Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 2

Colour selection
While I agree with the idea of colour-coded boxes, and particularly like the khaki scheme used for the 'solo artist' box, I'm not sure cyan is the best candidate for 'band' infoboxes. To my eyes it doesn't travel well, in that while it looks ok and appropriate for pop bands etc, it generally looks too 'soft' for most alternative and rock bands. Also cyan is a colour that clashes easily, IMHO.

I'd like to know what others would think of using more a neutral and muted colour, such as "darkseagreen" or "#cccc99". Sorry If im coming late to this discussion and you've already been through the issue, but its an important one. Thanks --Coil00 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current colors bear further discussion. Note that they're a legacy from the first, defunct, Musicians WikiProject. I strongly disagree with any suggestion that genre or style should be a consideration (I know you didn't say that, but I want to make it clear up front). I definitely think some of the current colors are oversaturated, and would be less obtrusive if they were more subdued. Members of the Guitarists WikiProject have expressed their dislike for the pinkish-red used for non_vocal_instrumentalists, and I tend to agree with them. Gross changes (i.e. switching from cyan/blue completely) will affect huge numbers of articles, and should only be done after consultation with many other WikiProjects that will be affected, but more subtle changes, such as reducing the saturation or making minor adjustments to the tint, should be fairly non-controversial. The darkseagreen, IMO, is much too dark, much too saturated, and, well, green. :) I actually made a psuedo-template over the weekend that can be used to help this discussion (based on something I saw at the albums wikiproject), but it's not quite ready to go. But I definitely think it's about timme to start this discussion. --Xtifr tälk 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that you didn't contradict me, but to be clear, my wish is that the colour selected is: 1. neutral, 2. does not 'imply' upon the article it is used for, and 3. is unlikely to clash with the band image used in that article. (We're really saying the same thing here.) I'm not sure a desaturated blue will deliver this, but am open to suggestion.
 * What we are effectively talking about is a 'picture frame', meaning the colour should be as unobtrusive as possible. My own preference would be for a light brown, grey or green (hey, I like green!), but if you're making up mocks, great. Maybe we can put together a few templates (I'd need help on this), and try for a consensus. Anyway, thanks for the quick reply! --Coil00 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree that we should try for agreement from all projects, and, given the number of pages affected, should lobby wide, getting as many views as possible before a decision is made. --Coil00 (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current cyan colour is not very good in terms of aesthetics, although my real gripe is having it as a background colour for the title bar. Precious few infoboxes have this, and it when rendered it results in many infoboxes (in particular those that use band logos as names) looking stupid. Toning down the colour would be a good start, but I would like to see a simultaneous removal of background colour for the "name" field - it the broader scheme of things it does not serve any purpose. -- DJR  ( T ) 02:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I took this comparison template for WikiProject Albums. Just copy the code an you can add your new suggestions. This will allow us to better see the differences between colors. (also, see this dicussion for color ideas) –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  02:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:transparent;"

! bgcolor="khaki" | solo_singer || khaki !! ===> !! bgcolor="new" | solo_singer || new ! bgcolor="lightcoral" | non_vocal_instrumentalist || lightcoral !! ===> !! bgcolor="new" | non_vocal_instrumentalist || new ! bgcolor="lightgreen" | non_performing_personnel || lightgreen !! ===> !! bgcolor="new" | non_performing_personnel || new ! bgcolor="lightskyblue" | group_or_band || lightskyblue !! ===> !! bgcolor="new" | group_or_band || new ! bgcolor="plum" | cover_band || plum !! ===> !! bgcolor="new" | cover_band || new ! bgcolor="paleturquoise" | classical_ensemble || paleturquoise !! ===> !! bgcolor="new" | classical_ensemble || new ! bgcolor="darkgray" | temporary || darkgray !! ===> !! bgcolor="new" | temporary || new
 * + Proposal #0
 * }


