Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Voice type

I'm unsure about this, so I thought I should ask this here. Is the voice type field only limited to voice types, or can vocal registers also be used? DiverseMentality 20:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the vocal type page points to the vocal register page, and says the list of words on that page are also part of voice type characteristics, there should be no problem. Assuming you are asking about a classical singer, one of the words in the list on the voice type page should be included as well. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you very much. DiverseMentality 22:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness for dance groups

Kaba Modern and JabbaWockeeZ are two articles that use this template, even though they are dance groups, not musical groups. I'm guessing this is inappropriate and should be removed from these pages, but I wanted to check the consensus first. hateless 09:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bring Me the Horizon

Resolved

For some reason I can see "[[Image:‎|220px|]]" in the infobox on this page but there's nothing in the infobox. Any ideas? Exxolon (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignore, sorted. Exxolon (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Current/Past members

The infobox is meant to just have a list of names, and nothing else, in the current and past members field. However, bands are sometimes more complicated than that. I've been editing Yes and who is a current member and who is a past member is a vexed issue: the band describe Jon Anderson as a current member but he is currently inactive due to ill-health. Meanwhile, the other three familiar members of the band (Steve Howe, Alan White and Chris Squire) are on tour, sort of calling themselves Yes and sort of not (you can have reliable source citations for either position), with Benoît David and Oliver Wakeman. Thus, after much discussion, we settled on the following for the page:

Current_members = [[Jon Anderson]] (on hiatus)</br>[[Steve Howe (guitarist)|Steve Howe]]</br>[[Chris Squire]]</br>[[Alan White (Yes drummer)|Alan White]]</br>[[Benoît David]]</br>[[Oliver Wakeman]]

But the "(on hiatus)" has been removed on the grounds that the infobox format is only meant to have names. Yet excluding Anderson or including him without some sort of note are both misleading.

So, any suggestions for what to do here? Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's misleading. Sounds like Anderson is an official band member, but just can't tour right now due to health issues. That happens with many bands, and they either tour for a bit without him or they bring in a temporary fill-in. Doesn't mean he's not an "official" band member anymore, and doesn't make the fill-in person a "member". Example: Josh Freese is the official full-time drummer for The Vandals, but he is also a professional studio drummer and is frequently unable to tour (he was even unavailable for one of the studio albums). So the band frequently uses fill-in drummers from other bands. Doesn't mean that Freese is no longer a member of the Vandals, nor does it mean that any of these fill-ins are officially members. I would say just list Anderson as a current member, without the disclaimer. Leave the "on hiatus" bit to the article body, where it can be explained in context. We try to avoid disclaimers in the infobox because they generally lead confusion and differences of opinion. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is what can be seen in The Beatles ad other articles on inactive bands. Inactive bands can't have members, but only past members. Netrat (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I had a bit of a debate over that at Nirvana (band). The assertion was that certain members were much more notable than others, which few dispute, but the infobox is not some kind of importance meter. When a group is disbanded, then everyone is a "former member". Yes, they are all also "members", but when a "former members" field exists to create a distinction between past and present, they unquestionably all belong in the latter. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. It seems to me that there cannot be any formal definition of who is and is not an "official" band "member". Thus there will always be grey areas, cases where reliable sources contradict, matters of opinion. (I don't think Anderson's case is quite the same as Freese's because the others are basically acting without his consent, while saying he's still a band member, but also sometimes saying his replacement is a band member.) These things can, of course, be discussed in context in the article text, but the infobox is what the reader sees first and it has the potential to mislead. Some way of flagging up those complexities/uncertainties/debates in the infobox seems of value to me. A disclaimer in an infobox, I would have thought, can reduce "confusion and differences of opinion" by allowing some sort of explanation/compromise rather than a black-or-white is/is-not a current member. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Touring members

Typically not listed on particular albums like studio musicians are, listing touring members would be nice. -XX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.190.232 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (at first thought). Touring members are mentioned in referenced material, but are not given official status. However, with many long-lived bands this could be a rediculously long list. Maybe with current, recent, or most consistant touring members as a parameter. - Steve3849 ^talk 06:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary to the infobox, as it's going to apply to a minority of acts and doesn't really need to be summarized. The notable touring members/fill-ins ought to be listed in the members section, sure (see, for example, The Vandals), but it would just be excessive to the infobox. The infobox need not include every bit of detail from the article body. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Background: the forced dichotomy of solo_singer, non_vocal_instrumentalist

A problem exists in that Backgrounds of "solo_singer" and "non_vocal_instrumentalist" are insufficient to encompass the careers of many contemporary artists who fall between these categories. Consider the fact that Frank Zappa is given a Background of "solo_singer" when his vocal work was a small contributing part of his career (he all but never performed or recorded 'solo' [unaccompanied]), and Brian Eno, who sings on many of his best-known recordings, is given a Background of "non_vocal_instrumentalist".

As of now there is no "Background" for artists whose work involves many forms of performance and composition, vocals being only a component part. Perhaps "Performing Composer" or "Multi-instrumental Composer" (where the artist's voice is considered one of many instruments deployed) move in the right direction. --Etnier (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO there really ought to be just 1 color for groups and 1 color for individuals (keeping the "non-performing personnel" and "classical ensemble" designations is fine). I don't see why we need a separate color for cover bands. I also see how "solo singer" and "non-vocal instrumentalist" are inadequate to cover many individuals, and creating separate backgrounds to match all possible cases (ie. singer/guitarist, singer/drummer, singer/pianist) would be very extraneous. So basically I propose reduction to 4 backgrounds: individuals, groups, non-performing personnel, and classical ensembles. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Although it does say, in the explanation of the various backgrounds just below, that one should use solo_singer for individuals who both sing & play an instrument. It's possible the dichotomy is merely technical because changing the wording of solo_singer to something else would affect hundreds of articles that would require fixing. I think the intended use of the backgrounds is adequate, it's just that the naming of the coding can be misleading. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; you can never get these templates coded so that they are ideal for everyone, and I tend to side with the "less is better" proposal. A much bigger, but similar issue is the colours used to differentiate album "types". We've had discussions on that at the album template page which never got resolved, and the big problem is that we use "type" in several senses, so that many albums are several types at once (an album can be live, and also a soundtrack, for example). (I know this is the wrong place to bring this up again, but it's a demonstration of the consequences of using colour coding at all.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So what happens next? Categorization by background is "mandatory". Does this discussion bring itself to the attention of the mandators, who wisely decide what's going to happen? I'm new here: I dunno the ropes Etnier (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)