Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Origin

Origin is very often of far less encyclopedic interest than where the artist has largely been based. I'd suggest a |based_in= tag for current or at least most relevant locale. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's quite debatable. Many acts' cities/countries of origin are of great significance to their histories, whereas where they happen to be currently based is not. For example the Descendents arose and released their early albums during the early-1980s punk rock movement in Los Angeles, and are historically associated with that scene, though in recent decades the band has been more or less "based out of" Fort Collins, Colorado (where 2 of the members live and where their recording studio is located). Similarly, Alkaline Trio formed in Chicago and the band and its members are still closely associated with the Chicago scene, even though 2 of the members don't live there anymore (and the 1 who does wasn't a formative member of the group). These are just a couple of examples of acts whose place of origin is a key part of their identity and historical importance, whereas their current base is not very significant (think of all the musicians and actors who move to LA after becoming famous). --IllaZilla (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 January 2012

I want to change the color of boxes to red from yello......plzzzzzzzzzzzz Yamaaan 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

N Not done No consensus for this change. The {{edit protected}} template is to be placed after consensus for a change has been reached. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Can you add alma mater to the infobox? --Orangecandi (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

N Not done As with the request above, no consensus has been established for this change. The {{edit protected}} template is to be placed after consensus for a change has been formed, or if the requested edit is unquestionably uncontroversial. Also, alma mater would be irrelevant to the vast majority of musicians. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

Should we be encouraging linking state/province, and certainly country and instruments, etc. in light of WP:OVERLINK "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions."? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So you know every state and location in Africa and Asia? Yes, musical artists exists even in Asia and Africa. mabdul 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the wording of the guideline. It addresses all of the nations of Asia and Africa with its wording, but the policy doesn't specify states or provinces. However, nations outside of North America don't usually list state or province. Do you have instances where state or province is listed and linked in a geographic listing in an article Asia and Africa like Los Angeles, California, US. or Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada? In instances like this, the article on the city lists which state or province it's in and so linking that is an overlink. As for cities, which is what I assume you mean by "location", they can never be overlnked. However the question also extends to the issue of whether we should we be linking instruments as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Native name

Please sync from the sandbox where I have added |native_name= & |native_name_lang=, copied directly from {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very technical. What's the effect of this change? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it would add a native name and native language field. Why is this needed? Where is the request to add this parameter? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Why are these parameters needed? No discussion about them took place. I'm disabling the editprotected request, since that's only supposed to go up after consensus for a change is formed, or if the change is totally uncontroversial. If it's adding new fields, those need to be proposed and discussed first. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the controversy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the request to add the parameters. They're needed in this template for the same reason they're in {{Infobox person}} and many other, widely-use biographical infoboxes; to enable and encourage non-English names to be marked up correctly with the ISO code of the language used, in accordance with web and accessibility standards; and so that the name parameter (and the metadata emitted by it) is not corrupted by the inclusion of two or more version of the name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

All of this can be done in the article body, no need to clutter the template. Hekerui (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how we may avoid overloading the name parameter (as is often done currently) with two values; and emit native names as properly-marked up metadata, in the article body. Also, such information is not clutter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what that means, but your argument that it's in Template:Infobox person and has been since 2008-06-27. Now that I understand, I don't object to its inclusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, can you give an example of what you mean by "overloading the name parameter (as is often done currently) with two values"? I've never seen anything like that, and I'm curious to see what the problem is that this change would fix. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the metadata emitted by Marija Šerifović, her name is "Marija Šerifović Марија Шерифовић". The requested change would fix that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No comments in nearly a week since I provided the requested example; and Walter withdrew his objection; so {{edit protected}} reactivated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it not be simpler to either (A) only put one name in the name= field, and leave the "native name" in the lead sentence (as we do for artists known by pseudonyms eg. Skrillex or for taxonomic names of species eg. tiger shark), or (B) not have the metadata key off the infobox (I don't know much about metadata, but could it not either key off the article title or be manually adjusted)? --IllaZilla (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

