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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Following a discussion on my talk page: User_talk:EdwardUK#Solo_singers? I'd like to raise some concerns over the use of the background parameter as it has been noted that the category names may be open to misinterpretation. Particularly it is the term "solo_singer", which the documentation says covers all vocalists, but when seen on the individual article, out of context from the explaining documentation, the solo part appears to suggest something other than group singer or backing vocals, also there is the issue of there being a clear distinction between different vocal styles - i.e. singing and rap.
A suggestion would be replacing or adding to "solo_singer" with a clearer term or terms, possibly just "singer", "vocalist", or "rapper", which could be used interchangeably with the existing category, that is produce the same color-coded output, or perhaps in the case of rapper a different colour could be used. Also an idea is for an extra category for "other" which could apply to those who do not fit the existing options. - EdwardUK ( talk) 18:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Does the parameter serve any purpose other than to change the infobox colour – that is, is it required for things such as auto-generating categories (apart from the missing or invalid parameter tracking category). If it is just for colour then why should it be mandatory, there are several articles where the text does not make it clear which option should be used - having it as a required field is problematic when the information is disputed or not available. There are also cases when this infobox is embedded into other infoboxes resulting in the parameter having no effect on the appearance, yet the articles still show up on the tracking category - to prevent this from happening would it be possible to change the coding so that it does not check for the background parameter if the infobox uses embed=yes. EdwardUK ( talk) 04:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
From the template docs:
past_members
This field is only relevant for groups. Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field. If membership of the group has varied over time, it should not be noted here, but may be discussed in the article body. Can also be given as
|former_members=
. Separate multiple entries using * list markup. For example,| past_members = * Member 1 * Member 2 * Member 3
The "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names" sentence seems pretty clear and seems to be the standard for just about every band with changing lineups over the years (eg.
The Rolling Stones,
The Who,
The Jackson 5,
The Beach Boys,
Tool,
Earth, Wind & Fire, etc. etc.). But then we have this sentence, "If membership of the group has varied over time, it should not be noted here". So, what does this mean? Does it mean that if the band is still active, the |past_members=
field should not be used? Does it mean other info about "varied membership" should not be added to the name? But that was made clear with the earlier "no other notation than names" statement.
I've looked at past talk discussions, eg. #1, #2, but could not find something to specifically address this question. Most seem to just be debating who/which/when members should go into what category.
It could be I'm just missing what idea is being documented. In that case, clarification would be welcome, and that clarification added to the docs could help others. Thanks in advance. – ░▒▓ №∶ 72.234.220.38 ( talk) 04:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░
What if, one artist collaborates with another on a single track, for a motion picture soundtrack? But both the artists have a significant popularity. Can it be counted as an associated act? IndieOKB ( talk) 07:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I think a Signature line should be added considering how musical artists give out autographs to their fans. It shows how they really handwrite their signature so it's valuable information. Kj1595 ( talk) 01:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Change 'Background information' to 'General information'. It is not about any "background" of musicians. -- Obsuser ( talk) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I suggest moving |native_name=
below |birth_name=
, both in display and documentation. Now it looks ugly when it is below infobox enlarged bolded title:
example. --
Obsuser (
talk) 18:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
"current_members" and "past_members" seem ideally suited to list musical roles (instrument/voice), yet the specification says "with no other notation than names", but without motivation. Now the user has to dig through the whole article parsing unstructured text to try to make sense of who does what, or which people filled a particular role in the past. Having only names in these fields might look prettier, but it's also pretty much useless and redundant: why is the former considered more important than the latter? — RFST ( talk) 02:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Dance-pop" in Mariah Carey's example-infobox should written lowercase. and, in the audioslave-infobox, the "image_upright" parameter is redundant when "landscape=yes" is already enabled 188.192.211.248 ( talk) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
image_upright
to Carey's infobox and corrected the
MOS:CAPS part as well. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Walter Görlitz (
talk •
contribs) 05:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Why's there no spouse section? -- Luka1184 ( talk) 04:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have associated bands contain two or more common members? The other rules make sense, but this rule in particular seems arbitrary and somewhat defeats the purpose, depriving the casual reader of upfront and pertinent information. Plus, a great many pages tend to ignore this guideline. In fact, on this same page, the example given contradicts this guideline by listing Soundgarden and Temple of the Dog as Associated Acts for Audioslave, despite there only being one common member. Can this be discussed for deletion? StuOnThis ( talk) 18:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I concede, then. I came here trying to fix what I thought was an obvious flaw in the system, but it appears as though the general consensus is that the bug is actually a feature. After this discussion, I can actually agree that the Associated Acts section of the infobox may be too abstract an idea to be utilized uniformly. Thank you to everyone for your time. StuOnThis ( talk) 17:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
If someone is an independent artist, should the |label=
parameter be used to indicate this? I'm looking at
this edit. I can see arguments either way. Thoughts? Please feel free to ping me.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 22:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
none (independent)
—whether "none" was capitalized or not—would be fine.Do we still need "Background information" to appear? The horizontal break is useful, but I'm not sure it's needed any longer. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
This parameter would be quite important for the career of a musical artist. Placement of such information in an article will seem like an advertisement and I feel this would belong best in the musicalartist infobox. Terry g. bishop ( talk) 01:36, 2 April 2021 (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 there, this edit request is for adding Nationality, Education and Alma mater parameter to the infobox. In addition, also rearranging website parameter to display on last row of infobox. This is the sandbox and this is the testcase.
