameter, at the top of the infobox, is apparently wikilinked. Or at least, that's what the system believes as the name doesn't show up as being wikilinked. The problem is that the name will quite often be ambiguous, and the article will show up on the list of articles to be disambiguated. I've just fixed it in a roundabout way for David Marks and the article is off the disambig list, but it would be best if the template were to be adapted so the name is no longer wikilinked. -- Midas02 ( talk) 01:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
So, I've been reading through the archives and feel that the issue of giving undue prominence to current members has not been resolved at all. I understand the problem here - we don't want to be assessing notability in an infobox, and it's easiest just to say "who is in the band now / who was in it before" but ultimately this is avoiding a real problem. By constructing the infobox in this way we are imposing a recent view as the only correct one - and this choice is reflected in the navbox, where current members are bolded and listed on the first line. When people come to Guns N' Roses, Commodores, Yes, Sugababes, Queen, The New Seekers, The Troggs or The Tremeloes they are looking for a "classic" lineup, whether we like it or not, and sticking Lionel Richie, Slash and Reg Presley down there amongst people who were in the group for a week just doesn't cut it. Yes, it's going to be a problem determining which lineup was most notable, but right now our infoboxes and navboxes are just not good enough, and something simply needs to be done. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 ( talk) 08:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I searched an earlier discussion (there have been many), on why "spouse" is not a permitted parameter, to find: "Basically it boils down to the fact that for the vast majority of artists, the members of their family are not notable & have no relevance to their career as a musician." This might be acceptable if all musicians were not also people, and seems quite overly restrictive to me. No-one's interested in who is a musician's spouse (or parents, or child), just because they are a musician? How bizarre is that? And this rule, of course, also excludes spouses and children who are themselves notable, and even notable musicians. This seems quite a paradox to me. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Infobox person | name = | image = | alt = | caption = | birth_name = | alias = | net_worth = | birth_date = | birth_place = | relatives = | occupation = | spouse = | website = | module = {{Infobox musical artist|embed=yes | background = solo_singer | genre = | instrument = | years_active = | label = | associated_acts = }} }}
I found something about this in the archives, but in current template this parameter is not available. Was it removed? -andy 2.242.155.168 ( talk) 06:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I came across several articles (like these
Admit One,
Janella Salvador,
Jun Toba} that contain an |agent=
field. Rather than have to remove them one by one, would it be better to add an agent field? This would remove them from
Category:Pages using Template:Infobox musical artist with unknown parameters, a category that I am currently working on depopulating. With over 10,000 articles in the category, this could be a big help. --
Auric
talk 17:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
|album=
field. Would that be useful, possibly for most known album? Some have |albums=
with a number.--
Auric
talk 18:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the "image_size" parameter deprecated these days? The instructions already say only to use it if the image is less than 220px in width, since the default display width is 220px. For wider, shorter images there's the "landscape=yes" parameter. But in the case of an image that's less than 220px, wouldn't we not want it to be stretched to a larger size, since that usually affects the resolution? I'm thinking of an example like Vic Bondi, where the image is smaller than 220px; if I apply a larger image_size, the image gets distorted, which is no good. So for smaller images, shouldn't we just want them displayed at their full size to retain resolution? It's possible there's a useful application of image_size that I'm not thinking of; if so, just point it out. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 16:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Could we add Alma Mater like so many infoboxes include? Eric Cable | Talk 14:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if it has been asked before but I was wondering if it were possible to add a parameter or two to the infobox? In K-pop and J-pop there are groups that have spawned off sub-units, I think they would be a little bit different than just associated acts. So maybe a Parent Group and Sub-unit parameter would work well for those that have sub-units such as the case of Super Junior in Korea and AKB48 in Japan. Alicia leo86 ( talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:'68 (band)#Associated acts 208.81.212.224 ( talk) 00:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The template adds a hidden error message for unrecognized parameter names but the message is displayed in Google searches. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"Under Title" issue. PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Why no spouse parameter? Many other biographic info boxes allow it.-- agr ( talk) 21:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, please apply the "nowrap" directive to "Occupation(s)" (and any other labels ending in "(s)") to prevent incorrect line breaks in some browsers. I.e., to prevent
appearing as
This problem occurs fairly commonly throughout numerous infoboxes. Ideally a global fix needs to be applied. I don't know whether that is feasible.