 * As the user who created the original color scheme, I should point out that the colors were not selected for decoration, but for cataloguing purposes. I had three requirements in mind when selecting the colors: (1) make them obviously different from one another, and (2) make them natrually bright, but not overly saturated. Upon re-evaluation, new colors wouldn't be a bad idea, and the template colors is easily adaptable (never realized just how...wrong a choice that red really was, especially for the "guitarist jock" set. I just needed somethign that wasn't one of the other hues and...that's what I ended up with). So long as functionality and purpose are not compromised. Also, not to be a drag, but geez...aren't there more important things to worry about on Wikipedia than what color your favorite band's article's infobox is going to appear? (And to the person who said that infobox colors serve no purpose -- they indeed do, as they allow quick and easy identification of various musical act types before one jumps into the article. It is an organizational mechanism). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To reply to the dismissive comment above: it's not just my 'favorite band's infobox' that's effected, but all band's infoboxes on Wikipedia. Surely, the visual presentation of hundreds of articles is worth tiring people with. --Coil00 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, visual presentation is important, but in no way are any of the color options truly garish or inconvenient (or, at least, certainly not as garish or inconvenient as the original album infobox colors, or the colors that were originally to accompany this infobox). While changing the colors is certainly not a wholly objectionable activity, I just think it might be more important to press for putting this much energy into improving the overall quality of music articles on Wikipedia, and also to make sure the infoboxes are being used properly in the first place, verses color selection. But that's just my opinion, and I'm neither pushing for or against any changes. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been a fair amount of negative feedback about the current colors, and many instances of people resisting the use of this infobox because of the colors. For that reason, I think it's worthwhile exploring some alternatives. This is not what I'm spending all, or even most, of my time on, but it's something I'm keeping an eye on, and I hope to get it resolved before long so I don't have to spend any more time on it! :) --Xtifr tälk 02:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Yeah, Heaven's Wrath has obviously been looking in some of the same places I have. :) I made it into a psuedo-template, though, which is even easier than copying HW's whole table. Just fill in the colors (or colours if you prefer) in order. (A good place to start to find possible colors is at Web Colors). Here's a quick suggestion: Proposal #1   I really like the LightSteelBlue. It's much closer to a neutral grey, but still contains enough blue to be obviously colored. I'm not as sure about the SandyBrown, but I do think it's an improvement over the lightcoral (almost anything would be). --Xtifr tälk 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I like this selection of colors because it keeps a variety of colors and mutes them at the same time. I also think the lightsteelblue is a very general color and would look good for all bands. Thistle is close to lightsteelblue, so maybe we should find a new color for cover bands (or keep the old). –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  23:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a good proposal, as it retains something of the hues of the original scheme while making them less saturated. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an improvement and even keeps much of the colour info for nearly-blind and colour blind persons, but I still think that lightgreen and sandybrown are too strong. I also seem to be the only one to have a problem with paleturquoise? I'd much prefer AntiqueWhite or some other more neutral colour. --Prolog (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I share your paleturquoise concern ;) Would be happy with AntiqueWhite as suggested, or, not wanting to push my luck, #cccc99 as in option 2 below. --Coil00 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice to know I'm not the only one, although colours do show differently to each eye and monitor. I agree with #cccc99 as a colour for classical ensembles. --Prolog (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a tought, but I'd be in favour of broadening the scope of classical ensemble to also include composers and conductors. I'll give it some tought and maybe raise it as a seperate thread. --Coil00 (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Antique white is extremely similar to khaki, to the point where some users will not notice a dicernable difference --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but some of the light-brownish colours listed on web colors should make a contrast high enough, so it wouldn't be mixed up with khaki. --Prolog (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Ok good, this is a handy template for comparing diff options. I've gone for #cccc99 for bands; as I was saying color should be muted, unobtrusive and mix well with other colours appearing in the band photos. Proposal #2 --Coil00 (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * The problem I have with this color selection is the similarities between the colors. I do not think I could tell the difference between the colors if they were alone in an article. (Does that make sense?) The goal is to have a set of colors that are easily distinguishable from each other. –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That does make sense, I've changed "PaleGoldenrod" back to "lightgreen" accordingly. --Coil00 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The #cccc99 is a little too close to, um, babypoo brown for my tastes. :) --Xtifr tälk 08:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, 'too green' (quote), 'too brown' (paraphrasing)..! Thanks for you honesty anyway Xtifr ;). I can see it's going to be difficult to agree a move away from blue, but that's ok too; it's a matter of taste, and taste is always going to be subjective. I'm not particularly married to either of the colours I've suggested - what I'm looking for is one having a framing effect, similar to the khaki of the solo singer box. To use these words again - muted. neutral. unobtrusive. compatible. And those blues are just not such colours. But your own suggestions are welcome.