Why add the 3 new parameters? I know this parameter already exists in Infobox person, however when using Infobox person as module, the parameter would be displayed in awkward position, see this example. As you can see from the example, if there is signature included then it would look out of place when compared to Infobox person in which the signature row is coded to position at the bottom of the infobox. Here is an example of Infobox person with signature. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 15:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Paper9oll ( talk · contribs) added the new parameters of nationality, education and alma_mater. I see no discussion of their addition to the list of parameters, and at least two make no sense. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, you can submit an edit requestand my changes is not controversial hence I don't see the point in having an pointless WP:SNOWBALL discussion. If my changes is like the
background
parameter then having discussion is required as it's considered controversial change. —
Paper9oll (
🔔 •
📝) 16:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
no discussion and no consensus. Furthermore, it seem to me you like to through the entire bureaucracy and isn't being helpful and reasonable? If you want to revert it and then add
module4
since you seem to prefer to having more coding structure and having 2 infobox person as module, why 2 infobox person because first one would be for education and alma mater parameter which would positioned it below the occupation parameter which is already there in infobox musical artist (just a reminder, I didn't add occupation parameter btw) and last module would be for signature.nationality
, education
and alma_matar
since that's going in circle and is unlikely even change. However, please answer this question instead, can I request to add module4
directly below module3
? —
Paper9oll (
🔔 •
📝) 01:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)An abundance of artist logos are available on Wikimedia Commons, most of which go unused. Logos are important encyclopedic information and a vital component of a career. I’m suggesting that a “logo“ parameter be added to Infobox Musical artist https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Musician_logos Terry g. bishop ( talk) 01:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The one that would be best used in Rihannas scenario would be the one used most prominently on upmost recent albums and promotional material. Commons has information on whether a logo would fall under fair use. This parameter seems to be a sound idea for all genres. Terry g. bishop ( talk) 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is an expanded list to prove my first point: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_musicians_from_the_United_States Terry g. bishop ( talk) 14:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Rihanna was a remarkably poor example. As previously stated, the upmost recent logo or most identifiable will be used, and I don’t see 1 other artist that changes their logos like her. This will also be limited by availability of the logo on Commons. A fair majority of logos on Commons have public domain availability visible. This also will not be limited to artists, as bands seemingly have a larger array:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_musical_groups_by_country
This seems to be experimented with on articles Cardi B, Lil Wayne, and James Morrison. Terry g. bishop ( talk) 00:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and associated page Template:Infobox musical artist/doc/type ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seem out of place now that the Background field has been removed. -- Auric talk 20:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
|background=
parameter from {{
Infobox musical artist}}? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
|background=
. The scale of this change is what was behind my suggestion above to wait a bit before cleaning up. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
|Background=
(initial upper case), |spouse=
/|Spouse=
/|Spouse(s)=
, |family=
, |children=
/|Children=
, |nationality=
, |residence=
, |height=
, |partner=
, |parents=
, and |relatives=
can also be removed. None of those parameters exist in the template code or the documentation. Most of the other unsupported parameters either need manual evaluation or exist in only a small number of articles. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a replacement to change the infobox color banner? Or will all musicians, bands, and producers have the blue infobox banner from now on? Terry g. bishop ( talk) 01:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I don’t like all blue. I liked it when it was yellow. Why make this change? Tinton5 ( talk) 16:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Why not have 2 colors, yellow for solo artists and blue for bands? FMSky ( talk) 16:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Whilst the former background parameter was outdated and ambiguous between its options, I think that (as one stated in the discussion) there should be a different colour for individuals. I am sure it wouldn't be difficult for readers to decipher the meaning of two colours. Though this perhaps does not serve much practical purpose, I believe it's odd to see individuals with the same blue colour as their bands, and that the deletion of the entire background parameter was rather rash. I hope to gain consensus to bring it back but to keep it straightforward. Lazz _R 00:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
What would a record producer/DJ fall into? non_vocal_instrumentalist or non_performing_personnel? There seems to be a bit of inconsistency across articles. DJ Rebel uses non_vocal_instrumentalist, while Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike uses non_performing_personnel. Nehme1499 ( talk) 16:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Should the |background=
parameter be kept, revised, or removed?
Nehme
1499 22:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
With the RfC having expired, and no one else having opposed, I think we could procede with the deletion of the parameter. Nehme 1499 23:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I've restored the background parameter code, which is used in:
class="{{Infobox musical artist/hCard class|{{{Background|{{{background|}}}}}}}}
and without which the template's microformat markup will not work. This issue does not seem to have been included in the above discussion.