109.145.182.132 ( talk) 20:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that the parameter net_worth be added to this template. It should be similar to the parameters in Template:Infobox person.-- 130.65.109.103 ( talk) 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
Bazj (
talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)One important issue that is not specifically addressed in this template's documentation is the issue of whether or not non-notable musical artists (as in, those not notable enough for their own article) should be listed in an artist's infobox under associated acts. For example, TobyMac's article currently lists his son, Truett (who apparently goes by the stage name "TruDog") as an associated act in the infobox, despite Truett not having his own article, and only being briefly mentioned in Toby's article as someone who appears on some of Toby's songs. If Truett is not notable enough for his own article, I do not see the point in listing him as an associated act of Toby. However, this is just one example, and I'd like to see how others feel in general about non-notable artists being in the associated acts field. Since this began as a dispute between me and Walter Görlitz, I welcome him to explain why he feels that non-notable artists should be listed. -- A guy saved by Jesus ( talk) 05:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
For record labels, the template guideline says to list the "record label or labels to which the act has been signed." I have noticed inconsistencies in that some articles list much more than just labels to which they were signed. Also listed sometimes are parent companies, distributors, licensees and foreign subsidiaries. Should the guideline be more specific about what to list? Piriczki ( talk) 13:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why not add "class = hlist" to every parameter that could potentially contain multiple values? Then there would be no need to add {{ Hlist}} or {{ Flatlist}} templates every single time the infobox is used. Ilovetopaint ( talk) 00:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
| label8 = [[Music genre|Genres]] | data8 = {{{Genre|{{{genre|}}}}}} | class9 = role | label9 = {{Nowrap|{{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|Occupations|Occupation(s)}}}} | data9 = {{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupation|{{{occupation|}}}}}}}} | class10 = note | label10 = Instruments | data10 = {{{Instrument|{{{instrument|{{{instruments|}}}}}}}}}
| class8 = hlist | label8 = [[Music genre|Genres]] | data8 = {{{Genre|{{{genre|}}}}}} | class9 = hlist | label9 = {{Nowrap|{{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|Occupations|Occupation(s)}}}} | data9 = {{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupation|{{{occupation|}}}}}}}} | class10 = hlist | label10 = Instruments | data10 = {{{Instrument|{{{instrument|{{{instruments|}}}}}}}}}
Support – The {{
hlist}}
template does NOT create a bulleted list. The hlist template creates a horizontal list that puts a middot ( · ) between each list item instead of needing to put a comma between each list item. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
03:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
"what you're suggesting would actually have a perceptible change: there would be bullets for all list items, and I am opposed to that formatting change.". I repeat: The proposed change would only affect things that are already displayed as bulleted lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable" ... not required.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 18:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
flatlist}}
/{{
hlist}}
. If not, infoboxes using the templates could be automatically added to a maintenance category.--
Ilovetopaint (
talk) 16:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, it does appear that I'm in the minority here, and if this is implemented, as I suspect that it will be, I just want assurances that I won't be warned or disciplined for removing the lists when there are fewer than three items in them and I replace them with commas instead. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Ilovetopaint: Looks like you re-opened the request on 5 Aug 2016. Is your suggested change simply in the template sandbox? Would you mind making a new testcase at Template:Infobox musical artist/testcases for the new syntax? Just one that shows the new bulleted syntax because of hlist (if I'm understanding this correctly). — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 21:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
*
-list format, on which CSS could operate; probably 99 times out of 100, people input plain text with commas). Not everything that could possibly be automated in theory should be. And the request in this case would not automate anything.It might be feasible to change the site-wide behavior of infoboxes to look for list formatting in any given parameter and output such flat lists when one is found, but not output list markup if one is not found; and then redocument all these templates as supporting the new auto-list-generation functionality. That's something to take up at
WT:WikiProject Infoboxes and propose, when the details are worked out, at
WP:Village pump. Short of that, it won't be practical to insert unexpected behavior randomly into this template here and that one over there and expect editors to format things a very different way in this or that particular infobox. I suspect there would be resistance to such an all-infoboxes proposal, because flat lists do not produce properly
reusable content and are an
accessibility problem: A flat list with the values "Foo", "bar", and "baz" copy-pastes as "Foo bar baz" in many if not most browsers, with no separation between the items other than a space. Until that problem is worked around somehow, comma-separated genres, instruments, etc., will produce more consistently useful and correctly parseable output. As two examples, consider the implications of "Gothic, rock, opera" and "Bass, guitar" missing their commas (the little bullets do not copy-paste in most browsers, and many screen readers ignore such special characters even if they're preserved); the resultant text would be directly misleading. This and other templates' suggestion to use {{
Hlist}}
at all should probably be revisited, especially since the advice is almost always ignored anyway (an instruction virtually no one obeys is