 * On a side note, perhalps the height of the coloured bars could be reduced, might help negate the imposing effect they currently have. --Coil00 (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The colored bars should not be reduced in height. The main title needs to be its larger size for obvious reasons (when this template becomes populated, it can appear long and monotonous -- offsetting the title prevents the entire thing from being a homogenous mess), and the other bar is to re-emphasize the color and to match the album and singles infoboxes. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with Xtifr, I guess. The band colour should be something easier, more neutral and suit better to Wikipedia's current layout, since "group_or_band" is and will stay the most popular one. --Prolog (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ok, I've since supported Xtifr's suggestion for the band color below. The brown is probably more suited to classical composers or ensembles, as I've mentioned above. My concern re the bar height stands. Maybe not so much with the title bar, but both the 'Background information' and 'Former members' bars have a lot of space between the edge and text. Also, do we really need a separate bar for former members? --Coil00 (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * About the "Former members" section, it's good that you brought it up. Former members isn't so crucial information that it would need to be in the infobox. On Iron Maiden, there's 18 (!) of them, and the box has sort of lost its purpose and become a long list instead. --Prolog (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This has already been debated above, but I know what you mean - had a similar problem with Mayhem a few months back. I'd say in cases like these former members are best kept to a seperate section at the end of the article. However, for most bands former members is a valid infobox subsection. My point is that it's not one that warrants a third colour bar. --Coil00 (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Fall is the supreme example of an out of control former members section. And it grows week by week! --Coil00 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Former members" was something that was debated long ago, for articles about acts that continue to perform, but without hteir best-recognized lineup. For example, it looks rather odd to have an article on The Miracles without listing Smokey Robinson. Iron Maiden's "former members" list is no worse than The Temptations', but The Fall's list is poor looking because it is not properly formatted. I will fix that. And how and why does "Former Members" not require a separate "color bar" section? What would the alternative be? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why a bar for former members in paticular, is a blank space not enough? Former members seems arbitrary, and on that logic why not a large colour bar for each element? The footprint of the infobox should be as small as possible IMHO. Freddy, your judgement on these issues seems to be sound so far, I'm just voicing my openion, am open to your views and willing to stand corrected. I just want to get these issues out and off my chest. On a side note, it's a badge of honour with the Fall about all the ex-members, as a long term, damn it, fanatic, i think the list is great. my to-do list is turning the reds to blues. --Coil00 (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the footprint should be as small as possible, which is why we want to avoid listing anything but names. However, former members is an important field for many groups, and, yes, maybe not so for others. We have to find some sort of balance, however, so that we can accommodate each type of article. Perhaps we could make it policy for, with groups that have more than 10 former members, to list any particularly notable former members up to ten, and then place a note " for more, see Personnel ". As for the bar thing, I was just asking for an alternate solution. I, personally, don't care one way or the other, so long as any changes are done without breaking any of the pages. Many articles on musical acts have all "former members" and no "current members" (The Supremes, for example), so the seperating bar needs to be there if it is to be there for the "(current) members" section as well. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wan't joking! --Coil00 (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My openion is that neither the current nor former members bar is needed. Can I get some views on this. --Coil00 (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Ok, let's try something else. If we're going to go with green for "group_or_band", then we should pick one thats neither too saturated nor too muddy. And if "group_or_band" is going to be green, then "non_peforming_personnel" can't be. And I think it's more important to have "non_performing" stand out than to have "cover_band" stand out. I mean, honestly, is "cover_band" really worth wasting a whole color on? Anyway, this is what I've come up with. I'm not sure we're there yet, but it's something to contemplate. Proposal #3

