Template talk:Infobox musical artist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
 

Size for landscape images should be 250.[edit]

Why is this the case? The comment is

The image size should only be specified if the image is smaller than 220 pixels width. Enter the width in pixels without "px", for example 150. Size for landscape images should be 250.

The first part is almost correct. It should be if the image is smaller then 200 pixels. But why are we specifying a size for landscape images at all. Registered editors can set the size for thumbnails in their preferences and we should not suggest forcing an override this way.

I am proposing changing 220 to 200 and removing the landscape sizing completely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The change was made by Wiki libs on 2008-08-28T02:50:32. Wiki libs' last edit was made on 2011-04-28T11:52:38 so I cannot ask for clarification there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The figure of 220 pixels is almost certainly because images that specify either |thumb or |frameless, and are otherwise unsized, are displayed at 220px wide for unregistered users (see WP:EIS#Type). Registered users may see them at a different size, if they have adjusted the setting at Preferences → Appearance → Thumbnail size:. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You will still find several templates where the landscape image format bloats the width of the box and makes it unsightly (the Devil Wears Prada page being a good example) When portrait images are inserted the box auto-widths to a very reasonable size.... keeping the landscape width as it is (250) maintains the consistency of Wikipedia.... which is one of the ultimate goals for the project. Consistent "cosmetics" or layout ... as opposed to having super-wide images that take over the symmetry of the narrow box and make it look like a fanboy page (see DWP example of unattractive ... when allowed to go full spread width) instead the an encyclopedia. Mr Pyles (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a problem with your settings then, because with mine, 250 width is larger than thumbnail. What are your settings? Mine are 250px for thumbnails. This can be found in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you still on a 1024x760 resolution? At 200px, the infobox makes landscape shots look ridiculously tiny. I'm on a 1080p monitor so I see no issues regarding width.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at 1024 x 768. At home I'm at 1600 wide and work is 2560 x 1440. If 200 pixels makes the infobox looks too small, change your thumbnail size in the preferences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hall of Fame[edit]

This infobox should have a Rock & Roll Hall of Fame parameter in the same way, Template:Infobox NFL biography, Template:Infobox baseball biography, and Template:Infobox basketball biography. --Flyguy33 (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting idea. But the template applies to musicians of multiple genres and there are multiple halls of fame for them: blues, jazz, country, Gospel music, all within the United States. There is also then there are other national halls of fame, and national genre-specific halls of fame, and sub-national, halls of fame, regional halls of fame. Which are valid for inclusion and which are not? How to we recognize or allow for them all? I have an idea, but I would like to hear from other editors before saying that we should proceed or that the idea is doomed from the start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's a wikipedia List of halls and walks of fame - Music. Can each of these be incorporated in some way, or certain ones of national or international level picked? There may be a way to do it similar to the NFL biography infobox that incorporates the Pro Football, College Football, and Canadian Football halls. --Flyguy33 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Deceased group members discussion[edit]

I would like to discuss adding the "(deceased)" tag after a member's name in the info boxes when they have passed away. The reason being is that a few articles already do this, and something similar is done in other language Wikipedia articles too. I believe that this should always be done, especially if their passing is the reason they are no longer in the group. It maintains consistency and it is quick and factual as such would cause no harm at all. Please also note that some people do actually consider "(deceased)" as a part of a person's name, in the sense of any qualification suffixes, etc. Cexycy (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The docs read, "with no other notation than names". It should never be done. Leave that information for the article itself or, if necessary, in the membership section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Where is "(deceased)" considered part of someone's name? "Julius Cesar (deceased) was born in ..."? Really?
I'm not particularly moved by what some wikis in other languages do. For all we know, they are currently discussing the wikis in other languages that don't do this. They are not bound by our conventions and we are not bound by theirs.
I'm also not sure why this is apparently a consideration for members of bands, but not for other infoboxes. Should the infobox for Abraham Lincoln indicate that Hannibal Hamlin, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, John Henry, Thomas L. Harris, Mary Todd, Robert Lincoln, Edward Lincoln, Willie Lincoln, Tad Lincoln... are all deceased? How is this any less meaningful than the deaths of various band members?
It's "quick and factual"? So is the year they were born, the instument(s) they played, the years they were in the band and dozens of other details.
As to whether or not it does any harm, lack of harm is not a reason to change something (though presence of harm would be a reason not to do it).
At present, the infobox parameters specifically exclude including this information and I see no reason to change that. If the notation is used in any articles now, it should be removed. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested provisos[edit]