Note that the purpose of {{
Infobox musical artist/hCard class}} is described in this template's documentation; and that the subtemplate's own documentation clearly describes the importance of the |background=
parameter to that purpose.
Removal of the parameter and its values from individual instances of the template should cease until this matter is resolved; or where applicable should be reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
|background=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
|title={{{Img_capt|{{{caption|}}}}}}
was removed from the infobox image rendering? I do not see that change addressed by
Pigsonthewing above. I have restored that bit of text as well. As for
Walter Görlitz's message, I do not understand it or know who it is addressed to. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
to summarize (and not supplant) key facts; pronunciation of a name was argued not to be a key fact. The proponent asserted that pronunciation looked better in the infobox, which is not a compelling policy-based argument. Therefore, by both numerical vote count and grounding in policy, there is a clear consensus against adding a pronunciation parameter. Tol | talk | contribs 22:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Request |pronunciation=
param be added in line with Infobox_person.
ATS (
talk) 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article, and the pronunciation of a name is rarely a key fact in my opinion. I support removing the parameter from
{{
Infobox person}}
as well, but that's another topic for another RfC.
Bsoyka (
talk ·
contribs) 01:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Please add a new line with an automatic short description:
Original request
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thank you! Tol | talk | contribs 23:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
To disable this with bands (which have either current_members
or past_members
):
From: | To: |
<includeonly>{{#if:{{{current_members|}}}{{{past_members|}}}||{{Short description|Musical artist|noreplace}}}}</includeonly> | |
{{Infobox | {{Infobox |
— Tol | talk | contribs 23:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Should an automatic short description (which could distinguish between individual artists and groups, as shown in § Revised request to accommodate bands) be added to this template? Tol | talk | contribs 03:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
current_members
or past_members
parameter is set.
Tol |
talk |
contribs 23:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per consensus above, please implement the edit shown in § Revised request to accommodate bands. Tol | talk | contribs 22:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This template seems to create an unnecessary newline when preceded by a newline, see The Beatles revision here: [1]. I removed the space between the redirect hatnotes and the infobox to solve this, but I suspect the infobox could be the issue. 93 ( talk) 23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I noticed an unneeded short description in
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan where {{Infobox musical artist}} is embedded in {{
Infobox person}}. I have .shortdescription
enabled in my
Special:MyPage/common.css and I see the description "Musical artist" at the bottom of the infobox. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 09:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
<div class="shortdescription nomobile noexcerpt noprint searchaux" style="display:none">Rugby player</div>
, the same as at Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.Does the magic word {{SHORTDESC:}} really observe |noreplace=
? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 03:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
|noreplace=
, the HTML code <div class="shortdescription nomobile noexcerpt noprint searchaux" style="display:none">(text)</div>
will still be inserted for each occurrence of {{SHORTDESC:}}/{{Short description}}. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 05:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The infobox documentation doesn't appear to say anything about sourcing for past members of a musical group. Is there a presumption as to where this information is originating? I'm looking at The Swingle Singers, which lists an extensive collection of past members with no attribution. Is it appropriate to put a CN tag in the infobox at that point? DonIago ( talk) 13:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed the past members who were not discussed within the article from the infobox. DonIago ( talk) 19:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Why is the "Spouse" parameter not working? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 00:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
So fix it, then, so the same question doesn't need to be asked many, many more times in the future. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 01:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
i think the musician infobox is in great need of both the influence{s,d} parameters. that way we can trace pedigree of great musicians in the course of history.
it's no different than the scientist infobox. it gives us a great idea of who deserves to come before and after for specific musicians.
of course for jobber musicians it can be debated if they deserve this, but we can fight on those talk pages about whether they warrant them (maybe they're borderline WP:NOTABLE and thus don't deserve to piggyback on bigger names) 198.53.108.48 ( talk) 01:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
that's fair i guess. i do acknowledge artists can, and have, contradicte(d) themselves ( Scott Storch being among one of the more memorable ones for myself).
discussion over! go ahead and shut 'er down, @ Walter Görlitz: 198.53.108.48 ( talk)
website section says
Template:URL should be used. but none of the wensite examples given in infobox use www.
in website. should we follow url template or just plain website without http or ftp or www? -
চামুণ্ডা/ashtamatrikas
[আলাপ/talk] 14:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that this template automatically adds the short description "Musical artist" to the article – as if every article with this template must be about a musical artist. Well, in an article I've been writing,
Portugal in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021, only one section is about a musical artist and uses the template. Since the article title is descriptive, it shouldn't have any short description at all. I tried adding {{Short description|none}}
but that does not appear to help; the
page information still says "Musical artist". This problem can easily be fixed by adding a parameter to remove the short description. ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk) 13:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit request: please implement this edit on the sandbox per the above reason. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 12:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
{{Short description|none}}
doesn't work. I just tried inserting that on
Russia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020, which also used to say 'Musical artist', and it seemed to have worked fine (nothing on the information page either). Is there something I'm missing?