BTW, while I'm here, I want to suggest adding singer_instrumentalist. With a color possibly somewhere between khaki and sandybrown: singer_instrumentalist in peach, or something like that. The category certainly seems far more useful than "cover_band"! :) --Xtifr tälk 21:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The band colour is well chosen, Xtifr. BTY what IS a non performing personnel? Bez is the only example I can think of ;) --Coil00 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The template page lists it as: "All composers, producers, songwriters, arrangers, engineers, and other non-performing personnel." –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition is incomplete. Should be changed to "All composers, producers, songwriters, arrangers, maracca shakers, engineers, and other non-performing personnel." --Coil00 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maracca shakers would be under "non_vocal_instrumentalist." :-) –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 4
Get rid of the colors. — freak([ talk]) 01:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 5
Basically, a milder version of #3. Per Prolog, I toned down the SandyBrown by reducing its saturation to 40, and this is what I got. Thistle is a lot more subdued than Plum. And I think the PowderBlue is at least a little less intrusive than the paleturquoise. Proposal #5

I'm not sure about "composer_or_conductor", if we end up adding that, but perhaps a tan or brown of some sort would work. --Xtifr tälk 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like this. All the colours are pretty neutral and unobtrusive, yet they are still clearly different from each other. I'd personally keep the old primary colour set between non_performing_personnel, group_or_band and cover_band though, as I think the blue (lightsteelblue) fits best to the current WP colour scheme, and the band colour is much more popular than cover band one. The green does look very good, though. --Prolog (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just in case it wasn't obvious: my thought (with this and #3) was to have similar things use similar-but-distinctive colors, so that even if you see a new color for the first time, you'll get a strong hint that it's similar to things you have seen before. Thus, individual musicians from red/yellow range of the spectrum, groups from blue/green, and non-performers get purple all to themselves. However, given the relative rarity of "cover_band", perhaps "cover_band" and "classical_ensemble" could be switched. (I do like the lightsteelblue.) --Xtifr tälk 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 6
Proposal 5 colors, different order - Today's colors muted a bit. Any sort of group (band/cover/ensemble) have a stronger blue channel in the color (cooler colors), soloists have yellow/orange (warmer), green goes to non-performers (which could be expanded later). -- *Spark* (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal #6


 * Note: I mostly went with the color order in #5 due to some strong objections to the use of blue for group_or_band. --Xtifr tälk 10:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 7
This is a variant of 5 above, except haved used lightsteelblue for non-vocal instrumentalist (a fairly widely used template, deservs more than the link /orange. Also, I think #cccc99 would be well suited to classical related infoboxes. --Coil00 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal #7


 * I still find cccc99 extremely ugly, and I have no idea what "deserves more than the link /orange" means. I think the orange for non_vocal_instrumentalist has the strong advantage of being similar enough to the "khaki" yellow to make people think they're dealing with something similar (which they are) while still being distinctive. Whereas, making it the color used for cover_band makes that category so completely distinctive from group_or_band that it is potentially confusing. --Xtifr tälk 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "link /orange" - typo there, meant 'pink'. Not sure its a general enough colour for such a widely used category. Everything else looks good. --Coil00 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 8
On the other hand, if we absolutely must have cccc99, it should be used (IMO) on a category that appears rarely. Plus, this eliminates all variants on the baby-blue that several people have objected to. And it leaves open the possibility of using another shade of blue for the proposed new category, composer_or_conductor. Puts individual musicians in the yellow/orange spectrum, bands in the greenish spectrum, classical in the bluish spectrum, and leaves purple for the not-really-musicians-after-all category. --Xtifr tälk 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal #8

Voting

 * Please indicate your support for a color system below.