WP:CREEP and usually deleted). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Expanded: 07:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Both {{
flatlist}}
and {{
hlist}}
produce the mini-bullets via
the content:
property, which "is used with the :before and :after pseudo-elements to generate content in a document" and "generated content does not alter the document tree", so although it has the visual appearance of being there, it isn't actually present. This means, among other things, that you can't copypaste it. Consider the following alternative list formats:
*Foo
*Bar
*Baz
{{flatlist|
*Foo
*Bar
*Baz
}}
{{hlist|Foo|Bar|Baz}}
{{plainlist|
*Foo
*Bar
*Baz
}}
{{unbulleted list|Foo|Bar|Baz}}
Now try marking two or more consecutive entries in the same list, and copypaste them to somewhere else. You'll just get the three words "Foo", "Bar" and "Baz", with either a space or a newline between them. So regardless of the appearance, if it's marked up as a list (whether that be one of the above forms or something else), the list separator will not copy. There's nothing that can be done in CSS to add a copyable separator. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
For the years_active
variable, the template documentation says to include "[p]eriod(s) during which the act was or has been active." If there are reliable sources that a group formally disbanded in XXXX year, but still come together for concerts maybe once or twice a year, are they still "active"? —
fourthords |
=Λ= | 16:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm editing the page for a band whose official website is dead, but is present in archive.org (and would probably be useful to anybody interested in the band). I just pointed the link to the last valid page on archive.org -- is that OK? The Wiki guidelines for dead links is mostly focused on references, but the one for link rot says dead external links should generally be deleted or replaced. I couldn't find anything on dead links for official websites, which seem like they should have a different policy. —Torc. ( Talk.) 23:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe this template should contain "YouTube channel", "YouTube subscribers" and possibly "Total YouTube views" parameters similar to Template:Infobox YouTube personality. YouTube has become an integral part of the music artist industry, with labels and individual artists releasing music videos--old and new--onto YouTube all of the time. Yet I doubt many artists would consider themselves to be "YouTube personalities" even when they have a million subscribers, and obviously article editors do not consider it either when this template is chosen over the YouTube one. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Once again, we have a solo musical artist whose CoD can't go in the infobox. Since the infobox specifically allows for solo artists, the omission of this parameter continues to make no sense. 🖖 ATS / Talk 03:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Could we change the "Notable Instruments" to neutral background when embedded? See John Lennon. -- Dabao qian ( talk) 18:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes||background-color: {{Infobox musical artist/color|{{{Background|{{{background|}}}}}}}} }}
--
Dabao qian (
talk) 01:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)I just can't quite get this, which Modules does this Infobox use for embedding? Can someone please put them in here? Thank you.— Lost Whispers talk 21:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
-- Dabao qian ( talk) 07:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
There's an editor who has had a difficult time sourcing info and has until recently added associations with bands where there is only one member in common between bands. That member is often a touring musician, or in the case of Austrian Death Machine, performs only on a single song. Do we need to clarify the documentation to help editors avoid such things or is that sort of thing acceptable? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
This is my first attempt to initiate a discussion.
The recent deaths of two members of a Korean Pop group, Ladies Code, has highlighted what I perceive to be a desired change in the implementation of the template for the info box for musical artists.
It appears that the current policy is to list deceased members as “Past Members.” I believe the current implementation of this policy is being applied in a grossly inappropriate manner. In the this case, within a few hours of Miss Go Eun-bi passing away, her status had been changed from “Member” to “Past Member.” Several comments in the article history complained that this was cruel. I agree and believe that to change a member’s status in this situation is also wrong from a historian’s perspective.
In today's society many groups continue to list as members those who long ago passed away. In fact, it is common for various social groups to list their favorite people as members forever. In any event, *for an active group, it is the group itself that defines their own membership.*
The members of Ladies Code were and are bound by many bonds, not the least of those, grief. They are of the same age group, same industry group, same entertainment group, same likes and dislikes. To say that upon death all of these bonds are now broken is not reasonable. To say that someone is automatically ostracized from a group because they pass away is beyond any reasonable jurisdiction of those who are not the decision makers of that group, i.e. the members themselves. In other words, the decision of who is a member belongs solely that of the group itself.
From a historical perspective, to split the membership of Ladies Code, especially as has been done in the article, does not have any source reference that I can find. Polaris Entertainment, the group’s management agency, has given no indication that the group has been changed. Their website still shows all “members” as “members”. No one has been summarily dropped. Their Facebook also shows all “members” as “members”. I can’t imagine that will ever change but if it does, it should be initiated by the Group, not by a Wikipedia author.
I do believe it is appropriate to show that EunB and RiSe have passed away. But that should be done in the body of the article, not in the Member’s box.
