Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Please, restore genres section!!

Genres are very important in pages about artists & bands, I think it's necessary to restore this section soever. Vziel (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The main discussion of this topic is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box?. Feel free to join in there. "P.S." It's best to start new talk page sections at the bottom of the page instead of the top. See Wikipedia:Talk#New topics and headings on talk pages — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty confused why it was removed as well. YBK

Where is the infobox template for classical musician articles?

The template repeatedly states this is the template for non-classical musical articles/artists. Where is the template for classical conductors, composers, instrumentalists? Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing there isn't one. I looked at Johann Sebastian Bach and Ludwig van Beethoven, the first two that came to mind, and they don't have an infobox. Then I looked at a few other names; the only one with an infobox was György Ligeti, and he is using the musical artist infobox with green colour scheme for "non performing personnel" (despite the instructions saying this colour is not for classical music composers). You may want to look at whether a template is being considered at WP:WikiProject Classical music or WP:WikiProject Composers. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In ru-wiki, we have no problems using the same infobox as for pop artists, even for featured articles. Here, you may try using "Person" infobox Netrat (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

During the original discussions over content and layout for the current Infobox musical artist the members of the classical music/composers projects flatly rejected the musician box for use on classical composers. I believe it was just as much a "we do not want your infobox forced onto us" which is what some of the more ignorant musician project members were trying to do as it was a 'cosmetic' issue. The layout and fields that were available for use on composer articles were deemed to be as useless/retarded as the current genre field is to every active music related Wiki-project. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Height

Can we have a field with the height of the artist as I think alot of people would be highly interested in this statistic as alot of the time celebrities are completely different heights to what the public might expect. And I think it is relevant and appropriate to have it in the infobox with all the other statistics listed. Xcahv8 (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it relevant to a musician again??? This subject has been beat to death before. (along with eye colour/hair colour/etc) No one really cares how tall Dizzy Gillespie was. Or how tall Clapton is.... or whoever. It might of a piece of information important to a professional wrestler. But not to a guitar player or a piano player or a... etc. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We're writing articles, not baseball cards. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's an irrelevant piece of information. --Rodhullandemu 18:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well, this is totally and completely irrelevant. These are musicians, not basketball players. We already have enough fields abused in the infobox templates as it is, too. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for a clarification?

It's well known that the associated acts field suffers misuse and even causes casual edits wars (at least from what I've seen). I propose we change the field to have a clear, concise definition and where to set the limit. I'd also like us to define an associated act and where to draw the line for these acts. Thoughts? DiverseMentality 00:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a few examples of these edit wars? I've never seen one, probably because I don't really edit high-traffic articles. I'd like to see what exactly the problem seems to be before I express an opinion. That said, I'm not really inclined to add more rules, personally. I think the contributors to an article should decide what works best for each article. I think the description of the associated act field is ambiguous to allow editors to do exactly that. I'll agree that the phrasing currently in use is awkward, though. Zytsef (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent edit war with associated acts in Sean Paul. Edit wars like these usually start with newly registered users in what they believe what they think are appropriate. Some people have different views when it comes to associated acts, and when they clash, it turns out ugly. DiverseMentality 03:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that adding a rule here about what will and will not be allowed in the associated artists field will deter new editors from making those kind of contributions. They are more likely to jump right in editing their favourite artists instead of checking here first to see if what they're adding is kosher with us. In my opinion, adding one more thing that experienced users can point to to show how a newb is doing it wrong isn't particularly constructive. I believe it's better to hash it out on talk pages using the basic criterion of verifiability. I still think that associated acts are usually best handled on a case by case basis. I don't have any idea about where we could draw a line that covers tha majority of cases clearly and concisely. Zytsef (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed so much rubbish from these sections over the years, where i couldn't find any link whatsoever but the point is there is no indication what does and does not belong there. There has to be some guideline to that or no-one will have a clue new editor or not. To be honest I fail to see the purpose of it, what is an 'assosiated act' and is one exits doesnt a 'see also' section suffice? and would support it's removal. If not it does not clarification. --neon white talk 14:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a current discussion of this field further up the page, under "associated acts", and a proposed change to the instructions on its use. Please carry this discussion over to that section. Thanks! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin and Hometown

I guess Origin means place of birth. In a lot of situations the place of birth is not necessarily the hometown of the artist. Would it be OK to add a variable for Hometown?--HJKeats (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The distinction would be applicable for a solo artist, but not for a group in most cases. Also, we would need to define "hometown": does this refer to childhood residence (in which case, define an age range for "childhood"), current or last residence, or a list of all the places a person lived in his or her lifetime? As always, there is the question of why this should be an infobox item, when the hometown can be mentioned in the body of the article, and added as a category ("people from..."). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For a band or group, "origin" is what city that group formed in. For most individual musicians, it is where they grew up or launched their career from. Where either of these is unclear then the "origin" is wherever the musician or project is primarily based from. For example, Jewel was born in Utah, learned to play guitar in Michigan, launched her career while living in San Diego, and currently lives in Texas. But she spent most of her young years in Alaska, and it was there that she first began performing as a musician, singing with her father in bars and taverns and learning to yodel. Therefore Homer, Alaska is listed as her place of origin. An example of a group would be The Hold Steady: Most of the band members are originally from the Minneaopolis-St. Paul area, but they formed the band while living in New York and it is from there that the group is based, so their origin is listed as New York. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of an individual artist. Origin can be a bit unclear as to its context in birth, current residence or even the place where the major part of the artists work had taken place. Then again to accommodate it in an infobox can be problematic. I tend to agree, categories and explanation in the text of the article can resolve it. Thanks, --HJKeats (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Automated archiving

Would anyone object to me setting up the Miszabot to perform automated archiving on this talk page? Some of the discussions of late have gotten very long and then sat stale well after they've become inactive, and now the page is getting quite huge. Instead of manually picking through them to figure out which ones are inactive, I can configure the bot to automatically move any thread that's been inactive for 30 days (or any other agreed-upon length of time) into the latest archive, and even to automatically create a new archive when the previous one reaches a certain size (say, 130K). Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:AlbumsMusicians is usually at the top of my watchlist with a note that Miszabot archived some more threads, which bugs me a little (though I don't really know why!); I wish it wouldn't archive that page so often. Aside from that, I agree that something needs to be done about this page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can change the amount of time it waits before archiving an old thread by setting the number of days. 30 days seems to be the most common on the project talk pages I watch, but we can always increase it. The rate at which it archives, however, is entirely dependent on how many discussion threads are present and how often they become inactive. There could be 25 threads, and if all of them have had some activity within the last 30 days then the bot won't touch them. But if, say, on Tuesday 6 of them pass the 30 days of inactivity mark, it's going to archive them. Then on Thursday 3 more might pass that mark, and they'll be archived. So the more active the page, the more threads are going to become stale from time to time, and the more the bot is going to do its job. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignore my previous grumpy old man reply and do what you think is best. :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Zytsef (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong support of automatic archiving. So far it works beautifully on other talk pages that I watch, and this one is getting a little cramped. Maybe we could set the archiving threshold a little higher than 30 days (60?) as this page seems to be less active than some others. – IbLeo (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've started it out as a 30-day counter just to get the current page uncluttered. We can always change the threshold at any time if it seems to be archiving too quickly. I also took the liberty of removing the archive box, as archives numbers automatically appear in the talk page header now. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

infobox w/o an image

Just out of curiosity, why doesn't this template allow the image fields to be on the article while empty? [1]--Rockfang (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