While it would be simpler, it would also be less useful. We could simplify much of Wikipedia by leaving stuff out. Your analogy with species' names is flawed, because those are labels we attach to them (and are available through interwiki links), not the names used by the subjects themselves. For people like Skrillex, we have |alias. The metadata we emit isn't just the name, but also any of the other fields in the infobox; and manual adjustment isn't an option, it needs a parameter into which we put it. You haven't actually said why you believe that this would be a bad addition to the template. (BTW, please stop inserting line-breaks between comments, the "::" characters, which we use to indent, do so by making nested lists, and you're making them into non-nested, separate lists). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it difficult to read in the edit window without spaces between comments. Anyway, I'm just thinking of simplicity, and generally I err away from adding more fields in the interest of keeping the infobox short. It seems to me that the Marija Šerifović infobox should just have "Marija Šerifović" in the top banner of the infobox, with the Serbian characters ("Марија Шерифовић") left in the lead sentence. This being the English Wikipedia, I guess I just don't see why the infobox name banner is trying to be bilingual. I'm probably in the minority on that, though. I guess if the name displays in the top banner (eg. Saddam Hussein) then it's not making the infobox any longer than it already is, in which case my argument's probably moot. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I know that bike-shedding about infobox changes is a common pastime around here, but it is plainly not productive to add a parameter with the stated rationale of compatability with {{infobox person}} and then to change the syntax. It's in the best interest of both template maintainers and editors for our various biography templates to be as compatible with each other as possible. If these fields are to be added, they should have the same names and output as with the person template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the fields should be added, if only to maintain consistency with Infobox person. Enwiki-wide consensus has been that it is useful and informative to have Vladimir Putin's name in Cyrillic in the infobox, and I don't see why that can't be extended here. Also, if there are cases where it is unnecessary (I can see people trying to add it to Regina Spektor where in that case it would only serve as cruft), then that can be handled on an article-by-article basis. —Akrabbim^talk 16:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - same problem like the persondata template/as discussing in the recent persondata-tfd: we need to get the (person related) infoboxes standardized to remove the unnecessary template! mabdul 19:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Musical Groups

This infobox seems geared towards individual musicians. I'd like to see some additional parameters for groups, like Lead Singer, Bass Guitar, etc, rather than just a lump of generic members. Comments?  The Steve  01:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah. We already have current and past members. Making individual fields for each potential position in a group would be ridiculous. That's what Personnel sections in articles are for. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with IllaZilla. Do not need fields for individual performers in the band. It might make sense for a four-piece band that has a drummer, bass, rhythm and lead guitar, but what about the five-piece with keys, or bands with horn sections? Non-traditional rock instruments like mandolin, ukulele, accordion, djembe, clarinet and didgeridoo would be required. Then we would need to deal with vocals. Not all bands have a single lead vocalist with several members sharing vocal duties depending the song.

So what would be needed is what you see in football (soccer) templates. There you have The numbered, matched parameters yearsn, clubsn, capsn and goalsn, where the values are matched on a specific line in the infobox. The way it would have to be implemented here is currentmembername1 and currentmemberinstrument1. The one thing that this would do is allow us to prevent wikilinking of instruments, which I suspect is against WP:OVERLINK. What it would create is an unnecessary duplication of information with the members section and a great deal of visual distraction in the infobox. I don't think it's needed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I want to see. Now you say it isn't needed and will crowd the box, but take a look at the German wiki sometime. It looks fine. F'rinstance, Lead Singer is something that should absolutely be in the infobox.  The Steve  06:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of things done on other wikis that we do differently here. Adding positions would clutter the box, especially in cases of groups with fluctuating memberships over time (which describes the majority of groups). We are trying to keep things simple: It is not necessary nor desirable for the infobox to try to contain every factual detail. That's what the article is for. We have personnel sections, various types of membership timelines, etc. to denote individuals' roles within a group. No need to cram it into the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Except you already have a field called instrument. Apparently its important for individual musicians, but not if they're in a group. Which is my point. This template is for individuals, but somehow its being used for groups as well. The Steve  11:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As Help:Infobox explains, it is important that the infobox remains concise. Fields like instrument are appropriate when using this for an individual, but if you tried to add that amount of detail to a musical group, you sacrifice concision. And this infobox is meant to be used for both individuals and groups. This is because there is a lot of overlap between the information conveyed, and to keep things consistent across the music projects. However, not everything overlaps; there are fields that are for a group that is not applicable to an individual, and vice versa. —Akrabbim^talk 13:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I just checked German Wikipedia and they have the an occupation parameter: Besetzung1a = matched with a second |Besetzung1b = . You list the name beside the first and the role beside the second. Unfortunately, that leads to wikilinking of both. The music infoboxes are very long. As an example, pick a few band articles and then open the Deutsch version of the article to see the differences. If the article is long it might help, but many of the articles I watch and edit are not long and it would overpower the rest of the article. Ironically, one of the articles I looked at, Bruce Springsteen doesn't even have an infobox on the German site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Another problem with this would arise from bands like Kiss or Grateful Dead (how often are those two used as the same example?) who have different members singing different songs. I believe adding this will lead to lots of clutter, the fact that the German Wikipedians don't overdo it doesn't mean English Wikipedians won't either. In my experience folks over here LOVE filling up an infbox. J04n(talk page) 00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I addressed this earlier: "Not all bands have a single lead vocalist with several members sharing vocal duties depending the song". The Beatles are an example of this, and the German page is complete overload. In fact, the German versions actually present less information than English wikipedia in most cases and manage to make it look ugly. I'm not holding them up as paragons by any stretch of the imagination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for missing your earlier post post but looking at the German Beatles page confirms my doubts about adding these fields. J04n(talk page) 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. There's a lot to read, but I'm making the same point that you are: we don't want that sort of infobox overload. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)