Perhaps the answer is to put a moratorium on inventing history for a two year period in the event of an artist’s death. Perhaps it would be to wait for an announcement from the group itself that the group now considers its membership changed. Perhaps a mixture of these two concepts or something else.
Whatever the answer is, it should not be to jump into the documented history of a group within hours of a tragic event and say, “Oh ho! You are now a *past* member.” The pain and suffering such an action can cause to the family members, loved ones and other members of such a group is uncalled for and totally unnecessary. It is especially callous to do so to members of an Korean/Asian group who are extremely sensitive to such kinds of family-like relationships.
One comment was, “Without wishing to be brutal, unfortunately, these two girls are dead, and cannot, therefore, be a "member" of anything,” is incorrect. People who have passed away often remain on the member lists of all kinds of social and historical groups. For example, such lists include Presidents of the United States, Famous Generals, Wikipedia Authors, and more.
I see no reason that Wikipedia’s policy for this topic cannot include consideration for respect and courtesy to the members and fans of a musical group. It is inappropriate to declare a change in the status of a young lady who meets a tragic end without such change being announced by the group itself. Making the change arbitrarily is to invent history, not record it. Enkelisiipi ( talk) 20:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I still disagree and believe it is inappropriate to change deceased members to "Past Members" without some type of acknowledgement by the group itself. Are you saying that you would override a group's specific wish to list all members as members? Enkelisiipi ( talk) 13:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that perspective; I appreciate it. I agree with your perspective on Grimes. And, for example, I also agree with documenting Kim Dahee’s (of K-Pop Group Glam) involvement in a blackmail scandal. However, I don’t consider these topics equivalent to the current question. To be clear, I am not personally involved in this group. I was not aware of them prior to the news item about the accident.
What caught my attention was after seeing the news item and going to Wikipedia to read about the group, I was shocked to find that EunB had already been listed as a Past Member. That struck me as highly inappropriate from a matter of courtesy within the bounds of Korean/Asian culture. In fact, the WP:WBA article you cite includes the following guidance. “Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions.”
I believe there are ways to ensure the correctness and consistency of Wikipedia articles within the bounds of internationally acceptable politeness. I will seek input from others with more knowledge about such matters and ask them to contribute to this discussion. Enkelisiipi ( talk) 20:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason that a 'death cause' parameter isn't in this template? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Infobox musical person}}
and {{Infobox musical group}}
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 22:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to {{ Infobox person}}, which this infobox transcludes. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE ( talk · contrib) 17:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
For musicians whose names are in non-roman script, I've noticed a trend of editors adding multiple lines in the |name= parameter. The first line has the subject's name in roman script, and the second and sometimes third line has the name in native script, such as Korean hangul followed by Korean hanja (Chinese characters). Or sometimes they're all on one line. There is a field in the infobox for native script. Is it appropriate to include native script(s) in the name parameter instead of or in addition to in the native name field? Examples: Cho Yong-pil, Wheesung
Additionally, many editors include native script along with roman script in the birth name parameter, instead of or in addition to using the native name field. Is this appropriate? Key (singer)
How about using various scripts to depict the same name repeatedly in the alias field? Junsu (it says "Xiah Junsu" in Korean and Chinese and "Junsu" in Japanese)
These things are all often done in addition to using the native name infobox below the musical artist infobox. Is it redundant? I realize the native name infobox has a slightly different purpose.