One or more of the spaces after the equals signs must have been causing a problem. Or maybe there was some kind of phantom undisplayable character. Fixed! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even think to check for spaces. Thanks for the fix.--Rockfang (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Signature or autograph

Like most other biographical infoboxes, can we add a signature or autograph parameter to this infobox, or is there a specific reason not having it? --staka (T ・C) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re the request above (moved here to bottom): would anyone care to comment, or create a signature field? Musicians as a group are people inclined to be sought out for autographs, and would make a worthwhile addition. I have a number of musicians' autographs I would like to contribute to the project. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any encyclopedic value to this whatsoever. Wikipedia is not an autograph book, nor a place to show off your celeb autograph collection. Oppose. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

weak oppose - I agree that consistency between biography infoboxes is important, but there are some serious issues with including signatures everywhere. Firstly, certain categories of people use their signature regularly in their published works. Examples include politicians (in official documents), authors (in forewords/ book covers) and artists (on canvases). For these people, it can therefore be argued that the appearance of their signature is encyclopaedic information.

Other categories of people, (including musical artists) usually don't tend to publish works (such as album covers etc) including their signature. This makes the encyclopaedic value of such signatures very tenuous. If no publications exist containing the signature, it is also impossible to verify that it is correct.

Finally, the infobox for musical artists naturally attracts a lot of "fan info", which is of interest only to a very small number of people. The infobox should be a clean, easily accessible resource for important information - for example, readers wouldn't appreciate reading through lists of Eddie Van Halen's hair colour, pets' names, famous quotes, baby photos, favourite type of soup etc before they can find out that he played the guitar! The point I'm making here is that we need to decide who would find an artist's signature useful. I suspect it's only really of interest to serious fans.

In short, I think it might be appropriate to include a signature if the artist has included it in a widely published work. However, this is unlikely to apply in most cases so it is best not to include the field. Papa November (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see how this could ever be considered useful to anyone or how the images use could be justified. Does it help at all with understanding of the articles subject? On top of that there is the copyright nightmare issues considering Autograph#Copyright and Signature#Copyright. --neon white talk 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose It would add nothing of value to the articles; It would be incredibly hard, if not impossible, to verify for all but the biggest of names; It brings up copyright issues. Prophaniti (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Classical music is deleting infoboxes from articles under their control

Several people from musical Wikiprojects are systematically deleting infoboxes from biographies that are covered by their projects:

• "Rmv infobox as these are not used for classical musicians per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes)
• "Rmv infobox as these are not used for composers, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Lead section) "

Here is an example at: Milton Adolphus

The discussion is here at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Individual_wikiprojects_are_deleting_infoboxes_from_articles. As best as I can sum up the argument is that: classical composers as creative people can't be defined by the simple labels used in musical infoboxes, and as creative people transcend the traditional people infobox which can't capture the essence of what makes them an artist. And of course, some people are just philosophically opposed to any infoboxes, no matter what information they contain.

Someone asked about infoboxes for composers last month (see earlier discussion on this page), and I noted there isn't one, and also noticed the musicians infobox says it should not be used for composers, but found a few instances where it was. I'm not surprised at this, and I doubt there are a great many for them to remove, to put them in sync with other composers' articles. Thanks for pointing it out, but I don't have any objections. Those who do object, should discuss it on the applicable Wikiprojects page, which probably has more relevance than MOS's talk page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether composers are musical artists, it is whether the Classical music project can decide that composers don't get any infobox, because the group is philosophically opposed to infoboxes in biographies. It would be like the New York wikiproject deciding that people born in New York City don't get infoboxes, because something is special about New Yorkers that seperates them from other people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely a correct analogy, it very unlikely that the articles of all persons born in New York would all be considered under such a wikiproject. --neon white talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

During the long drawn out debate over how the current infobox should be formatted the Classical music project made it clear that they would not be making use of it. It was their consensus decision. And it is certainly OK for them to follow that if their consensus is still holding. Fair Deal (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this discussion is even about the use of our musicians infobox; I've been presuming it is, since we're on the talk page belonging to it. But anyway, like I said before, most articles about composers don't have an infobox currently, from what I've seen, and I think the other Wikiproject is partly trying to get those articles in a uniform style. If this is a discussion as to whether those articles should be using any infobox, not necessarily ours, this is not the right page for it. It's not our jurisdiction. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm This topic is being shopped around. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has also referred it - in new topics, either entitled "Individual wikiprojects are deleting infoboxes form articles" or "WikiProject Classical music is deleting infoboxes from articles under their control", to:

• Template talk:Infobox Person
• Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography
• Template talk:Infobox Actor

--Kleinzach 03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• No "Hmm" at all. I am notifying potentially aggrieved parties, the first step in any law based system. Posting notices in targeted forums conforms with Wikipedia policy. It would be egregious to not inform others of policy decisions affecting them being held in remote areas of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

but that isn't exactly what you did, you started seperate discussions at each page which is not recommended. In future posting a link to a single discussion with a summary of the issue is better practice. --neon white talk 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was extremely old news. The composers and classical music groups have been opposed to infoboxes for a few years now, I thought. Zytsef (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

URL

Shouldn't the preferred format be just http://example.com instead of one where the website address is written twice? I don't see a real legitimate reason for writing the same thing twice in the same field. Timmeh! 17:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize they changed WP to allow for that. If you put the website in brackets (which is how it used to be done), it appears like this: [2]. So the first instance provides the link itself, and the second would give the text that appears on the page. But if you no longer have to put the link in brackets, it should probably be like you suggest. -Freekee (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. What I usually do is use [http://www.example.com example.com]; what I really don't like is obfuscating nonsense like [http://www.example.com Official website]. I had been thinking of raising this at MoS, or a village pump page, for all infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I now see the difference in the original wording. It removes the "http://". I think that's cleaner for viewing the page. -Freekee (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable instruments

A discussion has started on Talk:George_Harrison#the_.22notable_instruments.22_section_of_the_info_box in which the wording of the guidance for the notable instruments section has been called into question. The purpose of that section needs clarity as the current wording "models or custom" has led to a narrow understanding of "brand", and so "generic" instruments are being disallowed, even when they are highly notable. Harrison is very closely and notably associated with the sitar. As indicated on the talk page, he is more notably and closely associated with the sitar than the current examples of Hendrix and Toris Amos with their identified instruments. Harrison's playing of the sitar was pivotal to the development of the Western interest in that instrument and Indian music in general. Proposed wording:

• This field is only relevant for individuals.Particularly noteworthy musical instruments with which the artist is strongly associated e.g. Jimi Hendrix with the Fender Stratocaster and Gibson Flying V guitars or George Harrison with the sitar. Custom made or promotional brands may not of themselves be notable, while generic instruments may be. The test would be the depth of coverage in reliable sources.