ChromeGames923 (
talk ·
contribs) 23:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
|noreplace
does not take {{short description|none}}
into account (maybe that should be reported as a bug?). ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk) 09:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
SHORTDESC
magic word, and as far as I can tell the magic word currenlty supports the concept of "no short description"; it either sets a short description or does nothing. So that would require a change in the software, although I would support it. ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk) 00:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)How about using the {{ Template short description}} template instead? It looks like that would deal with the problems too. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 18:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
So, is anything going to happen with this edit request? I think we kind of agreed on Module:Is infobox in lead? ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 10:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I notice that some of articles about musical group has this parameter, but they are using this parameter in a wrong way. The parameter states "For multiple members joining concurrently (such as the formation of the band), list them according to alphabetical order". Other articles use this, instead of alphabetical order, they arrange it in oldest to youngest member. Example: Blackpink, BTS, and Twice, articles which I've edited. I've already arrange the order of current members of Twice and Blackpink to alphabetical order, but my edit in Blackpink was reverted. I need someone's opinion here thanks. Ctrlwiki • 06:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
listed in order of joiningwith no other notation than names. For multiple members joining concurrently (such as the formation of the band), list them according to alphabetical order. [emphasis added]" It does not mention anything about listing according to the members' ages and alphabetical order only applies to members who joined at the same time. — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Ojorojo: That information is the chronological order in which they were publicly announced as members of Blackpink, not the order in which they joined the group. Members don't really "join" a group, they are selected from a pool of trainees that have been training for years with the agency. Blackpink was originally intended to be a nine-member group, as the article states.
@ Ctrlwiki: No, there is no need to remove the instructions for this parameter, but there's also no point in rigidly applying the instructions to a particular group of articles when a better system works. These articles sit perfectly fine up until someone decides to apply the instructions from a WikiProject that can't even adhere to its own genre parameter guidance among WP:FAs. ✗ plicit 01:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Request to add "background" and "musical career" headings (for solo artists) to separate the background information and the career information, just like infobox YouTube personality and others. If anyone disagreed, why? — Ctrlwiki ( talk) 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe the background parameter where either "solo_singer", "non_vocal_instrumentalist", "group_or_band", etc., was removed relatively recently. But any article without one of those gets added to Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field. If the parameter is no longer used, then surely the category is no longer needed. I'm just bringing attention to this. Xfansd ( talk) 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
was removed? It is currently part of the template code. It is passed to {{
Infobox musical artist/hCard class}}. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
is present in over 37,000 articles. One example is
The Alan Parsons Project, which does not display any error messages when I edit and preview it. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 07:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
background
parameter would generate a warning in the preview. We should correct that immediately as the parameter is no longer supported. That was done via a consensus decision.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 21:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
is used; the final comment there is from an editor who
refused to read something that another editor linked to, which seems like the same thing that is happening here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)@ Pigsonthewing: Your discussion on this matter is required. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
"If the hCard class needs to be updated, someone should do so. "How do you propose that be done? Without
|background=
, what indicator is there that the subject is either a person or a group? This has all been explained on this page, and in the template documentation, previously; not least in my post timestamped 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC), which you saw.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe the background parameter where either "solo_singer", "non_vocal_instrumentalist", "group_or_band", etc., was removed relatively recently. But any article without one of those gets added to Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field. If the parameter is no longer used, then surely the category is no longer needed. I'm just bringing attention to this. Xfansd ( talk) 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
was removed? It is currently part of the template code. It is passed to {{
Infobox musical artist/hCard class}}. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
is present in over 37,000 articles. One example is
The Alan Parsons Project, which does not display any error messages when I edit and preview it. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 07:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
background
parameter would generate a warning in the preview. We should correct that immediately as the parameter is no longer supported. That was done via a consensus decision.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 21:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
is used; the final comment there is from an editor who
refused to read something that another editor linked to, which seems like the same thing that is happening here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)@ Pigsonthewing: Your discussion on this matter is required. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
"If the hCard class needs to be updated, someone should do so. "How do you propose that be done? Without
|background=
, what indicator is there that the subject is either a person or a group? This has all been explained on this page, and in the template documentation, previously; not least in my post timestamped 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC), which you saw.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could {{ nowrap}} please be removed from the "Associated acts" label? The label's length substantially decreases the width of the content column, to the point that even dates of birth run over two lines. This is especially problematic when the infobox is used as a module of {{ Infobox person}}, thus affecting numerous infobox fields. Thanks, Graham ( talk) 04:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, there are currently about 20 AKAs that duplicate existing parameters, except of the first uppercase letter. It would be useful to finally start getting rid of them by moving them to deprecated tracking into a new category to clear up [ this mess], along with unknown parameters. Solidest ( talk) 18:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:34, 16 April 2022 (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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Following a discussion on my talk page: User_talk:EdwardUK#Solo_singers? I'd like to raise some concerns over the use of the background parameter as it has been noted that the category names may be open to misinterpretation. Particularly it is the term "solo_singer", which the documentation says covers all vocalists, but when seen on the individual article, out of context from the explaining documentation, the solo part appears to suggest something other than group singer or backing vocals, also there is the issue of there being a clear distinction between different vocal styles - i.e. singing and rap.