And finally a related question: the native name infobox is designed for names not in Roman script, yes? What about using it when the name of a group is English, but is written in native script only within the artist's home country's media? What I mean is, it doesn't make sense to me to show romanization of words that were English to begin with. Examples: Nine Muses (band), After School (band)
Thank you for any guidance! Shinyang-i ( talk) 16:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
|native_name=
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)For a guitarist (or bassist or drummer or whatever) who is also a backing vocalist, though it is clear that their primary role in a band they are in is as a guitarist. (Take Eddie Van Halen and Michael Anthony (musician) for example.) They are both backing vocalists for Van Halen, but they are also always playing their instruments. If you asked who Eddie Van Halen was, people would say he is the guitarist for VH. But On Eddie's page, he is type "non_vocal_instrumentalist" and Michael is type "solo_singer". They both have equal credit for backing vocals, and have never released a solo album (Or any full album) with them on lead vocals. A further question is Vivian Campbell Who has been a guitarist for about a dozen high profile bands, and has released a single solo album featuring himself on lead vocals. How would he be classified? Thank you very much. — DLManiac ( talk) 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
On Drake Bell's page, should "Drake Bell Entertainment Inc." be listed as a label in the Infobox? Because his EP, A Reminder was an independent release, but Bell called it as being under that name, as shown in his music video for the track "You're Not Thinking", it says "(c) 2011 Drake Bell Entertainment Inc." at the end of the video. -- Joseph Prasad ( talk) 06:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Why no spouse parameter? Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Just for clarification: the line stating that an artist can be considered to be an associated act as a result of "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together"... does this include as a support act on tour? I have been having this discussion with User:Livelikemusic who believes that Cher Lloyd and Demi Lovato should be included as associated acts on the Little Mix article, because Lloyd and Little Mix both toured with Lovato. As far as I can tell, they were merely support acts to Lovato. I believe that to be considered an associated act it means that the acts would have had to appear on stage together performing as a single group, e.g. New Kids on the Block and Backstreet Boys could be considered associated acts as they have toured together as NKOTBSB. Could anyone please confirm this or not? Otherwise as I have pointed out, a group like the Rolling Stones will have had a hell of a lot of "associated acts" over the last 50 years of touring... Richard3120 ( talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
How would others feel about this field possibly being removed? More often than not, it just becomes a laundry list of acts who have any sort of association (however small) with the artist, despite the guidelines opposing this. I don't feel that the field adds very much - any relationships with other bands/artists that are significant will receive mention in the article body, anyway. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 20:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Associated acts sounds like an act that is in a business-related association with another act, when sometimes this can be untrue. For instance, one example of an "associated act" is a group that has spun off from another group, but what if that group left on bad terms? They're not really associated, right? I think "related" sounds more appropriate. Maybe put "Associated/related acts"? Jacedc ( talk) 18:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
associated_acts
as the parameter name, but label that field "Associated/related acts", so that it's more encompassing and more appropriate for a large amount (or what I'm assuming would be a large amount) of situations?
Jacedc (
talk) 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we {{nowrap}} "Also known as"? I think the unnecessary line break looks, well, unnecessary. — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 07:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
First, there's no also_known_as parameter. Second, if you meant alias, which displays as "Also known as" then you would do one of the following
| alias = {{nowrap|Alias 1}}, {{nowrap|Alias 2}}
or
| alias = {{nowrap|Alias 1, Alias 2}}
or
| alias = {{plainlist|
* {{nowrap|Alias 1}}
* {{nowrap|Alias 2}}
* {{nowrap|Alias 3}}
* {{nowrap|Alias 4}}
}}
Look at the code here for this last one, it's not formatting correctlyAll will do what you need but will display differently based on your needs. 04:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see a discussion for the addition for a baptism parameter.
I am opposed to its addition. It's a person parameter and has no bearing on most musicians. This sort of parameter has been discussed and rejected in the past. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
"It's a person parameter"So far as I am aware, almost all musicians are people. There may be the odd singing horse, of course. I'm sure other spellings can be added if required. Please link to the prior discussion Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change was added without discussion. Admin who made the change has not given a reasonable explanation as to why it is required. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
|baptised=
, either.
Alakzi (
talk) 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC){{ Infobox musical artist}} | {{ Infobox person}} | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Thanks. By the way, as I said, the classical music project does not prefer to use Infobox musical artist. I'm not sure why you're insisting on using it for this subject. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I've made these changes in the sandbox:
{{Infobox musical artist/sandbox|birth_date=1981|baptised=1982}}
|
| ||||
{{Infobox musical artist/sandbox|birth_date=|baptised=1982}}
|
| ||||
{{Infobox musical artist/sandbox|birth_date=|baptized=1982}}
|
|
Alakzi ( talk) 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Does_being_a_singer_and_songwriter_equate_to_being_a_singer-songwriter AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The doc now advises use of {{ birth date and age}}, which requires a full date. However, as per WP:DOB the exact birth date should normally not be inclued in articles unless it is widely published already, or has clearly been published with the approval of the person. Many editors seem to be automaically following this documetation and insertig full dates of birth where they should not. I have now included a warning about this in the doc. DES (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I just had an edit war because a band was added because their label released a split album with that band. Because the editor felt this work is a "collaboration ... on an album". I tried to say it has to be multiple time and the two actually have to be recording together for it to be considered a collaboration. See As I Lay Dying/American Tragedy. So the question is, should this be considered an actual association or not? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
