Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Why doesn't it include the nation in which they currently live?

Someone just added a Soviet flag to the Regina Spektor infobox, making it appear as if she is Soviet, whereas she now has U.S. citizenship. Why doesn't the infobox include the nation where the individual currently lives and/or holds citizenship? Badagnani 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can use the Origin field for where she started her musical career. –Unint 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

can we pleeeeese get a firm consensus on when, why, and how to use those bloody infobox flagicons? i see them used for place of birth, for nationality, for place of death, nationality at time of death, for place of interment..... either set something in stone—or in the case of wikipaedia, moist clay—or banninate the use of flags altogether.--emerson7 | Talk 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Live members

Perhaps the inclusion of another section for live members (in between the ones for the current and former members) in order to include any additional personnel performing only in a live capacity, but not as full time members? Inflammator 12:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

flagicons

can we pleeeeese get a firm consensus on when, why, and how to use those bloody infobox flagicons? i see them used for place of birth, for nationality, for place of death, nationality at time of death, for place of interment..... either set something in stone—or in the case of wikipaedia, moist clay—or banninate the use of flags altogether.--emerson7 | Talk 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at all the relevant discussion, as well as the latest version of WP:FLAG, it seems that there is really no compelling support for using flag icons here. I'm putting in explcit clauses against usage for all three relevant fields in the documentation. –Unint 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, despite all that, it is a change that would affect many articles. I've self-reverted for the time being. –Unint 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't see what the harm is in including the flags. the only thing that comes to mind is that if the city/state/country of an artists takes up just under one line of text, then the flag would bump it over to 2 lines of text. granted, this can be annoying, but it's just a tiny image. as –Unint says, there are already so many articles that incorporate flag-use; might as well just incorporate it into the boxes. another point is that popular music is very country-specific. articles such as British rock go to demonstrate this. having a flag, in my opinion, not only serves a purpose of identifing the origin of the artist, but also, placing the artist into a geographical-sub-genre of music. –mass147 02:45, 09 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, we're neither endorsing nor opposing flagicons. There are lots of articles with flags and lots without. It's a matter of editorial discretion, as the saying goes. Personally, I'm dubious about the proposition that music is generally as country-specific as you suggest. Sometimes, yes, but often not. (British rock is a particularly bad example, IMO, given the huge number of British rockers that have been sued for plagiarism by older Black American musicians.) Anyway, the country should clearly be listed in the origin field, which serves the purpose of identifying the geographical origin and influences just fine. The flag is totally redundant—it adds no extra information whatsoever. But it's harmless. My policy is not to add or remove it from existing infoboxes, and only to add it to new infoboxes when I think it looks right. Xtifr _tälk 10:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I support Unint's original statement banning flags, per WP:FLAG. The fact that this would affect many articles is no reason not to do this, IMO. Either way, I think it would be better to have a guideline on this than not having one. --PEJL 10:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal name

I'm trying to fix up the Keiko Fuji page, and wanted to list her legal name (her current legal name) and birth name (with maiden family name) separately, but see that this is currently unavailable in the template. Why don't we add a legal name item? mitcho/芳貴 06:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That sort of thing standardly goes in the Alias field. Details (such as that one is a legal name or maiden name) are better in the body of the article. Xtifr _tälk 22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Management field

Why dont we add a "management field" to the infobox. e.g. 50 Cent's would be Violator Management --Peterm1991 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that level of detail is really necessary or appropriate for the infobox, though I don't feel strongly about the matter one way or the other Xtifr _tälk 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Background colour help

What background colour would a DJ be.--Peterm1991 13:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Non performing personnel would be the best fit.--NeilEvans 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Microformat

I recently marked up this template with hCard microformat classes, but I'm not very happy with the results, because its; not easily possible to determine whether the template is being used for person or a group. In the former case, the name should be wrapped with HTML class="fn" (as happens now), but in the case of a group, the wrapper should use classes "fn org". Any suggestions as to how this might be achieved? Andy Mabbett 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please replace
<big class="fn">{{{Name}}}</big>
with
<big class="{{Template:Infobox musical artist/hCard Class|{{{Background|}}} }}">{{{Name}}}</big>

as kindly suggested on my talk page, by Soumyasch.