A suggestion would be replacing or adding to "solo_singer" with a clearer term or terms, possibly just "singer", "vocalist", or "rapper", which could be used interchangeably with the existing category, that is produce the same color-coded output, or perhaps in the case of rapper a different colour could be used. Also an idea is for an extra category for "other" which could apply to those who do not fit the existing options. - EdwardUK ( talk) 18:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Does the parameter serve any purpose other than to change the infobox colour – that is, is it required for things such as auto-generating categories (apart from the missing or invalid parameter tracking category). If it is just for colour then why should it be mandatory, there are several articles where the text does not make it clear which option should be used - having it as a required field is problematic when the information is disputed or not available. There are also cases when this infobox is embedded into other infoboxes resulting in the parameter having no effect on the appearance, yet the articles still show up on the tracking category - to prevent this from happening would it be possible to change the coding so that it does not check for the background parameter if the infobox uses embed=yes. EdwardUK ( talk) 04:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
From the template docs:
past_members
This field is only relevant for groups. Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field. If membership of the group has varied over time, it should not be noted here, but may be discussed in the article body. Can also be given as
|former_members=
. Separate multiple entries using * list markup. For example,| past_members = * Member 1 * Member 2 * Member 3
The "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names" sentence seems pretty clear and seems to be the standard for just about every band with changing lineups over the years (eg.
The Rolling Stones,
The Who,
The Jackson 5,
The Beach Boys,
Tool,
Earth, Wind & Fire, etc. etc.). But then we have this sentence, "If membership of the group has varied over time, it should not be noted here". So, what does this mean? Does it mean that if the band is still active, the |past_members=
field should not be used? Does it mean other info about "varied membership" should not be added to the name? But that was made clear with the earlier "no other notation than names" statement.
I've looked at past talk discussions, eg. #1, #2, but could not find something to specifically address this question. Most seem to just be debating who/which/when members should go into what category.
It could be I'm just missing what idea is being documented. In that case, clarification would be welcome, and that clarification added to the docs could help others. Thanks in advance. – ░▒▓ №∶ 72.234.220.38 ( talk) 04:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░
What if, one artist collaborates with another on a single track, for a motion picture soundtrack? But both the artists have a significant popularity. Can it be counted as an associated act? IndieOKB ( talk) 07:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I think a Signature line should be added considering how musical artists give out autographs to their fans. It shows how they really handwrite their signature so it's valuable information. Kj1595 ( talk) 01:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Change 'Background information' to 'General information'. It is not about any "background" of musicians. -- Obsuser ( talk) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I suggest moving |native_name=
below |birth_name=
, both in display and documentation. Now it looks ugly when it is below infobox enlarged bolded title:
example. --
Obsuser (
talk) 18:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
"current_members" and "past_members" seem ideally suited to list musical roles (instrument/voice), yet the specification says "with no other notation than names", but without motivation. Now the user has to dig through the whole article parsing unstructured text to try to make sense of who does what, or which people filled a particular role in the past. Having only names in these fields might look prettier, but it's also pretty much useless and redundant: why is the former considered more important than the latter? — RFST ( talk) 02:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Dance-pop" in Mariah Carey's example-infobox should written lowercase. and, in the audioslave-infobox, the "image_upright" parameter is redundant when "landscape=yes" is already enabled 188.192.211.248 ( talk) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
image_upright
to Carey's infobox and corrected the
MOS:CAPS part as well. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Walter Görlitz (
talk •
contribs) 05:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Why's there no spouse section? -- Luka1184 ( talk) 04:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have associated bands contain two or more common members? The other rules make sense, but this rule in particular seems arbitrary and somewhat defeats the purpose, depriving the casual reader of upfront and pertinent information. Plus, a great many pages tend to ignore this guideline. In fact, on this same page, the example given contradicts this guideline by listing Soundgarden and Temple of the Dog as Associated Acts for Audioslave, despite there only being one common member. Can this be discussed for deletion? StuOnThis ( talk) 18:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I concede, then. I came here trying to fix what I thought was an obvious flaw in the system, but it appears as though the general consensus is that the bug is actually a feature. After this discussion, I can actually agree that the Associated Acts section of the infobox may be too abstract an idea to be utilized uniformly. Thank you to everyone for your time. StuOnThis ( talk) 17:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
If someone is an independent artist, should the |label=
parameter be used to indicate this? I'm looking at
this edit. I can see arguments either way. Thoughts? Please feel free to ping me.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 22:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
none (independent)
—whether "none" was capitalized or not—would be fine.Do we still need "Background information" to appear? The horizontal break is useful, but I'm not sure it's needed any longer. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
This parameter would be quite important for the career of a musical artist. Placement of such information in an article will seem like an advertisement and I feel this would belong best in the musicalartist infobox. Terry g. bishop ( talk) 01:36, 2 April 2021 (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 there, this edit request is for adding Nationality, Education and Alma mater parameter to the infobox. In addition, also rearranging website parameter to display on last row of infobox. This is the sandbox and this is the testcase.