Proposal 1

 * Oppose, I think the lightgreen is unacceptable, and the sandybrown and paleturquoise are marginal. (And note, this was my proposal.) --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * Oppose, I think the lightgreen is unacceptable, the sandybrown and paleturquoise are marginal, and the cover_band color is potentiall confusing. --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 3

 * Oppose, I think the lightgreen is unacceptable, and the sandybrown and paleturquoise are marginal. (And note, this is my proposal.) --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 4

 * Neutral, I think the colors are useful for identification, but this does have the advantage of not using any colors that anyone has objected to. :) --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 5

 * Support Very subdued and nice color selection. –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  21:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, I like the green, and hate to waste it on a variation of the infobox that is almost never used. Though #6 is fine too --Xtifr tälk 07:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 6

 * Support Like 5's colors, think the assignments are wrong though. -- *Spark* (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. As I mentioned above, I like #5 but prefer to have lightsteelblue for group_or_band. --Prolog (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support For same reasons as #5. I like this more. –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support These colours are similar to those already in use but will be a lot less intrusive on the article pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilEvans (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Is similar to the existing scheme, which has advantages. I slightly prefer #5, but this is perfectly adequate. --Xtifr tälk 07:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support as for reasons stated above --Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 7

 * Support Per Xtifrs reasoning above with a few swap arounds. --Coil00 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mildly Oppose, I think the blue for instrumentalists and orange for cover bands is simply too confusing. --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 8

 * Support while I still have mild reservations about the puke-green, it could grow on me, and this does have the advantage (IMO) of making similar things similar-but-distinctive. --Xtifr tälk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 6 Implemented
Since proposal 6 seemed the clear preferred choice, I've implemented the changes. -- *Spark* (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Thanks for being bold. –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it was definitely time. (Would have done it myself if I hadn't been sick the last couple of days.) However, since the color names aren't part of the W3C standards, I've replaced them with color codes. I also took out the aliases that Spark had silently added because A) I'm not sure they're a good idea--simpler is better, and B) if they're going to be done, they should be proper aliases, not just additional cases. We can discuss it at length later, but for now, I think the status quo is more sensible. --Xtifr tälk 17:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good move. Looks great. --Coil00 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem: The selected color for bands is almost exactly the same as the color used in template:album infobox for studio albums, this might cause confusion in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightmare X (talk • contribs).

Suggestion: I have found that some Singer-instrumentalists do lead vocals and others only backing vocals. I therefore propose an addition to the Color selector of an appropriate new shade for backing singers, instrumentalists and otherwise, including session backup singers. A shade that dovetails into the existing new Color selector code should allow the viewer to differentialte between lead singers, backing singers and non-vocal instrumentalists. --B.C.Schmerker (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Color - Hex vs. Name
Xtifr updated my name changes with the comment "use more portable color encodings, rather than color names". Can someone explain the rationale behind this?