"Associated acts" was designed to link acts who have long-standing music-professional relationships with other acts: for example, Eddie Kendricks, Jimmy Ruffin, and The Temptations are all associated acts of David Ruffin: Ruffin toured extensively (for at least a decade) with Kendricks and they recorded together multiple times, same with Jimmy Ruffin (also David's brother), and David of course was lead singer in The Temptations. Van McCoy produced two David Ruffin LPs in the 1970s: as of the current edit, he is not listed as an "associated act", nor should he be. I think the problem is people try to overthink the field, or have it in their heads that every single last artist, band or producer someone work with should be listed there (this happens a lot with hip-hop acts, who tend to have featured artists on multiple tracks per album, though in about 70% of the cases these collaborations are financial/favor exchanges often done without the artists ever even meeting). It should really only be reserved for a few acts where, in casually speaking about a certain act's most important works, these other names will come up easily and therefore are important to an encyclopedia article on the subject. -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 08:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Should we indicate that labels should not be added for solo performers unless they have released solo works? I have seen instances where the labels of the bands they have played in have been added, however, the bands and not the individuals were signed to those labels. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This template has a parameter supports instrumental musicians' instruments (i.e. piano, guitar, trumpet) Shouldn't it also have a parameter to support vocal musician's ranges (i.e. baritone, contralto, tenor)? p b p 15:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we add the signature
parameter? For many musicians there are available their autographs, and, as most signatures are below the threshold of originality, they can be added here. --
ɴõɴəχүsƚ 22:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The instructions for the template currently disallow listing producers as associated acts, but aren't there instances where producers have a deep working relationship with an artist, and thus warrant inclusion? The best example I can think of is the Beatles with George Martin, who produced all but one of their albums. A few other examples I can think of are the Ramones with Ed Stasium, the Rolling Stones with Jimmy Miller, the Ronettes with Phil Spector, and George Harrison with Jeff Lynne. All these artists, and most likely many more, are heavily associated with these producers, some probably more so than with the acts currently listed in their infobox. The associated acts field should be broadened to allow producers with which an artist has a longstanding history. Seltaeb Eht ( talk) 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I discovered an issue with the template. The name parameter, at the top of the infobox, is apparently wikilinked. Or at least, that's what the system believes as the name doesn't show up as being wikilinked. The problem is that the name will quite often be ambiguous, and the article will show up on the list of articles to be disambiguated. I've just fixed it in a roundabout way for David Marks and the article is off the disambig list, but it would be best if the template were to be adapted so the name is no longer wikilinked. -- Midas02 ( talk) 01:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
So, I've been reading through the archives and feel that the issue of giving undue prominence to current members has not been resolved at all. I understand the problem here - we don't want to be assessing notability in an infobox, and it's easiest just to say "who is in the band now / who was in it before" but ultimately this is avoiding a real problem. By constructing the infobox in this way we are imposing a recent view as the only correct one - and this choice is reflected in the navbox, where current members are bolded and listed on the first line. When people come to Guns N' Roses, Commodores, Yes, Sugababes, Queen, The New Seekers, The Troggs or The Tremeloes they are looking for a "classic" lineup, whether we like it or not, and sticking Lionel Richie, Slash and Reg Presley down there amongst people who were in the group for a week just doesn't cut it. Yes, it's going to be a problem determining which lineup was most notable, but right now our infoboxes and navboxes are just not good enough, and something simply needs to be done. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 ( talk) 08:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I searched an earlier discussion (there have been many), on why "spouse" is not a permitted parameter, to find: "Basically it boils down to the fact that for the vast majority of artists, the members of their family are not notable & have no relevance to their career as a musician." This might be acceptable if all musicians were not also people, and seems quite overly restrictive to me. No-one's interested in who is a musician's spouse (or parents, or child), just because they are a musician? How bizarre is that? And this rule, of course, also excludes spouses and children who are themselves notable, and even notable musicians. This seems quite a paradox to me. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Infobox person | name = | image = | alt = | caption = | birth_name = | alias = | net_worth = | birth_date = | birth_place = | relatives = | occupation = | spouse = | website = | module = {{Infobox musical artist|embed=yes | background = solo_singer | genre = | instrument = | years_active = | label = | associated_acts = }} }}
I found something about this in the archives, but in current template this parameter is not available. Was it removed? -andy 2.242.155.168 ( talk) 06:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I came across several articles (like these
Admit One,
Janella Salvador,
Jun Toba} that contain an |agent=
field. Rather than have to remove them one by one, would it be better to add an agent field? This would remove them from
Category:Pages using Template:Infobox musical artist with unknown parameters, a category that I am currently working on depopulating. With over 10,000 articles in the category, this could be a big help. --
Auric
talk 17:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
|album=
field. Would that be useful, possibly for most known album? Some have |albums=
with a number.--
Auric
talk 18:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the "image_size" parameter deprecated these days? The instructions already say only to use it if the image is less than 220px in width, since the default display width is 220px. For wider, shorter images there's the "landscape=yes" parameter. But in the case of an image that's less than 220px, wouldn't we not want it to be stretched to a larger size, since that usually affects the resolution? I'm thinking of an example like Vic Bondi, where the image is smaller than 220px; if I apply a larger image_size, the image gets distorted, which is no good. So for smaller images, shouldn't we just want them displayed at their full size to retain resolution? It's possible there's a useful application of image_size that I'm not thinking of; if so, just point it out. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 16:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Could we add Alma Mater like so many infoboxes include? Eric Cable | Talk 14:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if it has been asked before but I was wondering if it were possible to add a parameter or two to the infobox? In K-pop and J-pop there are groups that have spawned off sub-units, I think they would be a little bit different than just associated acts. So maybe a Parent Group and Sub-unit parameter would work well for those that have sub-units such as the case of Super Junior in Korea and AKB48 in Japan. Alicia leo86 ( talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:'68 (band)#Associated acts 208.81.212.224 ( talk) 00:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The template adds a hidden error message for unrecognized parameter names but the message is displayed in Google searches. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"Under Title" issue. PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Why no spouse parameter? Many other biographic info boxes allow it.-- agr ( talk) 21:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, please apply the "nowrap" directive to "Occupation(s)" (and any other labels ending in "(s)") to prevent incorrect line breaks in some browsers. I.e., to prevent
appearing as
This problem occurs fairly commonly throughout numerous infoboxes. Ideally a global fix needs to be applied. I don't know whether that is feasible.