Comments and thoughts welcome. SilkTork *^YES! 12:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

i agree that the instructions for the "notable instruments" field need clarification, but don't agree with either the concept or the wording proposed above. the "instruments" section of these info-boxes is for a list of instruments mastered/used by the musicians (eg sitar [among others] in Harrison's case); the "notable instruments" section is clearly intended for particular models and/or individual instruments.

how many particular models/instruments to list in the "notable instruments" field is of course another recurring source of confusion/disagreement, and i hope we can also establish what the consensus is on that and re-formulate the instructions to reflect it. obviously the ideal is to have detailed and properly-sourced gear sections in the articles themselves, not to try to list everything in info boxes, but we definitely need a much more clearly-formulated concept of what does belong there. Sssoul (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some clarifying of "instrument" and "brand". As an example - A sitar is an instrument. Of the varying instruments that Harrison played, the sitar was one of the most notable. Thinking of all the "instruments" he played, it is appropriate to select that one as among those to highlight. So as a quick "infobox" type summary, we say: George Harrison was a musician who played these instruments - Electric Guitar, Moog, Drums, Sitar, Piano, etc. Of those instruments the ones he was most associated with are Electric Guitar and Sitar.

If the intention is rather to list the "brands" that a musician is associated with, then we can say that George Harrison played electric guitar and sitar, etc, and that the brands of guitar most associated with him are the Rickenbacker 12 string, and the psychedelic Fender Stratocaster.

We could of course blend both together - which is what I hoped to do in my suggested wording.

However, if it is felt that the purpose of that section is to highlight specific commercial makes or brands, then the wording could be changed to accommodate that (calling it "Notable brands" would help). But I feel uncomfortable with simply concentrating on commercial brands as being notable rather than styles or types of instruments in themselves, and I'd be interested in hearing some reasoning for doing this.

Another option, as this seems to be a contentious issue, and is not in itself particularly valuable (the notable instruments would be discussed in depth in the article anyway), would be to remove the "Notable instruments" section as too problematic. SilkTork *^YES! 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would favor leaving brands out as excessive detail for the infobox. I imagine many guitar-niks will consider brand an important and notable detail, but it is not worth including for every musician, and in many cases the publicly identified brand is because of an endorsement deal, so this becomes advertising. If brand is important, elaborate in the article body. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

well let's see here ... the "notable instruments" field is not meant to reiterate the "main highlights" of the "instruments" field; the "instruments" field itself should be "highlights": the main (generic) instruments that an artist has used, saving the details about rarely-played-but-documented instruments for the article itself. the "notable instruments" section is meant for a couple of particular models that the artist has famously used (yes this involves mentioning particular makes/brands). yes, the criteria for the "notable instruments" field need to be spelled out more clearly; yes, maybe "notable models" would be a better name for the field; and yes, maybe the field is more confusing/debatable than it's worth, particularly in articles where there's a good detailed gear section anyway.

meanwhile, would it be more constructive/worthwhile to pursue this in more detail on the Guitarists Project page? it may well be that different projects need different info-box criteria. Sssoul (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As this particular field is causing problems, then yes, it would be worthwhile to get some wider involvement. Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians would seem the most appropriate, as this is a Musical artist template rather than specifically a guitarist template. I'll make a notice now. SilkTork *^YES! 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

what i meant is that it's quite possible that different criteria are appropriate for different "categories" of musicians: the exact model may be of more interest in guitarists' info boxes than in flutists' or pianists' info boxes - i don't know that, since i'm not a flutist-spotter, but the guitarist info boxes i'm familiar with definitely use this field to name specific models (and/or as noted below "named instruments" like Lucille, if the artist has/had any such). anyway i posted something on the Guitarist Project page pointing out this discussion ... Sssoul (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there are three different uses for this field. One, brands. Two, named instruments. Three, general types. Here's a list of inclusions:

• Tori Amos: Bösendorfer piano
• Roger McGuinn: Rickenbacker 12-string guitar
• Brian May: Red Special
• B. B. King: Lucille
• Ian Anderson: flute

I think the purpose of the field is to say what these people were known for. The instruments in question are a part of the musicians' images. So the question is what is he or she noted for playing? I think the first four are reasonable uses for the field. But what about the last? Ian Anderson is certainly noted for being one of the few flautists in the rock field. But it already lists that instrument in the Instrument field. But it lists ten others there too. So do we use the field for emphasis? Brian Ritchie is a bass player. He is famous for his Ernie Ball acoustic bass guitars, but he is also a shakuhachi player. Should that go there? Also, should the notable instruments be notable in the sense that they should have WP articles? -Freekee (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts

Hi! I recently had a discussion (see below) about the nature of "associated acts". I still don't know the strict definition of associated acts, so, if you please, take a glance and comment! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Recently I removed Eva Cassidy from Katie Melua's "associated acts", because in my opinion the two have nothing to do with each other. My edits were reverted by a user who claimed that because Melua made a "duet" (Cassidy died in 1996, seems a cover to me) she is an associated act. Ofcourse, I'm not going for an edit fight, so I'll just ask who might have more experience on the matter. My question here is, what is the strict definition of "associated act"? Kind regards, --Soetermans (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• The single released last year was classed as a Melua/Cassidy duet of "What a Wonderful World", not a cover. Melua recorded lyrics with a recording of the late Cassidy; the song reached no. 1 in the UK singles charts. Here is the video and here is the news story. The two singers are clearly associated as they sung on the same record (even if one of the singers was performing with a recording of the other). --Hera1187 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, would you say that Nancy Sinatra and Audio Bullys are associated? Deep Dish and Stevie Nicks? Junkie XL and Elvis Presley? They all might be dance acts, but still they did collaborate (*ahem*, "duet") together. Oh wait, U2 and Mary J. Blige. Or Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston might be... I could go on for a while, I guess... With "associated acts" I think of... say Damon Albarn: Blur, Gorillaz and The Good, the Bad & the Queen. Or Korn and its solo member's solo projects. But that's just my opinion. C'mon, any WikiProject Music member to bring us wisdom? --Soetermans (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, acts are associated when the artists perform together in a song that has been released in some form (on an album or in a single). I believe Katie Melua and Eva Cassidy are associated by this definition, but Molly McQueen and Katie Melua are not. McQueen wrote some lyrics on Melua's latest album but did not perform on the album itself. The What a Wonderful World single however, was described as a duet by the record company and in all the media despite the fact Melua was singing along to a recording of Cassidy. I find the idea that the song was a cover very strange; if anything it was a cover of Louis Armstrong by Katie Melua and Eva Cassidy. --Philip Stevens (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with you two about "What a Wonderful World", I suppose you are right. But still, what is the definition? Because by Stevens' method, all the examples I came up with are indeed associated acts - which doesn't seem likely either. English isn't my mother tongue, but doesn't association imply something like... Oh wait, I'll google it. Is this something? Still, I don't know, I only want to know the truth! --Soetermans (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well? Its been two days since my last message, isn't there anyone who can shed some light on this case? --Soetermans (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should copy and paste this discussion to {{Infobox Musical artist}}. --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The obvious argument against counting duets or collaborations as associated acts are albums like Elton John's Duets - even with just the singles, that adds 4 artists to the info box. Lars T. (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe "Associated acts" should include side projects and recurring/frequesnt collaborations.

