Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Infobox

Discogs Infobox Field
What about adding an infobox field to link to the musician's discogs.com page?

If I understand the language correctly, this is all it would take:

Thus when you entered Beatles,+The in the infobox for discogs_com_id it would create the link Discogs.com listing.

Thoughts?

Nick Curtis 13:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think adding a Discogs field would be fair, because there are so many other similar websites that could be used in place of Discogs. Also, the amount of information in the infobox is supposed to be kept basic.  I think it would be best to have a link to Discogs in the "External links" section using the Discogs artist template. –   Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I only suggested it because the TV Template guys include links to IMDB and TV.COM in their Infobox, so I thought Musicians could benefit from a similar inclusion... Nick Curtis 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Color selection
I find the cyan revolting. The new template also has a larger footprint than the old one without imparting extra information. Is there any need to colour code musical artists? --kingboyk 18:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with kingboyk. A more neutral and muted color than cyan should be considered. - Coil00 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the idea of the color-coded boxes. I think it helps organize the information.  The colors could be easily changed if we want.  Also, see the orginal infobox discussion.  –   Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  19:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not so much interested in rocking the boat (i.e. if folks want colours let em have colours!) but the cyan's gotta go imho :) I think it looks really tacky. --kingboyk 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By all means we should used standardized color coding, but perhaps cyan is too 'loaded' a color to be used in such a prominent position on a huge variety of very different band articles eg on Sex Pistols it looks too 'soft'. Again a more neutral color could be used.
 * The 'solo artist' color for example is well chosen and looks well on pop, metal, alt. etc articles alike. - Coil00 19:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to suggest a new color, we can try it. I am open to something more muted, which will not stand out so much.  –   Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The new infoboxes look stupid. Like a kindergarten kid's toy. Why are they being forced on us? What is the advantage? I have removed it a few times with full explanation and request explanation from those pushing the new one - but never received it. Ie, see U2. The old ones look much nicer. No one can justify the change except that it is "new". is it some kind of group think thing? --Merbabu 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If a colour bar is going to be used, would suggest either "darkseagreen" or "#cccc99". Also, the two bars could be reduced in size (ie flattened). - Coil00 15:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I look of Infobox musical artist better than Infobox Band. The new template was an attempt to standardize all the music-related templates into one broader template.  It can be used for individuals or groups.  It also can even be used for composers or instrumentalists.  If you have a bigger problem with the color system, it is currently being discussed more here.  –   Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, not at all trying to take from the good work ye have done in standardising the templates. From reading the discussion you linked it seems to be an ongoing process, and I think there is still some minor tweaking to be done - will take it up there. Thanks. - Coil00 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox drummer and Infobox bassist?
Could this and this infobox be depreciated and replaced with infobox musical artist, similar to what is being done to infobox guitarist and infobox band? There are less than 50 instances of drummer in use and only one instance of bassist in use. Zue Jay (talk)  02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. --PEJL 11:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also nominated Template:Infobox Bassist for deletion. See below. --PEJL 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both infoboxes have now been deleted. --PEJL 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Bassist
Template:Infobox Bassist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --PEJL 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Also known as"
Do we have guidelines for this portion of the info boxes? It seems this section is a dumping ground for every real and imagined name anyone has ever applied to the artist. I can't seem to find anything solid. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the guidelines for that portion of the infobox can be found here Template:Infobox_Musical_artist. Although the guidelines aren't very precise, it is clear that it should not contain "every real and imagined name".  But should it contain an artist's obvious nickname, i.e. "Frank Sinatra" for Francis Albert Sinatra, "Louie Prima" for Louis Prima, or "Louie Armstrong" for Louis Armstrong?  --Archaeolojae (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Awards won
What about an awards won category? Similar to the actor infobox. For instance, Grammy awards, National Endowment for the Arts National Heritage Fellowship Award?--Michael miceli (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed and the consensus was a strong no. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist
Just in case anyone is missing it, there is a rip roarin' discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist over its documentation's restriction of the template's use for non-classical artists. This involves us too, because the first appearance of that restriction was in our own project page's link to that template, and this was used as the reason for changing the template's documentation. I don't recommend we change our page until the template page discussion is resolved. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistency in Parameters with infoboxs within similar categories
I am building an article and I like the infobox I'm using, my subject is within the realm of the box I'm using, it lacks some parameters I need.. ie.. Spouse(s)... Children. Can anyone hepl me add some parameters to the box I'm using ? Mlpearc (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at a post you made at Editor Assistance Requests and found the article in question is User:Mlpearc/Don E. Branker. This article is unfinished, but from what I can see, it is about a music promoter, not a musician, and should not be using this infobox.  You may find Template:Infobox Person more appropriate, or see this page which has a list of biography boxes.  The parameters you are asking about have been discussed here before, and were rejected because they are not directly relevant to a musician's career in most cases.  Even when there are exceptions, they are best handled in the body of the article.  We don't want to add them to the template, as that would invite their use on many musician articles.
 * In general, infobox fields are not user-chosen or user-defined. There are instructions on how each field is to be used on the template's documentation page, and the wordings of instructions are often reviewed on talk pages, therefore a new field would require a big review (which, as I've said, has already been done for those particular fields). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing: even though you "like" this infobox, its usage categorizes the article as a "musician" article (by virtue of it being on a list of articles that use the musician infobox), and therefore it cannot be used. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Which do you think would be best ? Mlpearc (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinions needed at Talk:Gustavo Cerati‎
An edit war is developing over the proper use of the infobox in the Gustavo Cerati‎ article. It would be helpful to get some outside opinions at Talk:Gustavo Cerati‎.