109.145.182.132 ( talk) 20:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that the parameter net_worth be added to this template. It should be similar to the parameters in Template:Infobox person.-- 130.65.109.103 ( talk) 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
Bazj (
talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)One important issue that is not specifically addressed in this template's documentation is the issue of whether or not non-notable musical artists (as in, those not notable enough for their own article) should be listed in an artist's infobox under associated acts. For example, TobyMac's article currently lists his son, Truett (who apparently goes by the stage name "TruDog") as an associated act in the infobox, despite Truett not having his own article, and only being briefly mentioned in Toby's article as someone who appears on some of Toby's songs. If Truett is not notable enough for his own article, I do not see the point in listing him as an associated act of Toby. However, this is just one example, and I'd like to see how others feel in general about non-notable artists being in the associated acts field. Since this began as a dispute between me and Walter Görlitz, I welcome him to explain why he feels that non-notable artists should be listed. -- A guy saved by Jesus ( talk) 05:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
For record labels, the template guideline says to list the "record label or labels to which the act has been signed." I have noticed inconsistencies in that some articles list much more than just labels to which they were signed. Also listed sometimes are parent companies, distributors, licensees and foreign subsidiaries. Should the guideline be more specific about what to list? Piriczki ( talk) 13:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why not add "class = hlist" to every parameter that could potentially contain multiple values? Then there would be no need to add {{ Hlist}} or {{ Flatlist}} templates every single time the infobox is used. Ilovetopaint ( talk) 00:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
| label8 = [[Music genre|Genres]] | data8 = {{{Genre|{{{genre|}}}}}} | class9 = role | label9 = {{Nowrap|{{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|Occupations|Occupation(s)}}}} | data9 = {{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupation|{{{occupation|}}}}}}}} | class10 = note | label10 = Instruments | data10 = {{{Instrument|{{{instrument|{{{instruments|}}}}}}}}}
| class8 = hlist | label8 = [[Music genre|Genres]] | data8 = {{{Genre|{{{genre|}}}}}} | class9 = hlist | label9 = {{Nowrap|{{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|Occupations|Occupation(s)}}}} | data9 = {{#if:{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupations|{{{occupations|}}}}}}|{{{Occupation|{{{occupation|}}}}}}}} | class10 = hlist | label10 = Instruments | data10 = {{{Instrument|{{{instrument|{{{instruments|}}}}}}}}}
Support – The {{
hlist}}
template does NOT create a bulleted list. The hlist template creates a horizontal list that puts a middot ( · ) between each list item instead of needing to put a comma between each list item. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
03:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
"what you're suggesting would actually have a perceptible change: there would be bullets for all list items, and I am opposed to that formatting change.". I repeat: The proposed change would only affect things that are already displayed as bulleted lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable" ... not required.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 18:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
flatlist}}
/{{
hlist}}
. If not, infoboxes using the templates could be automatically added to a maintenance category.--
Ilovetopaint (
talk) 16:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, it does appear that I'm in the minority here, and if this is implemented, as I suspect that it will be, I just want assurances that I won't be warned or disciplined for removing the lists when there are fewer than three items in them and I replace them with commas instead. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Ilovetopaint: Looks like you re-opened the request on 5 Aug 2016. Is your suggested change simply in the template sandbox? Would you mind making a new testcase at Template:Infobox musical artist/testcases for the new syntax? Just one that shows the new bulleted syntax because of hlist (if I'm understanding this correctly). — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 21:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
*
-list format, on which CSS could operate; probably 99 times out of 100, people input plain text with commas). Not everything that could possibly be automated in theory should be. And the request in this case would not automate anything.It might be feasible to change the site-wide behavior of infoboxes to look for list formatting in any given parameter and output such flat lists when one is found, but not output list markup if one is not found; and then redocument all these templates as supporting the new auto-list-generation functionality. That's something to take up at
WT:WikiProject Infoboxes and propose, when the details are worked out, at