Andy Mabbett

Y Done. Note that it may take some time for existing transclusions to be updated. --ais523 08:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems to be working for both solo artists and groups. Andy Mabbett 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Genres

Should genres be separated by commas or by a line break? I think it would be he helpful to have it added to the template. For example, labels are "The record label or labels to which the act has been signed, as a comma-separated list." No such sugestion exists for genre and I've seen it done both ways. The-bus 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Composers

This infobox has been added to many "classical" composers' pages. I just wanted people here to know that there has been a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers that infoboxes are not a net-positive for these articles, and so they should not be considered a standard part of these articles. Just wanted to let you guys know so no one gets bitten while trying to add infoboxes! :) Thanks, Mak (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no such consensus on that project's talk page; only on-going debate. AIUI, there's a wider biography-project consensus that infoboxes should be used. As I said in that debate, what is need is not the removal of infoboxes, but changing the existing infobox to make it more suitable - or, if that's not possible, and new, "composers" infobox. Andy Mabbett 08:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A consensus was reached on April 12/13 in which all the regular Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers editors participated. --Kleinzach 14:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Those editors do not own the articles concerned. Debate is continuing; ergo no consensus has been reached. Andy Mabbett 16:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this infobox was deemed appropriate for composers to begin with; the fields needed for popular musicians are clearly at cross purposes with those needed for composers. Also, the background colour documentation clearly only covers "non-classical composers". –Unint 16:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion fully and I think you'll find a reasonable consensus. This is not a policy matter. Moreschi ^Talk 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Opera

Further to the note above from the Composers Project, there is also a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera that these boxes are not being used on opera articles. Thank you for your cooperation. --Kleinzach 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I again see no consensus there; just a draft statement from you, posted after the above comment, with which one other editor has agreed. Andy Mabbett 16:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look again at the various discussions on both the Composers and Opera Projects talk pages you will see that members of the Opera Project have been unanimous in deploring the use of biographical infoboxes. --Kleinzach 00:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Only Linishu has offered halfhearted support for them. --Folantin 10:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Accounting for px at the end of Img_size's value

Please change line 6 from

|<tr style="text-align: center;"><td colspan="3">[[Image:{{{Img}}}|{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Landscape|}}}}}|yes|{{min|300|{{{Img_size|}}}}}x200|{{min|220|{{{Img_size|}}}}}}}px|{{{Img_capt|}}}]]

to

|<tr style="text-align: center;"><td colspan="3">[[Image:{{{Img}}}|{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Landscape|}}}}}|yes|{{min|300|{{{Img_size|}}}}}x200px|{{#ifexpr:{{strlen|{{{Img_size}}}}}>3|{{{Img_size}}}|{{min|220|{{{Img_size|}}}}}px}}}}|{{{Img_capt|}}}]]

This solves the problem discussed at WP:VPT that setting Img_size = 150px with that "px" at the end causes the image to be linked instead of shown. –Pomte 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it will badly break things if the Landscape option is used, and will allow overriding the standard maximum sizes by the simple expedient of adding "px" to the end of the size, which is highly undesirable! Xtifr _tälk 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The landscape option doesn't break because it remains the same as before. I agree though about increasing the size being undesirable, so I've withdrawn the edit request. But we still need to fix all the "px" uses. If someone wants to do it with AWB or something, that'd be great. A way to do it manually is to add a dummy category Category:Musical artist articles needing maintenance when the length of Img_size is greater than 3. The latter method would require an edit to the template. –Pomte 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the template so that it checks if {{{Img_size}}} is a number; if not (such as if it ends with px) it is replaced by 300.--Patrick 07:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite right either, as it should only be 300 if the landscape option is set; otherwise it should be 220. But aside from that detail, this sounds like a good approach. Xtifr _tälk 08:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is changed to 300 before applying min, so it becomes 220 anyway.--Patrick 09:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, cool. I didn't look closely enough, sorry. Xtifr _tälk 10:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