For example, Redman is not a member of Wu-Tang, but Redman and Wu-Tang member Method Man are associated, and a number of collaborations is the only thing that make them associated.

Not sure about family members though. Most people would agree that say Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson (or JD and Janet Jackson) are associated acts. But are Norah Jones and Ravi Shankar associated acts? Are Enrique Iglesias and Julio Iglesias associated acts? Not sure here...

Finally, it makes little sense to include solo projects to "Associated acts" as they are already listed in "Memberes" section. Netrat (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's my opinion. For artists (people), associated acts should only be bands that the person was a member of, or artists (people or bands) that the person recorded/performed with a lot. A case could be made for on-going non-professional association, but I'm not sure I'd vote for that. So one duet recorded does not count for association in this case, unless that person built a career out of that one duet. There's a lot of grey area, so use your judgment. -Freekee (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Freekee, it should be based on being part of a former group or many continuous collaborations, not simply because they worked together once throughout each of their careers. Honestly, I think the infobox would be better off without the associated acts section, as it is abused to a large amount. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 05:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: section titled "Removal of associated acts" merged into this section, as it has become a continuation of the same discussion. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the associated acts field in the infobox should be removed. This field is completely trivial. There is no clearly drawn line of who should go into associated acts, and is often abused by other users and IPs. It serves no real purpose, just to list other musicians the artist has worked with (sometimes they only worked with these other musicians ONCE, and do they belong there? That's completely opinionated, and are often added and removed, continuously), which are usually mentioned later in the article or discography. I'm here searching for a consensus and valid arguments of why this field should remain. Any thoughts? DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Associated acts" helps users to cross reference quickly, it enables internet surfing. Though not encyclopedic, the feature acknowledges wikipedia is a web phenomenon. I'm fine with deleting it, or advocating minimizing its use. The guidelines for the field states "performs with", not performed "once" with. - Steve3849 ^talk 22:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the use of this field to be a little unclear, and would like to see a clearer definition of how it is to be used. I don't think deletion of the field is necessary, and I'm sure there are many instances where it has a good use, such as side projects that are firmly associated with the main artist. But a bigger complaint is referring to musicians as "acts". Some might not find this complimentary! Is there a way we could change it to print as "associated artists", and allow either "acts" or "artists" to be accepted as a parameter name, so that existing infoboxes that use this field don't have to be changed? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very valuable field, if used correctly. See the related bands Joy Division and New Order. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the field is very useful esp when an artist has broken away from a group and gone solo. Grk1011 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, I see that you all agree the field is useful. How about a rewrite of the description? It's very vague and, as I mentioned before, no one knows where to draw the line for associated acts. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 01:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should only include groups. It shouldn't include artists' solo careers (since they're already linked in the band lineup section) and definitely shouldn't include producers or collaborators (for example, adding Talking Heads or U2 to the Brian Eno box, or David Bowie to the Iggy Pop box). WesleyDodds (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Associated acts" should NOT be removed. Netrat (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

don't hold your breath. The cabal doesn't like changes to the heavily guarded template. Consensus is generally impossible as the council of elders won't listen to reason. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(Rolling eyes) Requests for significant changes don't usually get consensus because the design of the infobox has been thoroughly discussed in the past, and now most memebers of the WikiProject seem to want stability rather than further evolution. However small changes that make sense, or address changes elsewhere, are still accepted. You may have noticed a change was requested by someone outside the project, and implemented, in the the last day with no objections. Obviously you are still upset that the change request you've been campaigning for over the last week didn't go through, but it's not a new idea. It was discussed and rejected in the past, as explained in the section where we talked about it. And several good reasons were given for objecting to it. You're not required to abandon your point of view, to recognize others have a good point too. All this talk of "cabal", "council of elders", "heavily guarded", "filibustering", "resisters", "won't listen to reason" etc. is childish and bordering on uncivil. For the record, I am not a member of the WikiProject yet, and have been an editor on WP for only a few months. And also for the record, I do agree the project is slow, maybe even a little stubborn, when it comes to improving documentation on the infobox. (I've had a sensible proposed change shot down too!) But I also understand the project's point of view, and wouldn't go off on a public sulk about it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to post something about this very topic. Since it appears to already be going on here, I'll add it in here.

The "associated acts" section of the band infobox really needs some clarification on what exactly should go in. As it stands it just seems a mess, with some people adding in pretty much any band that sounds similar or has been toured with. What should qualify a band to be included in the "associated acts" part?

To be honest, I question the need for such a section at all. It seems inherently a highly subjective notion, and if a band is truly associated there'll likely be a mention of it somewhere in the article already. Plus it's hardly vital information about a band, which is what the infobox should contain: the key aspects. Can anyone provide some specifications on this section to defend it's existence? Prophaniti (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite the length of this discussion, there seems to be no approach to consensus, partly because (as your own post demonstrates) there are valid arguments for redefining the field and for removing it. I do think there are some articles where the field is used in a good way, so I'm against removing it. I think this question gets raised when small edit wars erupt over the field in certain articles. The only way this is going to move forward, is if someone presents a proposal for the exact wording to be used in the instructions. But even then, it's likely some articles are using the field in a good way, but not in a way that matches the proposed instructions, and therefore any proposal still stands a chance of getting shot down. But perhaps the airing out of various ways the field is used, could point to an eventual agreement on new instructions, so I'm not saying it isn't worthwhile to propose a change.

I was going to leave it at that, but what the heck, here is a proposed change. At the very least, the wording of existing instructions needs improvement.

Current wording:

Acts from which this act spun off; acts which spun off a group act; groups with which an artist performs; other acts with which the act is associated.

Proposed wording:

This field can include any of the following:

• (for groups): A group from which this group has spun off
• (for groups): Groups which have spun off from this group
• (for groups or individuals): Other acts with which this group act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of group members with their solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. with acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A well-thought out post, Knight, much appreciated. I myself don't mind whether it gets deleted or simply better defined, I just feel -something- needs to be done about it.

The current wording indeed seems horrifically ambiguous, here's my input on what you've proposed:

• "A group from which this group has spun off" - So, would this be if a group operated under a different name originally, for example? Would there be other definitions of "spun off"?

Knight's reply: I don't think we need to define "spin-off"; it should be kept flexible. Some examples I can think of are Hot Tuna spun off from Jefferson Airplane, and the King Crimson ProjeKcts.