I can see this working on two or three conditions:

  • it is limited to bands that are currently active
  • death daggers (†) are used
  • perhaps |death=y adds a note ("(† = deceased)") below "Past members"

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggest rather that we do NOTHING. There should be no flag in infoboxes or navboxes to indicate anyone is dead. The text of the article should make it clear enough, as should the article on the person themselves. Any marking clutters things up too much. --Jayron32 13:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "Notable instruments" field[edit]

So in this discussion from January, there seemed to be a loose consensus to remove the "notable instruments" field as it's rampantly misused. Every instance I've seen of it in use was just "keyboards, guitar" or something basic, like this. Others, like at Paul McCartney, are overrun with instruments that the artist has only used occasionally. I just don't think there are enough proper uses of this field to warrant keeping it in the box, and everyone in the linked discussion above seemed to support its removal. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support its removal (and commissioning a bot to remove the parameter and all values after it's deleted). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support removal. The field is a bloat magnet. --Jayron32 13:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I think notable instruments, like McCartney's Höfner or Eric Clapton's various Strats, should be mentioned in the article text, with appropriate citations and evidence of notability. In those cases, the instrument is iconic enough that it's relevant information, but there are too many problems with the current approach:

  • Editors misunderstand what the field is for, as mentioned above.
  • Instruments get mentioned in the infobox, often without proper sourcing, but not in the article text.
  • The infobox has no room to provide context or support for a particular instrument's notability.
  • Listing an instrument might be seen as implying an artist endorsement or other such relationship, whether one exists or not.

Anecdotally, I've also noticed this field is mostly used in articles about guitarists and bassists, maybe one or two drummers as well. I don't see it used much for, say, keyboardists or saxophone players. Perhaps because those instruments are relatively more standardized, or the player cultures less gear-obsessed? Or is it just lack of interest among Wikipedia editors? Anyway, that's just my observation. 192.251.46.111 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Considering pianists don't bring their instruments with them but rent them when they perform, I can imagine why the field doesn't qualify for them (although some pianists insist on certain models when they perform). Other keyboard players (organ, synth, etc.) do, but don't grow attached to their instruments. Sax players are not known to name their instruments, but it's not unknown, as is the case with trumpet players, particularly in the world of jazz. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Are editors confused by the examples provided, which by the way, has a piano? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I suspect that they don't even know that there is documentation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Change "Instruments" to "Performs on"?[edit]

Renaming the "Instruments" field to "Performs on" would have several advantages. It's more specific about the field's intended purpose. It looks less awkward than calling vocals an instrument, particularly for performers who are primarily or exclusively vocalists. It might also make the infobox more appealing to WikiProject Classical Music—a whole other can of worms, I know—since it helps distinguish between composition, performance, and conducting. 192.251.46.111 (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not more specific. You might get people editing the article on Sandy Denny, say, to put "Performs on The Battle of Evermore". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Performs on could apply to a number of songs and albums, especially as a featured guest or cameo. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
My point entirely. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Convert to wrapper[edit]

I would like to suggest to convert this infobox into a wrapper of {{Infobox person}} -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar proposals are at:
Infoboxes involve difficult issues and it would be better to deal with one at a time. Please pick one of them and put the others on hold. If a change is agreed, the change should occur and be fully tested before working on others. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)