French interwiki link

Could someone add an interwiki link to the French template (fr:Modèle:Infobox Artiste musical), please? Thanks. 131.111.100.155 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The interwiki links go on the documentation page, which isn't protected, so you don't need an admin (or even an account) for this. Done. Xtifr _tälk 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Awards

How about adding Grammy awards just as actors have Academy Awards in their infobox? MrBlondNYC 07:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Voice type parameter

I added a "voice type" parameter to use for singers because it's a little bit unwieldy to use the "instrument" parameter, and it seems far more logical when the box already says someone is a singer to simply speak about their voice type. The parameter links to voice type which looks to be a pretty useful list. --bainer (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that is such a good idea. I can think of a million ways on how that parameter will be misused. It's supposed to be used to classify opera or classical singers, but sooner or later people are going to start using that parameter to classify singers as:

death growl, scat, rapping, screaming, or clean vocals.

I know for a fact that your intention was for the parameter to be used for opera and classical singers since you linked the parameter to voice type, which only talks about opera and classical singers. So something in the template is going to have to be changed to either accomodate those singing styles I mentioned or to exclude them all together. Please discuss. --Leon Sword 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: The Voice type parameter is useful for both Classical musicians and Producers needing a certain note spread for a song track. Recommend repositioning this parameter immediately before the Instrument parameter in the Template code, since Singer-instrumentalists are quite common in popular music. Taking an example from Nightwish (courtesy WikiProject Finland), former lead vocalist Tarja Turunen is a Dramatic soprano (no Instruments) and current member Marco Hietala a Kavalierbariton who simultaneously plays Bass guitar. - B.C.Schmerker 15:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note spread refers to Vocal range, not classical or operatic Voice type. Giving their SATB voice part is fine (i.e. Occupation = Singer (soprano)), but the voice type terminology refers specifically to operatic voices, as noted above.

Since the opera and classical projects are not using these boxes, I'd recommend this field be removed, because it'll just lead to a lot of original research. -- Operalala^(talk) 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

New Field Proposal

Upon reading the feedback from discussions with WikiProject Guitarists, I propose, as a fallback from an experimental Infobox I have in alpha, the addition of an Audio_sample field in its own sub-box (as is currently done with Notable instrument(s), Current Members (band or group) and Former Members (band or group)). An audio sample datum is provided for in Template:Infobox Guitarist and would be a useful addition to Template:Infobox musical artist. I am developing the alpha Infobox to study whether the data currently in Template:Infobox musical artist will still be readable at a reduced scale consistent with Template:Infobox Guitarist. - B.C.Schmerker 05:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the idea. I opposed adding it to the guitarist infobox, and I opposed adding it to this one, even though I was basically leading the effort to keep the infoboxes in sync at the time, and I still oppose it. We have much better way of presenting audio samples; putting one in the infobox is simply a bad idea. Xtifr _tälk 08:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted. What Templates are currently designed for calling up audio samples at this time? (I am relatively new to this datum class.)- B.C.Schmerker 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

{{editprotected}} add if expr. for pages without images eg. Will Champion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kandy Talbot (talk • contribs) 07:11, May 24, 2007.