• "Groups which have spun off from this group" - Same kind of thing really, just looking for a concrete feel of "spun-off". Could Velvet Revolver, for example, be given as a spin-off of Guns 'n' Roses since it contains most of their old members?

Knight's reply: Sure. The later name appears to be a reference to the earlier, implying an association.

• "Other acts with which this group has collaborated on multiple occasions, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together" - This sounds good, I'm just wondering about the "single act playing together" bit about touring. Does this mean a big tour together, or one where they actually played on stage together, a true collaboration?

Knight's reply: It should definitely not refer to acts that tour together, otherwise the Beatles would be an associated act with Dave Allen (comedian).

• "Association of group members with their solo careers" - With this, would there be any room regarding the position of a member within a group? For example, Bathory was essentially Quorthon's band, he was behind it all. He went on to release a couple of solo albums just under the name "Quorthon". By your rules I'd assume he wouldn't be eligable? Likewise, what about groups that aren't solo projects, but rather side-projects of group members? (see below too)

Knight's reply: I worded it as "should be avoided" so it's not a hard and fast rule, only a guideline, and can be determined on talk pages of artist articles. Artist names that sound like a group name, but are really a solo act, are always a problem, especially if the artist also recorded under his or her name. Another example is Manuel Göttsching who recorded solo albums as Ash Ra Tempel after the group of that name broke up.

• "Groups with only one member in common" - I go with this, certainly, otherwise we could get ridiculous numbers of bands. So, Grip Inc. is essentially a side-project of Slayer's drummer. By your proposal I would assume Grip Inc. couldn't be given as an associated act, because it only contains one same member. Would this specific rule mean that bands with more than one member in common could be considered to have "spun-off" and thus be allowed?

Knight's reply: Sure, if membership is significant. I just don't think Wings (band) should be an associated act of the Beatles, which it currently is (among others in that infobox).

• "One-time collaboration" - Certainly if it was a one-off for a single or some such it would have no place in the associated acts (Marianne Faithful for example shouldn't be entered into the "associated acts" of Metallica), but what about if the collaboration was for more than a single song, but not for a more than a full album? Jay-Z has done a collaboration project with Linkin Park, would he meet the criteria by your proposal's rules?

Knight's reply: I was thinking about this too, and I'm not sure. A full album should be mentioned in either the "allowed" or "not allowed" section, but I'm not sure which. I'm thinking "allowed" is better.

The only other thing I'd want to raise is a kind of "miscellaneous" notion. Any such rule would need to be very carefully worded of course, but there are times when acts are very strongly associated even if they don't meet these criteria. Megadeth, for instance, are very much associated with Metallica, but they only share one member (Dave Mustaine).

I also agree that there shouldn't be any rule allowing bands that "sound similar", no matter how much people might think they do, because that just opens up a whole area we shouldn't go near. Prophaniti (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Further tweaking: "Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts)..." (adding comment in bold). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well it sounds pretty good to me. So essentially the associated acts, by your proposed guidelines, would consist of acts that share more than one member, previous/later incarnations of a group, and groups that the one in question has worked closely with on (ideally) multiple occasions.

With regards to the uncertain areas (e.g. where side-projects are concerned, or albums of collaboration) perhaps it should be left to how full the associated acts section is? These would sound like they could be included if the section isn't already packed with names, but aren't truly essential. Although talk of that makes me wonder about the notion of groups that have worked very closely together being included, since these would also seem to be potential inclusions, but not "essential" information as ones that share several band members would be. Prophaniti (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My biggest concern is how this will go over on Wikiprojects for bands that are big enough to have them, whose infoboxes aren't using the field according to the proposal. Again, I'm thinking of the Beatles, where their infobox has 5 bands where only one member was also a Beatle. Take them out, and it only leaves the Quarrymen behind. I don't know if they have discussed this before; their article talk page archive is 19 pages long. (They are not a Wikiproject.) I think it's time to put a pointer to this section on the Wikiproject Musicians page. Which I will now do... --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Current state of proposal (also I've changed the order of some items):

Current wording:

Acts from which this act spun off; acts which spun off a group act; groups with which an artist performs; other acts with which the act is associated.

Proposed wording:

This field can include any of the following:

• Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
• Groups which have spun off from this group
• A group from which this group has spun off

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of group members with their solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I like most of your current rewording, A Knight Who Says Ni, except the first point of the inclusion: "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together". Personally, I think there needs to be specified even more. Collaborated on multiple occasions can easily be read as "so more than one is multiple, that's good enough". I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "toured with as a single collaboration act playing together". DiverseMentality 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The intention is to not encourage two artists who played on a double bill, or one as an opening act for the other, as being declared associated because they "toured together". Maybe the wording needs to change to make that clear? Re. more than one collaboration, there was a discussion earlier in this section about a disagreement over a single but significant collaboration. I'm suggesting that one collaboration occasion is not enough to be an association, but two is, and a whole album of material would also be allowed. The last point in the "don'ts" was intended to suggest that 2 songs issued as a single would qualify as one collaboration, which would not be a notable association. The point is to clarify the intent of the field, not to make hard rules that must be followed. Given the current state of the instructions, clarity rather than restrictiveness is what is required. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable list of guidelines for the field. The first point could probably be clarified further. Maybe something more like "Other acts with whom this act has collaborated closely. Especially longstanding recording and touring relationships" I think this is a little easier to parse and is a little more open ended for scenarios that we might not be thinking of that are valid uses of the field. For a similar reason I'd like to propose the "can" in the introduction of the list be changed to "may", to imply that these are a set of guidelines, not hard and fast rules. That's my viewpoint on the matter, at least. Zytsef (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that wording re-introducing vagueness? It's self-evident that the field is intended for collaborations and relationships, and some of the examples we want to include are not "longstanding" (i.e. a collaboration album). What's needed is specific examples of what should be included, and removing those puts us back where we started. As for "can" vs. "may", I see no real difference between the two in this context. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying my wording is the best, but I feel that your first point is not very clear. I'm less concerned about vaugeness than I am about discouraging the types of additions that seem to get peoples' goat (ie: one off duets) while leaving the phasing as open to potential relationships we may not be thinking of as possible. Zytsef (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, the instructions page is a guideline. Listing 3 possible uses for the field does not discourage a 4th use, as long as that 4th use is not in the list of suggestions of how not to use it. I'm concerned that saying it's for other artists with whom the artist "collaborated closely" could mean anything, for exmaple, if they were in a series of shows together, one as the opening act for the other, but did not play together. And "longstanding... relationships": how long is longstanding, and what kind of relationships? The problem as I see it is the original instructions had undefined terms, so I'm proposing defining them, otherwise they are not useful. Your concern about keeping things flexible, seems to be a call for terms to not be defined. I understand your concern, but the proposal is not intended to be read as: "Thou shalt not use this field in any way that is not covered here". Maybe the list of examples should start with, "This field can include, for example, any of the following" (italics added to show new text). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts - Section break