Why add the 3 new parameters? I know this parameter already exists in Infobox person, however when using Infobox person as module, the parameter would be displayed in awkward position, see this example. As you can see from the example, if there is signature included then it would look out of place when compared to Infobox person in which the signature row is coded to position at the bottom of the infobox. Here is an example of Infobox person with signature. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 15:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Paper9oll ( talk · contribs) added the new parameters of nationality, education and alma_mater. I see no discussion of their addition to the list of parameters, and at least two make no sense. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, you can submit an edit requestand my changes is not controversial hence I don't see the point in having an pointless WP:SNOWBALL discussion. If my changes is like the
background
parameter then having discussion is required as it's considered controversial change. —
Paper9oll (
🔔 •
📝) 16:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
no discussion and no consensus. Furthermore, it seem to me you like to through the entire bureaucracy and isn't being helpful and reasonable? If you want to revert it and then add
module4
since you seem to prefer to having more coding structure and having 2 infobox person as module, why 2 infobox person because first one would be for education and alma mater parameter which would positioned it below the occupation parameter which is already there in infobox musical artist (just a reminder, I didn't add occupation parameter btw) and last module would be for signature.nationality
, education
and alma_matar
since that's going in circle and is unlikely even change. However, please answer this question instead, can I request to add module4
directly below module3
? —
Paper9oll (
🔔 •
📝) 01:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)An abundance of artist logos are available on Wikimedia Commons, most of which go unused. Logos are important encyclopedic information and a vital component of a career. I’m suggesting that a “logo“ parameter be added to Infobox Musical artist https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Musician_logos Terry g. bishop ( talk) 01:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The one that would be best used in Rihannas scenario would be the one used most prominently on upmost recent albums and promotional material. Commons has information on whether a logo would fall under fair use. This parameter seems to be a sound idea for all genres. Terry g. bishop ( talk) 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is an expanded list to prove my first point: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_musicians_from_the_United_States Terry g. bishop ( talk) 14:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Rihanna was a remarkably poor example. As previously stated, the upmost recent logo or most identifiable will be used, and I don’t see 1 other artist that changes their logos like her. This will also be limited by availability of the logo on Commons. A fair majority of logos on Commons have public domain availability visible. This also will not be limited to artists, as bands seemingly have a larger array:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_musical_groups_by_country
This seems to be experimented with on articles Cardi B, Lil Wayne, and James Morrison. Terry g. bishop ( talk) 00:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and associated page Template:Infobox musical artist/doc/type ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seem out of place now that the Background field has been removed. -- Auric talk 20:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
|background=
parameter from {{
Infobox musical artist}}? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
|background=
. The scale of this change is what was behind my suggestion above to wait a bit before cleaning up. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
|Background=
(initial upper case), |spouse=
/|Spouse=
/|Spouse(s)=
, |family=
, |children=
/|Children=
, |nationality=
, |residence=
, |height=
, |partner=
, |parents=
, and |relatives=
can also be removed. None of those parameters exist in the template code or the documentation. Most of the other unsupported parameters either need manual evaluation or exist in only a small number of articles. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a replacement to change the infobox color banner? Or will all musicians, bands, and producers have the blue infobox banner from now on? Terry g. bishop ( talk) 01:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I don’t like all blue. I liked it when it was yellow. Why make this change? Tinton5 ( talk) 16:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Why not have 2 colors, yellow for solo artists and blue for bands? FMSky ( talk) 16:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Whilst the former background parameter was outdated and ambiguous between its options, I think that (as one stated in the discussion) there should be a different colour for individuals. I am sure it wouldn't be difficult for readers to decipher the meaning of two colours. Though this perhaps does not serve much practical purpose, I believe it's odd to see individuals with the same blue colour as their bands, and that the deletion of the entire background parameter was rather rash. I hope to gain consensus to bring it back but to keep it straightforward. Lazz _R 00:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
What would a record producer/DJ fall into? non_vocal_instrumentalist or non_performing_personnel? There seems to be a bit of inconsistency across articles. DJ Rebel uses non_vocal_instrumentalist, while Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike uses non_performing_personnel. Nehme1499 ( talk) 16:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Should the |background=
parameter be kept, revised, or removed?
Nehme
1499 22:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
With the RfC having expired, and no one else having opposed, I think we could procede with the deletion of the parameter. Nehme 1499 23:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I've restored the background parameter code, which is used in:
class="{{Infobox musical artist/hCard class|{{{Background|{{{background|}}}}}}}}
and without which the template's microformat markup will not work. This issue does not seem to have been included in the above discussion.