It is already, just you have to make sure there is no spaces or anything after the = sign. In the Will Champion example, I removed the space and the field disappeared. Severo^TC 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request. The issue seems to be resolved. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Defunct musical groups

There is a continuous debate about the infobox for The Beatles. The infobox shown here at this writing is the current consensus:

Infobox musical artist

Even though the group disbanded in 1970, it is OK to list the familiar group lineup from 1962-1970 because it's publicly listed as 'members' even though the template reads 'current members'. The years that each member was a Beatle is next to their names, even though Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were members during the group's entire existence to avoid confusion. The 'former members', Sutcliffe and Best, left before the group became world famous. Is this good enough or should the infobox template be modified further to deal with defunct groups? Steelbeard1 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before at some length. For defunct bands, it's generally considered acceptable to list the members at the time of dissolution as "members", which is what's been done in the case of The Beatles. It's also considered acceptable to list all members as "former members". The choice is a matter of editorial discretion. Listing only the most famous lineup as "members" is more controversial, but fortunately, that's not what's been done with The Beatles (even if it might appear that way). The idea of adding extra fields has been tabled until we find cases where they're actually needed and justified. Xtifr _tälk 08:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My reading of Template:Infobox musical artist#Fields is that years should not be included for Current_members or Past_members. Is that not a rule that needs to be followed? --PEJL 09:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The template text should be altered to reflect this allowance. I've had several editors wander through articles and move all of the members of the band to "past members" under the belief that the wording of the template is law. My suggestion:

Current_members: Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. Optionally, editors may use this field to list a defunct band's notable lineup should there be consensus to do so (e.g., The Beatles listing John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr).

Past_members can be the same, just removing the second sentence. -- ChrisB 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume I'm one of those several editors considering you reverted my edit to Blink-182 and Nirvana (band). The template text currently says:

If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current members" field

Sorry if I took that as law, but it sounds pretty official to me. We really do need to change that text if it's not what is accepted anymore. I'm not sure what the right answer is. For something like The Beatles, where there was one notable lineup, that seems easy. But for other bands that had multiple notable lineups (ex. Ramones - Tommy or Marky? The first or the longest?) it will be harder to find a consensus. I can understand doing the last lineup a little better, but that's still not perfect as key members could be left out. -Joltman 12:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we want to stay away from instruction creep. Specifying the order of the names would be instruction creep, IMO. And yes, I think we should clarify the docs, as it clearly does not reflect consensus (see WP:CCC). I agree that last lineup may not be perfect, but I think it's better than first, longest (not always clear), or best-known (often POV) because (among other reasons), it means that you don't necessarily have to edit the infobox the moment the band disbands. And in cases where there is controversy, we still have the option of listing everyone as past-members. In fact, it might be good to say that any controversies should be solved by moving everyone to the past-members section. Xtifr _tälk 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Current_members: Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. With defunct bands, editors may use this field for other purposes (e.g., to list a particular notable lineup) should there be consensus to do so. Otherwise, all members of a defunct band should be moved to "Past_members".

-- ChrisB 03:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Guitarist_infobox

Yesterday I noticed there is a special infobox for guitarists. I'm not sure if here is the place to address this consistency problem, but I'd like to see if there are more people here that have the same thoughts on this issue. In the Steve Vai and Charlie Hunter articles f.e. the Template:Guitarist_infobox is used. This infobox seems redundant to me and I think it makes artist articles look inconsistent because (all?) other instrumentalist articles should feature the genuine artist infobox. There is no use for a special guitarist template, just like there is no use for a special band template which has been deleted.