i think what we need to do with this is to step back and ask what is the purpose of this section? what does it add to the article? and how is it used by a reader? Consider the MOS for wikilinking (which is essentially what this section is doing) it says that links should be "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully". If wikilinks exist in the article do we need them repeated? or is this considered a summary of wikilinked acts? --neon white talk 18:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Care must be taken in distingishing MOS's advice as it applies to the text in the body of the article, vs. the infobox. The part of MOS you quoted is intended to apply to the article's text. Everything in the infobox should be a copy of what is in the body of the article: it is a summary of selected facts. The things which we have been discussing as belonging or not belonging in the infobox, can all belong in the body of the article, including the wikilinking of same. That being the case, the MOS quote doesn't really help here, and your concerns are more about reviewing the purpose of infoboxes as a whole, rather than this field. Hope I'm not coming across as dismissive of your concerns. But as I said before, this discussion began as a question about clarifying the instructions for this field, and only reviewing the intent of the instructions where they were missing in the first place. I am not against discussing changing the intent, but I encourage everyone to look at the "clarity" issue as priority.

Have we discussed the issue enough to vote on it now? I'm not sure how we go about starting on that, or if we need to. There have been no major objections; is this enough for approval, and to ask that the change be made? This part is new to me. (I've made a similar proposal on another field on another infobox, and I'd like to wrap that one up too.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is what i am suggesting, that 'associated acts' should only contain acts linked to in the article. Assuming that all acts listed in 'assosiated acts' are to be wikilinked making this a navigational aid then the MOS for wikilinking is very relevent, links to associated acts, whether in article text, see also sections or an infobox should only exist if they "help readers to understand the current article more fully.", if they do not why are they there? My concerns are specifically about the potential usefulness of this field not the infobox in general. The purpose of the field is how we should clarify it's use rather than by some arbitrary criteria. Nobody seems to be able to explain what it's intended purpose actually is. I think it's key to define that first. --neon white talk 17:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're in disagreement for the most part. As for defining the field's use first (before the list of examples) I'd be for it (and made the exact same observation on another field on a related template, where the documentation "jumped in" with coding instructions before explaining what the field is about), except I don't see what's needed here. Associated acts is about associated acts (which is what the old instructions basically said, and what I'm trying to get rid of), and the list of suggested do's and don'ts explains the intent. If you can suggest a preamble that actually says something, please do, but the suggestions made so far bring back the vagueness of the old (current) wording. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Request for new wording of "associated acts" field instructions (final wording!):

This field can include, for example, any of the following:

• Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
• Groups which have spun off from this group
• A group from which this group has spun off

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of group members with their solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I fail to see the reasoning behind these particular criteria. For instance why are solo careers not considered a useful wikilink? --neon white talk 17:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Template:Infobox Musical artist/doc is not protected. So this request is unnecessary. Ruslik (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to Ruslik for making an admin request that wasn't needed. (It's the template, not the instructions, that are protected.) Reply to neon white: hasn't this already been discussed? Soetermans (June 27) asked if solo careers should be associations, but did not make an argument for or against. Netrat (July 3) is against listing solo acts since solo artists are already shown in the members field. Grk1011 (July 26) said he thought solo acts should be mentioned when an artist leaves a group for a solo career (which I would have thought is less relevant to this field than an artist who releases a solo album while still with a group), but WesleyDodds (July 27) replied with the previous observation that the solo artist is already in the members field, and stated "it shouldn't include artists' solo careers". My proposal (Nov 28) is to put them in a list of uses to avoid. Prophanati (Nov 28) suggested an unusual situation where a solo artist takes over a group's name, and I agreed (Nov 28) this is an exception which should be allowed, and I believe the wording does allow it because it's in a group of uses that "should be avoided" meaning it's not a rule with no exceptions or leeway. That's a list of all the discussion about that field I can find here, and it should be enough to answer your question, and demonstrate the issue has been reviewed. The wording of your statement, about it being a "useful wikilink", is not what is being discussed here. Everything in the infobox should be wikilinked (if applicable), and a copy of what is in the body of the article, also wikilinked. If you object to that, then you are objecting to the way infoboxes are used, and that's a separate objection on a much bigger issue. If you object to solo artists being counted as associated artists in most cases, please state your reasons for that, with a response to previous reasons given for the other position, otherwise it's darn hard to answer your concerns. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Neon's question is an important one. Why is this field here, and what information is it supposed to impart? I think it's supposed to answer the question of who is this guy? What bands was he in, or who did he play with? With whom did he make his fame? Is the field still valid for groups? Maybe. If two entire groups collaborated on an ongoing basis, that would be fine, but it's probably not necessary to mention it, unless it helps to answer the question, who are these people? Where have I heard them? So for individuals, acts should only be listed if the person was a member of the group, or a frequent session or touring musician. Associated acts should only be mentioned where the group had an ongoing collaborative relationship with another group or individual. That's my philosophy, anyway. I'm not sure if this can be worded acceptably. -Freekee (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree, it's good to keep sight of the core purpose of a section. To me, the infobox is for holding a summary of important information on the band. At a glance you can see when they formed, what their genre is, where they're from, etc. And, with this, which acts are closely associated with them.

Now I personally still don't -truly- see the need for such a section, but that's by-the-by. I'm not going to push for it's removal or anything, and I feel if it is going to be in it should indeed be better defined than it currently is.

As to the question of solo careers: I think they generally don't need to be included. Solo careers don't (to my knowledge) get their own page, they're contained within the page of the artist him/herself. What this means, to me, is that a solo career is just that: solo. It only concerns the artist in question and so doesn't need a separate page. So, Rob Zombie, as an artist, doesn't have his own page. As such there's no need for a link for "Rob Zombie" in the associated acts section, he is contained within the members section. Wikipedia effectively makes no distinction between Rob Zombie the person and Rob Zombie the music artist. For this reason, I don't think solo careers need to be included when the solo career info is contained within the band member page. Same with Jerry Cantrell of Alice in Chains: his solo career info is in his personal page. Here's a different situation: one of the members of death metal band Hypocrisy, Peter Tagtgren, went on to form a solo project of his own called Pain. Pain and Peter have separate articles, so while this is a case of a solo career, it's one where it probably should be included because there is a distinction between the musical project and the individual.