I was going to comment on Xtifr's talk page but thought it might be useful as a MOS on templates. To me, using names is more portable, as if a mirror wants to implement different values for those colors, they can. Same for printing, a named color can be changed, a hex RGB triplet not so much. In fact, I believe a user could override these colors if they wanted using css (though haven't investigated). Thanks. -- *Spark* (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Those color names aren't part of the W3C standards. And no, I don't know of any way that color names can be overridden, although we might be able to re-implement the template using styles, which would allow the colors to be overridden. Seems like it might be a lot of work for not much gain, though. So really, the only difference between color names and hex triplets is that hex triplets are a real web standard, while the color names (at least, these ones) are merely a convention. --Xtifr tälk 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Color names are listed in the CSS3 working spec and are standard on popular browsers . Using a name is more flexible than hardcoding RGB. Keep in mind certain color combinations don't work well for the colorblind, which could have their software configured to handle css color names differently. Is there a MOS statement on named vs rgb colors? -- *Spark*  (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * RGB triplets are just as easy/difficult to override if someone really wants to. There's no more flexibility in the one than the other. And the triplets give greater backward compatibility with older software. Also, there's a consistency issue: we're using some colors that don't have names. I think it's better to have all names or all triplets, and since all names isn't an option any more, I think all triplets is the btter choice. I don't feel strongly about this, and if you can find some MoS or something to support using color names, then I'm fine with it, but it just doesn't seem right to me. --Xtifr tälk 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Named colors are easier to tailor to your preferences. It's much easier to have a stylesheet change than having a program parse and recalc RGB. The named colors go back quite a few revisions, even though they haven't been official until CSS3. Much more flexible than hardcoded values. Hardcoded RGB just doesn't seem right to me. Interesting, isn't it? I'll investigate more, but am leaning toward putting back the names where they can be put back unless there's something stating that is definitely not proper. -- *Spark* (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hex triplets can be matched just as easily as arbitrary names. You don't need to "parse and recalc" anything! In any case, there's no named styles here to override (just "infobox", which is too generic to help in this case). We could possibly rewrite the infobox to use different named styles for each type of background. But then you wouldn't care what the default colors were, you could just plug in your own preferred values. Which is maybe something to consider in the future (I might even try to build a prototype). But as it is, hex triplets are compatible with old browsers, cell phones, and all sorts of things, whereas named colors (beyond the sixteen that are standard) are not necessarily. And overriding seems just as easy either way (unless you can show me a counterexample). --Xtifr tälk 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On matching - named values are evaluated through a lookup table/map. RGB values aren't. Customizing a lookup table for 147 named colors would require a change in that map. Doing it for 16 million colors would be a bit more complex and require a change beyond an updated map. Named colors give you a known working set of possibilities. Named colors (most if not all of the X11 colors), have been in Netscape since 1.1 and IE since at least 3. I don't think I can name a browser on any platform that doesn't support that named color set. If you can point one out, please do. Keep in mind when talking about mobile platforms or older systems, going with named colors is generally better, as the software for those systems can easily map those colors to something decent on that platform.
 * I'm saying not only should we use named colors, we should be restricted to them (or styles) in templates. I had thought about starting a push to use styles for infoboxes. Maybe it's time to head in that direction. This discussion goes beyond the musical artist template. -- *Spark* (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I assumed you were talking about using some combination of javascript and styles to remap the colors, which would work just as well for these seven specific colors no matter what their format. If you're talking about hacking your system colormaps, well, I think that's a bit much to expect of most people. Anyway, we already have two colors that lack names, so at best, you'd be able to remap five of the seven. Furthermore, those two nameless colors happen to be our red and green, and red-green color-blindness is the most common type, so we wouldn't be able to help most color-blind people even if we did enable this dubious hackery. If we want to allow people to control the colors, I think the right way is with styles (or javascript), not color-map hackery. But the real bottom line for me is that the template was using hex triplets, and I don't know why, but I don't want to find out the hard way that there was a very good reason. I don't think this is the right template to use for casual experimentation. A meta-discussion at a higher level sounds great; experimenting with this template, not-so-great. --Xtifr tälk 18:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain if, for example, the firefox base allows for changing named colors via some sort of properties file. Looked around a bit, didn't find anything. I wouldn't expect an end user to modify maps, but I could see a usability group putting together a special build or a patch or plugin that could be applied to the generic browser to address the issue, if one hasn't already. As to why I did it, I did not consider it experimentation, I considered it consistency. Most every other template I've worked with uses named colors. That's why I was looking for a MOS statement. If you find the right forum for discussing the potential for a style based approach, fire me a message. Don't know that I have much time to dig into it at the moment but that might change in a few weeks. -- *Spark* (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of Template:flagicon vs. Direct image call
As infoboxes are one of my big focuses at work on another wiki I spend my time on, I am in high favor of not using the long code version of calling the flag of origin to an artist, but using the Template:flagicon. Quite simply, its less code, cleaner, and a good standard. In the upgrades to using this infobox (which I much love and support), I state my opinions for the following:


 * Do not support


 * Support

It calls the country's alias and the country flag alias. All which have been well established within Wikipedia. I think the example should reflect this. --immunity (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestion! I see that's a widely used template already. It does mean more work for the servers with all the extra transclusion (I'm really amazed by this page), but that seems like a small price to pay for the improved standardization and ease-of-use. I'd say go for it. --Xtifr tälk 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The direct image call was originally put in there, because it created an image slightly larger than the flagicon template. The flag icon also seemd to cramp the image a little. I did see it, but I did not really like the way it looked.
 * Image:Flag of USA.svg — [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|25px]]
 * USA — 🇺🇸
 * I do not really care either way. It might be able to make it a little easier to use for the average user. We can certainly use the template. –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  00:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can discuss or update the actual template of WikiProject_Flag_Template, there so far doesn't seem to be any reason why we cannot bump it up a few pixels? --immunity (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This was apparently discussed before. This is where we can get our answers. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template --immunity (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note the template does accept sizing:
 * 🇺🇸 — 🇺🇸
 * 🇺🇸 — 🇺🇸
 * -- *Spark* (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw that when I was checking the template out. It does not seem that much different if we use the template and have to use the size parameter. But in the interest of making this template easier, we can use it. (Even if we do not make it 25px. –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  00:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:flagicon appears properly calibrated for text height in the current Infobox. Recommend Template:flagicon for all future projects requiring a template from Category:Infoboxes. --B.C.Schmerker (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Coloring snag
I've hit a problem with coloring. What do you do with people who perform both solo and in a group on a regular basis? Please leave a note on my talk page if you answer here. --Mgm|(talk) 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NeilEvans responded here. Solo exploits take precedent over group ones, so "solo_singer" would be used. –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, maybe I've been misinterpreting this. I've been assuming that band membership has nothing to do with anything, and that individual musicians should all be classified as either "solo_singer" (if they sing lead) or "non_vocal_instrumentalist" (if they play an instrument and don't sing or only sing backup). That, of course, leaves us without a category for someone who is only a backup singer, but then I think few such would be notable enough for an article. But basically, I didn't think it mattered whether they were a member of a band or not. If I'm wrong about this, let me know, because I have a bunch of articles to correct. And if I'm right, maybe we should elaborate a bit in the documentation, as this isn't the first time this (or similar) question has been raised. (In fact, we should probably elaborate in the documentation a bit either way.) --Xtifr tälk 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct being part of a band makes no difference, if they sing or play an instrument then that is what should be entered in that field in the infobox. --NeilEvans (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I added "lead singers" to the "includes" part of the description for solo_singer. That should help make it a little more clear, I think. --Xtifr tälk 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with solo_singer as the best choice for lead singler in a band or group. I see a potential need for a backing_singer class, referred to above in ; the other classes are good for now. --B.C.Schmerker (talk) 04:49, 24 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).


 * 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. --SeveroTC 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've disabled the editprotected request. The issue seems to be resolved. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 24 May 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 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 (talk) 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)

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 --Kameejl (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 (Talk) 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?). --Kameejl (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 --Kameejl (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)

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

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


 * I tend to think that www.xxxyyy.com is what is meant to be used, as that is what the example at Template:Infobox musical artist 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 (talk) 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)

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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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)

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 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Like Steve3849 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. --Kameejl (Talk) 16:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Said where? --PEJL (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 14 June 2007... Damn too late... --Kameejl (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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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. --Kameejl (Talk) 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 - Steve3849 talk 17:25, 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 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve3849, why not "PapayaWhip"? See color example User:Emmaneul/IMA --Kameejl (Talk) 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PEJL, could you name artists where the difference between non_vocal_instrumentalist and solo_singer is not clear? --Kameejl (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 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmmm, sorry.. I meant the difference between vocal_instrumentalist and solo_singer. --Kameejl (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, ... There is an unsigned post above that lists a couple more. - Steve3849 talk 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

←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 (talk) 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)


 * 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)