It survived a AfD in September 2006, maybe it's time for another one? Any thoughts on this? Cheers Emmaneul ^(Talk) 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, at the time of the last AfD, this infobox was fairly new and still controversial. I believe that it has much broader acceptance now (especially after various tweaks to the colors and whatnot). Nevertheless, I don't think an automatic conversion is possible (since a bot cannot distinguish non-vocal guitarists from singer-guitarists), so I think the best approach would be an RfC to mark the guitarist infobox as deprecated, and then we can start cleaning up the articles that use it, just as we are doing with {{Infobox Band}}. I believe the proper place for this discussion is at Template talk:Guitarist infobox. However, the discussion does seem to be heating up on several fronts, so I'll probably go ahead and file an RfC in the next few days, and advertise it at various places where interested parties may reside. Xtifr _tälk 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the deprecation process to date. I currently have, until the end of June, an experimental Infobox for review, combining elements of both the existing Template:Infobox musical artist and Template:Guitarist infobox, as a readability study, in order to find the best practical scale and width for Infoboxes related to Music (as there is currently no consensus thereon to my knowledge). Post any suggestions on scale and colors to User talk:B.C.Schmerker/Template:Experimental_Infobox1, which I've opened for the purpose; I'll pass any recommendations on to WikiProjects Musicians and Guitarists. - B.C.Schmerker 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been a week since I posted my concerns. I see no objections to file an RfC (or has it already been done?). Emmaneul ^(Talk) 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was persuaded that an RfC would be overkill, but I notified several potentially-affected Wikiprojects on 1 June. The current plan is to make a final decision after 7 June. Xtifr _tälk 13:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait till then Emmaneul ^(Talk) 13:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The guitarist infobox is now officially deprecated. The decision was unanimous. Xtifr _tälk 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there plans to request a bot to convert the existing instances of the guitarist infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, "I don't think an automatic conversion is possible (since a bot cannot distinguish non-vocal guitarists from singer-guitarists)". It might be possible to adapt an editing-assistance tool like AWB to help with the conversion, but a human would still need to be involved. Unfortunately. Xtifr _tälk 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Labels

Should distributing label be included in labels line? I mean, Eminem is signed to Shady and Aftermath, and their distributing label is Interscope, so should Interscope be included in the list of labels? Thanks! Daniil Maslyuk 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of international distribution, especially in earlier years, I would tend to say no. I'm not sure, but I suspect that including distributing labels would easily triple the number of labels listed for, e.g. The Beatles or Buddy Holly, once you factor in European and Asian labels and such. But I'm also not an expert on how labels work, so I may be completely off-base or missing some obvious counterargument, so I'll just say: use your best judgment. Xtifr _tälk 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Background colors

As I've been setting up info boxes there have been several musicians who are vocalists, yet they are primarily instrumentalists (NOT non-vocalist). No color for this. Maybe its not a big deal. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

'Background information' heading

This template's "Background information" heading is redundant, shall we remove it? Andy Mabbett 08:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Having a color strip there is aesthetically pleasing. Maybe that heading could could be changed to something new... "Artist profile" etc, or left blank with the bar of color intact. - Steve3849 ^talk 13:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

URL

How should URL's be formated? Some articles have [http://www.xxxyyy.com Xxxyyy.com], others [http://www.xxxyyy.com www.xxxyyy.com], and others [http://www.xxxyyy.com Official website]

Is there a right format? --Emmaneul ^(Talk) 18:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that [http://www.xxxyyy.com www.xxxyyy.com] is what is meant to be used, as that is what the example at Template:Infobox musical artist#Sample template uses. I also think it is most appropriate choice, because Xxxyyy.com misrepresents the URL (as www.example.com and example.com are different URLs) and "Official website" is redundant and means less useful information is shown (consider a printed copy of an article for example). --PEJL 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that some URLs fit into the box better than others. I like to stay flexible. Xtifr _tälk 07:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Backgrounds seem awfully limited