Based on this logic I think we need to make a distinction between solo careers and side-projects, the former being done purely under the name of the band member and contained within their page, the latter being a separate entity with it's own page, and thus worthy of including in the AA section. Thoughts? Prophaniti (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little dubious of the claim that most solo acts are listed on the same page as the band. Any member of a band who is notable in himself (which would be the case if he made solo albums) would have a separate article. But anyway, it's been said before that when a person is in a band, he is listed in the members field, and is already in the infobox, and does not need to appear under associated acts. I hadn't really thought about an individual's page, where there is no field called "bands this person was a member of", and you are suggesting the associated acts field should be used for that. That's worth considering, but I would still like to see the instructions advise against using the field to link two bands where one band can be regarded as a "solo act" band of the other. Again, I'm thinking of Wings (Paul McCartney) not being associated with The Beatles just because these are two bands with one member in common. If we use the AA field to include solo careers, someone is likely to say, "Wings is a solo spin-off of the Beatles", and it's not really, it's a different band that just has one member in common with the Beatles. If the instructions suggest Wings should point to Beatles, then there is no reason Beatles can't point to Wings, therefore no reason why Beatles can't point to Ringo Starr, and then you're back to the situation where the field is used for anything and everything. For that reason, I think putting "association of groups with members' solo careers" under uses to avoid, is the way to go. By the way, that's not the wording I used in the proposal, and looking back, the proposed wording is not quite right; maybe that's the problem? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Prophaniti means that "the members of the band are already listed in the infobox" and thus the solo career (which is not a separate article, but in the article about the member) is one click away, so there is no need to list them under associated acts. Lars T. (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, he explicitly said if it's a seperate article, it should be in the AA field. If it's in the article, it's zero clicks away. Yeah I know, we're getting kind of verbose, and it's hard to keep track of who is advocating what. But anyway, if erroneous wording of one sentence was the problem, and the latest wording (not too far above this) fixes it, then maybe I can proceed with the change. This discussion has been kicking around for quite a while, most replies have been in favour of not recommending solo acts in the AA field, and everyone agrees the current wording needs to be changed. Hoping to wrap this up soon. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What Lars T said is pretty much what I meant, yeah. I'll do it through an example so things are less likely to get muddled: Say you're on the Alice in Chains article. It could be said that Jerry Cantrell is an associated act, because he had a solo career and was a major member of Alice in Chains. But there would be no inherent need for a link to his solo career in the AA section, because there is a link to his name in the "members" section just below, and all info on his solo career is contained within this article.

But a side-project, with it's own article, is more than one click away. In this case, there's the question of whether it should be in the AA section. Now, thinking about it, it probably shouldn't: if they only have one member in common, it could lead to a ridiculous number of bands in the AA section. I just wanted to put that out to see what other editors thought.

However, I think the current proposal sounds good. Bands that became, or came from, other bands, and ones that have worked together closely. Avoiding bands with only a single member in common or have only very briefly worked together, and the issue of solo careers is avoided: their info is on their personal pages, which would be linked in the members section anyway. If the solo project has it's own article (see King Diamond and King Diamond) then it might make sense to include it in the AA section. Prophaniti (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional - Something just came to mind: supergroups. Even though they will often only have one member in common with other bands, should they be allowed also, given their special nature? My inclination is towards yes. Prophaniti (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that the CSNY article should list The Hollies, Buffalo Springfield and The Byrds in the AssocActs field? I would say no. There's actually a degree of separation there - one step to the member, and then another to these bands. Someone above suggested that bands with only one member in common not be allowed. -Freekee (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not generally advocating including all bands with one member in common: this would be silly. I'm just wondering about whether a supergroup should be some kind of exception. It would all depend on how much you saw the contributing groups as connected. Prophaniti (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it begs the question as to whether the two groups are associated for any other reason than their common members. In my opinion, if that's the only connection, the two bands aren't really associated with each other. -Freekee (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated Acts - second break

There are three choices regarding the AssocActs field in the infobox. One, remove it, two leave it alone, three come up with an improved set of rules. So far, there has only been one voice here asking for its removal. I don't see anyone recommending we leave it alone. So I think we have consensus to change it, we're just looking for the rules. So...

I propose that the purpose of the field is to give a quick reference as to with whom the person made his fame, or where we might have heard of the guy. That's it. I don't think it needs to be an exhaustive list. So David Bowie, for example, needs no introduction. So what if he was a member of Tin Machine? If you want to find what projects he was involved in, read the article. Mick Ronson made his name with Bowie, and who cares that he was with The Rats before that. He was with Ian Hunter for several years, so that would be an okay mention. Tony Levin became famous for being a permanent member of Peter Gabriel's band. He was also in King Crimson for many years. His infobox evidences membership in three other bands, but (speaking as a fan) I don't think they're important enough to list there. Bands don't get an AssocAct, except in special cases. Four of the five members of Liquid Tension Experiment are in Dream Theater, so I wouldn't argue against listing that one.

What do you say? Should we try to work out acceptable wording for my proposal, or would you rather have broader criteria for inclusion? -Freekee (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposal is a little subjective and limiting. I think the field should be a little more broad than merely how someone or some group gained fame. The infobox should summarize the article to some degree and the name of the field isn't "why he/she/they are famous". I think the only real problem with the current wording is the last two items: "groups with which an artist performs; other acts with which the act is associated." Since it seems to lead to friction among editors. I think A Knight Who Says Ni's proposed rewording goes a long way to solve this. Zytsef (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I second Zytsef on all counts. Your proposal (no offence intended :)) does sound too limited, it's about more than just who made someone famous. And the very notion feels subjective: you say that if someone wants to know who David Bowie is associated with, they should read the article. But doesn't this defeat the whole point? Couldn't you equally say "If someone wants to know anything about the artist, read the article" and do away with the infobox altogether?

All told, it sounds too subjective. Knight's proposal, as Zytsef says, goes a long way towards combatting the big problem of the current wording: that it's too ambiguous. Also, his proposal would deal with some of the examples you give: if two artists only share one member, they wouldn't be listed. Prophaniti (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will say I was replacing ambiguity of rules with specificity of purpose. I think that's generally an improvement. I also don't exactly agree with the assertion that the infobox is a summary of the article. It does summarize the article, but it's purpose is to provide key information to the casual viewer. I was trying to address what "key information" is. Look at David Bowie. His list is limited to bands that he's been a member of. Four of them are so non-notable that they don't even have articles. Why are they listed in the infobox? I haven't seen a rule yet that addresses this issue (am I the only one who sees that list as a problem?) And for another band on the list that was linked, who sees "The Riot Squad" and thinks Bowie? Should that be on the list? So yes, I was shooting for a higher level of fame for the AssocActs list. -Freekee (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So let's have another look at Knight's proposal. It was a tightening up of the existing guidelines. He suggested the following rules for inclusion and exclusion:

• Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
• Groups which have spun off from this group
• A group from which this group has spun off

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of group members with their solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song

I would add "bands which the individual was a member of" as a first item. This is kinda covered by the first bullet point, but I think it's a major thing. There's a discussion going on about whether to include bands that had common members with the band in question. Are there any problems with this proposal, or any additions or clarifications that should be made? -Freekee (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

About "One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song" — That would mean Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson are associated acts, they made two songs together, on two singles and two albums (one by each). Lars T. (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. After 2 weeks of lengthly discussion and no supported wholesale objection of the proposed change, I have implemented it. As for the question about Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney, considering their collaborations were hits, I see no reason to forbid their inclusion. But the "rules" are just guidelines; common sense on a case by case basis is still the main thing to consider. As for the question about whether the field should include "bands which the individual was a member of", I indicated I hadn't really thought about that, and I wonder if it should be restricted to a "notable" member, as opposed to a brief but little-regarded association (for example, Bill Bruford's brief membership in the live version of Genesis; is it worth mentioning in his infobox?). Although I have made the change, discussion can continue. Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion, and helped to fine-tune the wording. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh nice one. As soon as someone brought up your suggestion for final discussion, you jumped on the chance to add it? No big arguments against, sure, just a few details to iron out, which I guess you don't want to do. Couldn't wait a few more days? Sure, discussion can continue, but as long as most people are fine with what's in place, consensus might not be gained for any changes.