Note that the purpose of {{
Infobox musical artist/hCard class}} is described in this template's documentation; and that the subtemplate's own documentation clearly describes the importance of the |background=
parameter to that purpose.
Removal of the parameter and its values from individual instances of the template should cease until this matter is resolved; or where applicable should be reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
|background=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
|title={{{Img_capt|{{{caption|}}}}}}
was removed from the infobox image rendering? I do not see that change addressed by
Pigsonthewing above. I have restored that bit of text as well. As for
Walter Görlitz's message, I do not understand it or know who it is addressed to. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
to summarize (and not supplant) key facts; pronunciation of a name was argued not to be a key fact. The proponent asserted that pronunciation looked better in the infobox, which is not a compelling policy-based argument. Therefore, by both numerical vote count and grounding in policy, there is a clear consensus against adding a pronunciation parameter. Tol | talk | contribs 22:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Request |pronunciation=
param be added in line with Infobox_person.
ATS (
talk) 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article, and the pronunciation of a name is rarely a key fact in my opinion. I support removing the parameter from
{{
Infobox person}}
as well, but that's another topic for another RfC.
Bsoyka (
talk ·
contribs) 01:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Please add a new line with an automatic short description:
Original request
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thank you! Tol | talk | contribs 23:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
To disable this with bands (which have either current_members
or past_members
):
From: | To: |
<includeonly>{{#if:{{{current_members|}}}{{{past_members|}}}||{{Short description|Musical artist|noreplace}}}}</includeonly> | |
{{Infobox | {{Infobox |
— Tol | talk | contribs 23:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Should an automatic short description (which could distinguish between individual artists and groups, as shown in § Revised request to accommodate bands) be added to this template? Tol | talk | contribs 03:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
current_members
or past_members
parameter is set.
Tol |
talk |
contribs 23:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per consensus above, please implement the edit shown in § Revised request to accommodate bands. Tol | talk | contribs 22:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This template seems to create an unnecessary newline when preceded by a newline, see The Beatles revision here: [1]. I removed the space between the redirect hatnotes and the infobox to solve this, but I suspect the infobox could be the issue. 93 ( talk) 23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I noticed an unneeded short description in
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan where {{Infobox musical artist}} is embedded in {{
Infobox person}}. I have .shortdescription
enabled in my
Special:MyPage/common.css and I see the description "Musical artist" at the bottom of the infobox. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 09:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
<div class="shortdescription nomobile noexcerpt noprint searchaux" style="display:none">Rugby player</div>
, the same as at Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.Does the magic word {{SHORTDESC:}} really observe |noreplace=
? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 03:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
|noreplace=
, the HTML code <div class="shortdescription nomobile noexcerpt noprint searchaux" style="display:none">(text)</div>
will still be inserted for each occurrence of {{SHORTDESC:}}/{{Short description}}. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 05:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The infobox documentation doesn't appear to say anything about sourcing for past members of a musical group. Is there a presumption as to where this information is originating? I'm looking at The Swingle Singers, which lists an extensive collection of past members with no attribution. Is it appropriate to put a CN tag in the infobox at that point? DonIago ( talk) 13:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed the past members who were not discussed within the article from the infobox. DonIago ( talk) 19:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Why is the "Spouse" parameter not working? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 00:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
So fix it, then, so the same question doesn't need to be asked many, many more times in the future. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 01:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
i think the musician infobox is in great need of both the influence{s,d} parameters. that way we can trace pedigree of great musicians in the course of history.
it's no different than the scientist infobox. it gives us a great idea of who deserves to come before and after for specific musicians.
of course for jobber musicians it can be debated if they deserve this, but we can fight on those talk pages about whether they warrant them (maybe they're borderline WP:NOTABLE and thus don't deserve to piggyback on bigger names) 198.53.108.48 ( talk) 01:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
that's fair i guess. i do acknowledge artists can, and have, contradicte(d) themselves ( Scott Storch being among one of the more memorable ones for myself).
discussion over! go ahead and shut 'er down, @ Walter Görlitz: 198.53.108.48 ( talk)
website section says
Template:URL should be used. but none of the wensite examples given in infobox use www.
in website. should we follow url template or just plain website without http or ftp or www? -
চামুণ্ডা/ashtamatrikas
[আলাপ/talk] 14:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that this template automatically adds the short description "Musical artist" to the article – as if every article with this template must be about a musical artist. Well, in an article I've been writing,
Portugal in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021, only one section is about a musical artist and uses the template. Since the article title is descriptive, it shouldn't have any short description at all. I tried adding {{Short description|none}}
but that does not appear to help; the
page information still says "Musical artist". This problem can easily be fixed by adding a parameter to remove the short description. ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk) 13:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit request: please implement this edit on the sandbox per the above reason. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 12:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
{{Short description|none}}
doesn't work. I just tried inserting that on
Russia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020, which also used to say 'Musical artist', and it seemed to have worked fine (nothing on the information page either). Is there something I'm missing?