There are seven background options. Three deal with bands or ensembles, one is for temporary collaborations, one for non-performers. That leaves all individual performers as either "soloists" or "non-vocal instrumentalists". It seems obvious to me that no matter what genre one is working with, this does not cover it. There are instrumentalists who sing, there are singers who are not soloists. LordAmeth 11:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting, more background colors or wider criteria the existing colors? --PEJL 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Like Steve3849 ^talk said on 15 June 2007, I think the addition of "vocal_instrumentalist" would be nice (f.e. for an artist who sings and plays guitar) because some singers are noted for their instrumental skills, not for their singing style (Stevie Ray Vaughan comes to mind). "singers who are not soloists" are just singers, if you ask me. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 16:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Said where? --PEJL 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about the colors, but I do think there need to be more categories. Right now we have "solo_singer" and "non-vocal_instrumentalist" - we should add "non-solo singer" (or just "singer") and "vocal instrumentalist". LordAmeth 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want more colors, we don't need more categories, redefining the existing categories will do. There is no point to having more than one category render as the same color. --PEJL 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to PEJL: My statement "Background color" is 4 posts up. Instrumentalist+Vocalist would be good, as many instrumentalists are not NON-vocalists... as a new category it would need its own color to carry on the coding system that is set up. - Steve3849 ^talk 19:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Steve3849 gets what I'm talking about. When I said I don't care about the colors, I did not mean to say that I don't think we need more colors. What I meant was it makes no difference to me how many colors we have, or which categories are assigned which colors - my comment was motivated by a desire for better categorization, not by aesthetic concerns over the appearance of the variety of colors. Of course, any additional categories would need new colors, but that's not the crux of my argument. LordAmeth 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, grepped for "15 June 2007" and didn't find it.) This sounds quite backwards to me. Basically the only purpose background categories serve is to generate the color in the infobox. The only reason we have different colors is to help users visually determine what type of artist it is, by recognizing patterns in colors between different artists. Users don't see the names or descriptions of the background categories, they just see the colors. We should instead be approaching the problem from whether there is a need for a new color, and if so create a new value for that color. --PEJL 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

14 June 2007... Damn too late... Emmaneul ^(Talk) 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, PEJL, so what do you suggest we do for singers who are not soloists, or instrumentalists who are not non-vocalists? What color should they be? If the colors are there to help distinguish between different types of artists, then does it not make sense to have enough different colors to accurately reflect the different types of artists? This isn't even a matter of lumping things together and failing to distinguish within a category (within a color) - it's a matter of a whole swath of artists not having an appropriate color to represent them. Imagine if they were colorcoded by nationality - blue for American artists, red for British artists, and yellow for Chinese artists, and then someone came along and said "but there's no color for French artists. What am I supposed to do?" Would you give the same answer, that you don't see the need for a new color because the readers don't know the meanings of the colors anyway? LordAmeth 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I never said I didn't see a need for a new color. I just said that we need to decide whether a new color benefits users. But since you asked, my answer would be: "A color for every country of the world is unmanageable. Let's lump countries together by continent and have the same color for all countries in each continent." This case is far less extreme, but the same principle applies. There are two options here, create one (or more) new colors, or redefine the definitions of the existing colors to fit the uses mentioned (to the extent that they aren't already covered). For new colors to be useful, they need to be obvious to users who haven't seen their definition. To me, the line between "solo_singer" (as currently defined) and "vocal_instrumentalist" (as proposed) seems blurry, even when I've seen the definition. --PEJL 23:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I'd also like to see an extra color for vocal_instrumentalist. These kind of artists are now part of solo_singer which is OK most of the time but when I consider artists like Jimi Hendrix (categorized as solo_singer) primarely known as guitarist, Louis Armstrong (non_vocal_instrumentalist) known by many for his singing style, Phil Collins, James Hetfield, etc I think an extra color (red or beige?) might be appropriate.