Thanks! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes for musicians
Greetings, I am a biographer of musicians on the Wikipedias. The infoboxes used for individuals include a list of present and former members. How can there be a "former member" for the biography of one person? Can we agree to remove that from the proffered template to use on musicians' articles? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely there's no need to as if you do not populate the field it will not show? Britmax (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RFCBOARD Coastside (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox required
Why does the 'Infobox required' section begin "When a non-classical musician-related article...", when the template includes an option for classical ensembles? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This template covers all ensembles, and also single musicians (non-classical), as it says. (Possibly the sentence could be arranged better? Is that what you're asking for?)
 * Classical musician articles are covered by Template:Infobox classical composer, as you know, and is currently used in 29 articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. My mistake.
 * Classical instrumentalists, and conductors, are not officially covered by any particular infobox. If the primary editors of any related article wish to use infobox person or Infobox classical composer then they can.


 * Looking further into the matter, it seems that you added an infobox onto Georg Solti on July 25th, around the time that it was Today'sFeaturedArticle. And then when reverted, you started a discussion (using somewhat sarcastic and aggressive language, which is not a good way to begin), which has since gone even further downhill.
 * I also see that you've tried to delete Template talk:Infobox classical composer numerous times in the last couple of years. That makes me sad. I worked damn hard on that compromise, with many members of the associated wikiprojects. It's not perfect, but the realistic alternatives are all worse.


 * TL;DR: If your goal is to get metadata properly included (is it?), then we can work towards a solution for that, but forcing it via "infoboxes" on every biographical article is not practical. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you care to answer my question, which was: Why does the 'Infobox required' section begin "When a non-classical musician-related article...", when the template includes an option for classical ensembles? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that's the way someone wrote it. What do you want to change it to? Or are you seeking to re-discuss the whole issue? (probably best done somewhere else - not many people watchlist this page)
 * I've changed the description, to point to all the other locations, and current standard-practices. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that I wasn't under the impression that the words had appeared spontaneously, your answer is utterly unhelpful can anyone else provide a sensible answer to my question: Why does the 'Infobox required' section begin "When a non-classical musician-related article...", when the template includes an option for classical ensembles? Also, as there is no prohibition on using this infobox for such people, I've reverted you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, I'm on your side. I support infoboxes. I've worked hard in a few situations where editors were averse to having an infobox on a specific page. I've tried very very hard to convince editors in a friendly and collegial fashion. And Wikidata makes me grin from ear to ear.
 * You know the history at WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines (and everything connected, from the RfC, to the composer's infobox compromise). That is why the sentence is written the way it is. Noone has ever said there is a "prohibition". Instead of simply reverting my attempt to help (which did clarify that it is acceptable to use the infobox on classical ensemble articles), why don't you try to fix it? Or suggest a new wording? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Origin
What is the deal with the Origin field in the infoboxes of musicians? It is not used in the infoboxes of politicians or scientists or anyone else, just musicians. What exactly does it mean? How is it defined? Keith Urban was born in Whangarei. He moved to Caboolture as a young boy. As an adult, he moved to Tennnessee. Caboolture shown as his "origin". Nicki Minaj was born in Trinidad and Tobago, then grew up in Queens, and the latter is shown as her origin. Casey Abrams was born in Austin, TX, grew up in Evanston and Wilmette. As an adult he moved to Idyllwild. Idyllwild is shown as his origin. It appears to be an inconsistent and vague label. Perhaps it should be eliminated. Ordinary Person (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Associated acts
For the infobox of let's say a solo artist, who exactly should enter the associated acts parameter? I previously heard that only artists who have collaborated multiple times with that artist can be allowed in (no single collab artists), while some say that popular singles with one-time collabs should be allowed too. Are there specific guidelines for something like this? aNode  (discuss)  16:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Associated acts listing
I noticed that the "Associated acts" parameter on Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young had a bit of a long listing (Crosby & Nash, The Stills-Young Band, Buffalo Springfield, The Byrds, The Hollies, Manassas, The Rides, CPR). According to Template:Infobox musical artist, listings for "Groups with only one member in common" should be avoided, so I removed all but Crosby & Nash and The Stills-Young Band as the other groups only involved one member from CSNY. I'm not a CSNY expert, so the only way I verified this information was by clicking on the other listed groups and looking at their past/present members, which then led to a potential rabbit hole of them all having too many "Associated acts" listed on every article that I looked at. So, anyway, I just thought I'd bring this here in case anyone cared enough to pursue some kind of clean-up on other groups with this issue (or maybe it's not even worth anyone's time). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Slight addendum: I had just noticed that two members were part of Buffalo Springfield and was making the change, but someone beat me to it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)