ChromeGames923 (
talk ·
contribs) 23:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
|noreplace
does not take {{short description|none}}
into account (maybe that should be reported as a bug?). ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk) 09:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
SHORTDESC
magic word, and as far as I can tell the magic word currenlty supports the concept of "no short description"; it either sets a short description or does nothing. So that would require a change in the software, although I would support it. ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk) 00:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)How about using the {{ Template short description}} template instead? It looks like that would deal with the problems too. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 18:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
So, is anything going to happen with this edit request? I think we kind of agreed on Module:Is infobox in lead? ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 10:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I notice that some of articles about musical group has this parameter, but they are using this parameter in a wrong way. The parameter states "For multiple members joining concurrently (such as the formation of the band), list them according to alphabetical order". Other articles use this, instead of alphabetical order, they arrange it in oldest to youngest member. Example: Blackpink, BTS, and Twice, articles which I've edited. I've already arrange the order of current members of Twice and Blackpink to alphabetical order, but my edit in Blackpink was reverted. I need someone's opinion here thanks. Ctrlwiki • 06:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
listed in order of joiningwith no other notation than names. For multiple members joining concurrently (such as the formation of the band), list them according to alphabetical order. [emphasis added]" It does not mention anything about listing according to the members' ages and alphabetical order only applies to members who joined at the same time. — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Ojorojo: That information is the chronological order in which they were publicly announced as members of Blackpink, not the order in which they joined the group. Members don't really "join" a group, they are selected from a pool of trainees that have been training for years with the agency. Blackpink was originally intended to be a nine-member group, as the article states.
@ Ctrlwiki: No, there is no need to remove the instructions for this parameter, but there's also no point in rigidly applying the instructions to a particular group of articles when a better system works. These articles sit perfectly fine up until someone decides to apply the instructions from a WikiProject that can't even adhere to its own genre parameter guidance among WP:FAs. ✗ plicit 01:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Request to add "background" and "musical career" headings (for solo artists) to separate the background information and the career information, just like infobox YouTube personality and others. If anyone disagreed, why? — Ctrlwiki ( talk) 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe the background parameter where either "solo_singer", "non_vocal_instrumentalist", "group_or_band", etc., was removed relatively recently. But any article without one of those gets added to Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field. If the parameter is no longer used, then surely the category is no longer needed. I'm just bringing attention to this. Xfansd ( talk) 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
was removed? It is currently part of the template code. It is passed to {{
Infobox musical artist/hCard class}}. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
is present in over 37,000 articles. One example is
The Alan Parsons Project, which does not display any error messages when I edit and preview it. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 07:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
background
parameter would generate a warning in the preview. We should correct that immediately as the parameter is no longer supported. That was done via a consensus decision.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 21:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
is used; the final comment there is from an editor who
refused to read something that another editor linked to, which seems like the same thing that is happening here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)@ Pigsonthewing: Your discussion on this matter is required. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
"If the hCard class needs to be updated, someone should do so. "How do you propose that be done? Without
|background=
, what indicator is there that the subject is either a person or a group? This has all been explained on this page, and in the template documentation, previously; not least in my post timestamped 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC), which you saw.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe the background parameter where either "solo_singer", "non_vocal_instrumentalist", "group_or_band", etc., was removed relatively recently. But any article without one of those gets added to Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field. If the parameter is no longer used, then surely the category is no longer needed. I'm just bringing attention to this. Xfansd ( talk) 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
was removed? It is currently part of the template code. It is passed to {{
Infobox musical artist/hCard class}}. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
is present in over 37,000 articles. One example is
The Alan Parsons Project, which does not display any error messages when I edit and preview it. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 07:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
background
parameter would generate a warning in the preview. We should correct that immediately as the parameter is no longer supported. That was done via a consensus decision.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 21:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
|background=
is used; the final comment there is from an editor who
refused to read something that another editor linked to, which seems like the same thing that is happening here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)@ Pigsonthewing: Your discussion on this matter is required. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
"If the hCard class needs to be updated, someone should do so. "How do you propose that be done? Without
|background=
, what indicator is there that the subject is either a person or a group? This has all been explained on this page, and in the template documentation, previously; not least in my post timestamped 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC), which you saw.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could {{ nowrap}} please be removed from the "Associated acts" label? The label's length substantially decreases the width of the content column, to the point that even dates of birth run over two lines. This is especially problematic when the infobox is used as a module of {{ Infobox person}}, thus affecting numerous infobox fields. Thanks, Graham ( talk) 04:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox musical artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, there are currently about 20 AKAs that duplicate existing parameters, except of the first uppercase letter. It would be useful to finally start getting rid of them by moving them to deprecated tracking into a new category to clear up [ this mess], along with unknown parameters. Solidest ( talk) 18:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)