Emmaneul ^(Talk) 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you guys are reading way too much into what is really only an arbitrary text string never seen by readers. It could be "glerkzel" and "frobnitz" as easily as "solo_singer" and "non_vocal_instrumentalist". The intent here is really to separate singers from non-singers, and "solo" is more of a historical accident than a defining characteristic. That said, I'm not entirely opposed—in fact, I've argued for adding singer-instrumentalist before—and if we do decide to do this, I previously suggested using peachpuff for singer-instrumentalist, which is a nice shade in-between the colors used for singers and non-singers IMO. Xtifr _tälk 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Xtifr's suggestion; "peachpuff:" singer(vocalist)-instrumentalist. - Steve3849 ^talk 06:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Example can be viewed at my workbench, User:Xtifr/IMAtest. Xtifr _tälk 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting examples. On my LCD screen the new color is harldy discernable from non-vocalist. The new color needs more yellow and/or non-voalist more red. It might be helpful to see them in the format that is on the template page as well - Template:Infobox musical artist#Background color - Steve3849 ^talk 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not "PapayaWhip"? See color example User:Emmaneul/IMA Emmaneul ^(Talk) 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see how this category can seem like a good fit with the existing categories, but I'm not convinced it's a net gain for users. This category makes the distinction between categories both in terms of color and meaning less clear. Like I said above, I think the colors need to be very clear and very distinct to be useful to actual users who haven't seen what they represent. (Adding this option also makes the category choice less objective, which could lead to edit wars, similar to the current edit wars over genres.) --PEJL 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you name artists where the difference between non_vocal_instrumentalist and solo_singer is not clear? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No I can't, that's the point. The existing categories are quite clearly defined, both in terms of color and meaning. --PEJL 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, sorry.. I meant the difference between vocal_instrumentalist and solo_singer. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I interpret vocal_instrumentalist as including all back-up vocalists who are primarily instrumentalists and all lead vocalists who usually play an instrument. Maybe what we need to do is loosen up the existing definitions instead of adding a color, such as something synonomous with "primarily vocalist" "primarily instrumentalist." ...also to list distinct examples of popular vocal_instrumantalist briefly, here are a few: Sting, Jimi Hendrix, John Mayer, Eric Clapton, ... - Steve3849 ^talk 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC PS There is an unsigned post above that lists a couple more. - Steve3849 ^talk 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Like I tried to explain, I don't think the important question is whether the editors involved in this discussion can understand the difference between the categories after having seen their definitions, but whether an average user can correctly conclude what the colors mean just by seeing the colors on a number of artist articles. Consider showing a number of artist articles with different background colors to someone not familiar with these types of articles, and then ask them to explain what colors they saw and what they think the different colors mean. I think they'd be less likely to correctly answer those questions with the addition of the proposed new color. --PEJL 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

By current definition "solo_vocalist" then should be the catch all for musicicians who do any singing at all. "non-vocalist" being specifically that. - Steve3849 ^talk 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

On reflection, I find myself agreeing with PEJL. The only thing the reader sees is the color, so the question we need to ask is not: "will adding a new 'category'" help anyone, but, "will adding a new color help anyone? And I think the answer is no. Furthermore, adding singer-instrumentalist would only increase ambiguity. At the moment we have questions about people who sing so rarely that it's hardly a defining characteristic. Adding "singer-instrumentalist" would not resolve that question, but would add a new one about people who play an instrument so rarely that it's hardly a defining characteristic. Mick Jagger, for example, picks up a guitar once in a while, but even so, referring to him as an instrumentalist is a bit of a stretch. And there are others who's claim to being an instrumentalist is even more tenuous. In my youth, it was common for bands to hand a tambourine to a female vocalist, so that she'd have something to do during instrumental passages. (In fact, calling someone a "tambourine player" became a slangy way of implying that she was sleeping with someone in the band.) Is someone who sings and occasionally bangs a tambourine semi-rhythmically really a singer-instrumentalist? I think that's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, bottom line, I don't think a new color is really going to communicate much of anything useful. At least not a color for singer-instrumentalists. I'd rather discuss where we draw the line between our existing colors than add a new color with new vague boundaries. Xtifr _tälk 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In the articles to which I've added boxes there have been several musicians who are primarily instrumentalists, yet do occassionally sing. Is anyone willing to discuss altering the current definitions so that "instrumentalist" is not so strictly "non_vocal." The current guidelines are weighted towards vocals. - Steve3849 ^talk 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly endorse using non_vocal_instrumentalist for someone who rarely or never sings. Xtifr _tälk 19:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)