WP:Village pump. Short of that, it won't be practical to insert unexpected behavior randomly into this template here and that one over there and expect editors to format things a very different way in this or that particular infobox. I suspect there would be resistance to such an all-infoboxes proposal, because flat lists do not produce properly
reusable content and are an
accessibility problem: A flat list with the values "Foo", "bar", and "baz" copy-pastes as "Foo bar baz" in many if not most browsers, with no separation between the items other than a space. Until that problem is worked around somehow, comma-separated genres, instruments, etc., will produce more consistently useful and correctly parseable output. As two examples, consider the implications of "Gothic, rock, opera" and "Bass, guitar" missing their commas (the little bullets do not copy-paste in most browsers, and many screen readers ignore such special characters even if they're preserved); the resultant text would be directly misleading. This and other templates' suggestion to use {{
Hlist}}
at all should probably be revisited, especially since the advice is almost always ignored anyway (an instruction virtually no one obeys is
WP:CREEP and usually deleted). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Expanded: 07:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Both {{
flatlist}}
and {{
hlist}}
produce the mini-bullets via
the content:
property, which "is used with the :before and :after pseudo-elements to generate content in a document" and "generated content does not alter the document tree", so although it has the visual appearance of being there, it isn't actually present. This means, among other things, that you can't copypaste it. Consider the following alternative list formats:
*Foo
*Bar
*Baz
{{flatlist|
*Foo
*Bar
*Baz
}}
{{hlist|Foo|Bar|Baz}}
{{plainlist|
*Foo
*Bar
*Baz
}}
{{unbulleted list|Foo|Bar|Baz}}
Now try marking two or more consecutive entries in the same list, and copypaste them to somewhere else. You'll just get the three words "Foo", "Bar" and "Baz", with either a space or a newline between them. So regardless of the appearance, if it's marked up as a list (whether that be one of the above forms or something else), the list separator will not copy. There's nothing that can be done in CSS to add a copyable separator. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
For the years_active
variable, the template documentation says to include "[p]eriod(s) during which the act was or has been active." If there are reliable sources that a group formally disbanded in XXXX year, but still come together for concerts maybe once or twice a year, are they still "active"? —
fourthords |
=Λ= | 16:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm editing the page for a band whose official website is dead, but is present in archive.org (and would probably be useful to anybody interested in the band). I just pointed the link to the last valid page on archive.org -- is that OK? The Wiki guidelines for dead links is mostly focused on references, but the one for link rot says dead external links should generally be deleted or replaced. I couldn't find anything on dead links for official websites, which seem like they should have a different policy. —Torc. ( Talk.) 23:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe this template should contain "YouTube channel", "YouTube subscribers" and possibly "Total YouTube views" parameters similar to Template:Infobox YouTube personality. YouTube has become an integral part of the music artist industry, with labels and individual artists releasing music videos--old and new--onto YouTube all of the time. Yet I doubt many artists would consider themselves to be "YouTube personalities" even when they have a million subscribers, and obviously article editors do not consider it either when this template is chosen over the YouTube one. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Once again, we have a solo musical artist whose CoD can't go in the infobox. Since the infobox specifically allows for solo artists, the omission of this parameter continues to make no sense. 🖖 ATS / Talk 03:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Could we change the "Notable Instruments" to neutral background when embedded? See John Lennon. -- Dabao qian ( talk) 18:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes||background-color: {{Infobox musical artist/color|{{{Background|{{{background|}}}}}}}} }}
--
Dabao qian (
talk) 01:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)I just can't quite get this, which Modules does this Infobox use for embedding? Can someone please put them in here? Thank you.— Lost Whispers talk 21:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
-- Dabao qian ( talk) 07:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
There's an editor who has had a difficult time sourcing info and has until recently added associations with bands where there is only one member in common between bands. That member is often a touring musician, or in the case of Austrian Death Machine, performs only on a single song. Do we need to clarify the documentation to help editors avoid such things or is that sort of thing acceptable? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)