So here are my thoughts on some questions. Regarding the Jackson/McCartney issue, Can we change it to "occasional collaborations"? I think the wording can be fine-tuned even more. If Gene Simmons was a member of Kiss, is he automatically considered to have collaborated with that band? We're still not saying what the point of the field is. Earlier, I suggested that the field list the artist with which the person in question gained his fame with. Can we somehow put this thought in the section, only to explain the purpose of the field, and not as one of the rules? -Freekee (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't called for; the discussion started back in June, the proposed wording comes from 2 weeks ago, and a lot has been written since then – so much that you may be forgetting some quesitons have been answered before. Re. "we're still not sure what the point of the field is", when this was raised before, I asked what needed to be said that isn't self explanatory by the field name: "Associated acts are acts with which the artist is associated"? We could say that, but it doesn't mean anything, it's a self referencing statement. (And we have been through that before, with no proposed preface suggested, even though I invited everyone to come up with one.) Regarding changing "more than one collaboration" to "occasional collaborations", why wasn't that brought up sometime in the last 2 weeks? Sorry to be defensive, I'm just saying that all points should have come up by now, and it's silly to tell me I didn't wait long enough to see if anyone could come up with new objections. There are some discussions that never end. The point is, the new wording is not locked in. It can be discussed further and changed further. The old wording was terrible, and the sooner it could be changed, the better. There was no reason to delay making the change proposed so far. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was quite obvious that I was actively trying to bring this discussion to a close. There are just a few outstanding questions, one of which I brought up before you made the changes. Now if we could get back to the discussion at hand...

Should we add a "mission statement" to provide a little purpose, and hopefully avoid some conflicts with people who insist on obeying the letter of the law? Do you feel it's necessary to list every artist the artist in question was associated with (where those artists meet the guidelines)? Should we add "bands which the individual was a member of" as a first item? I feel strongly that we should. Are there any other issues that anyone feels important? -Freekee (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Freekee above. How about a mention that related musicians (brothers, cousins, etc.) are generally not associated acts unless they meet the criteria already on the template page? DiverseMentality 04:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was taken aback by the tone of an earlier response. Maybe I misinterpreted it. (A smilie always helps if something is said that looks harsh, but isn't mean that way.) Yes, a statement as to what the field is for, would be fine, but what you're proposing now, seems to be another example, and not a mission statement. About that proposed statement: since this infobox is for both groups and individuals, your suggestion should start off by saying it's a rule applicable to individuals. Otherwise, if someone is reading it while contemplating adding the template for a group, "bands which the individual was a memeber of" might cause of moment of confusion: is this field or template only for individuals? So I would suggest a slight rewording: "for individuals: groups which he or she is or was a member of". Is that gramatically correct? I'm not really sure what a dangling participle is, but this may be one. By the way, back on 10 December you made a strong case against associating individuals with bands they were in. I was going to point out there were objections to your idea, but just noticed those objections came from you! My head is spinning. Are you double-sure you want to go with this? :)

Re. brothers and cousins, can you mention any examples where someone might try to associate them incorrectly? Most examples of family relations I can think of, have associated.

Back to the "mission statement" or "preamble" issue: I'm all for a quick sentence that says "this field is for..." whatever, prior to the list of do's and don't's, but can't think of what it should say that isn't already self explanatory. I'm still waiting to hear a specific suggestion, beyond saying something should be there.

Maybe you're thinking of something along the lines of: "This field is for associations with other musicians that are significant or notable to this musician's career", which would suggest that not every association you could possibly think of, should go in this field. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you correctly detected the harshness of my original statement.

Your suggestion for the mission statement is not bad, though I'd prefer something a little more specific. But I won't complain, because I can't really think of a good one, myself. To address Diverse's concern, I think the mission statement should say something about an ongoing professional relationship. Hmm... how about, "Notable professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant to this musician's career."

Knight, your modification to my rule sounds good, but I would make a minor change to "for individuals: groups which he or she has been a member of". And I might change the colon to a comma. I think that this rule is the main point of the AssocActs field. As for my argument against such a rule, I think you're referring to where I was arguing against including every band the person was a member of. Can we add the word "notable"? Thanks for your help. (Oops, forgot to sign) -Freekee (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated artists, final changes... or not

Okay, it's been a while. I'm going to add "bands which the individual was a member of" as a bullet point. I don't believe we have consensus on a "mission statement" so I'll let that one go. Thanks all, for your input over the last several weeks... or months. diff -Freekee (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What the hey?? That wasn't an acceptable update. I'll remind you that before I made the previous change, I put up a proposed exact wording on this page, which was discussed for two weeks with minor revisions suggested, then made the change exactly as stated with all revisions that were discussed. I can't believe you complained that I hadn't waited long enough, and now you have completely rewritten the instructions, not just the one sentence you proposed adding, with no preview of the other changes. And the wording of the line you added, is not the wording you proposed. Earlier today you put a notice on my personal talk page asking if I was trying to avoid further changes by leaving the discussion, and I said no, I haven't left it. Now you've made your controversial changes and are saying goodbye. That just isn't right. The changes will be undone, and we will continue to discuss what you proposed (with or without you), as there were some good ideas that I've been hoping would be implemented, once we get enough contributors weighing in. This can still be done, but it will be done the right way. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To get this back on track: here are 2 proposed "mission statements". The first is mine, which Freekee says may not be specific enough, and the second is his alternate suggestion:

1. This field is for associations with other musicians that are significant or notable to this musician's career.
2. (This field is for) notable professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant to this musician's career.

The differences are replacing "associations" with "professional relationships", and moving the word "notable". I think the first change is good, because one of my concerns is that the purpose of the field is self-evident by the field name, and I didn't want this statement to be redundant. Using a different word helps to improve the situation. Regarding moving the word "notable", I think the emphasis is degraded by tacking it on to another adjective. When it's separated out, the importance of notability is emphasized. We might emphasize it more by changing "or" to "and": significant and notable. One more thing I just noticed: ending it with "musician's career" brings back the problem of suggesting these instructions only apply to individuals; it should say "artists" instead. Therefore, my modified proposal, combining all the above:

This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career.

As to the other field that was proposed as the first bullet point, the wording which came about from discussion, and is superior to what was temporarily added, is:

for individuals: groups which he or she has been a member of

It has been suggested the colon should be changed to a comma. I don't agree; the colon means that what follows is applicable to individuals. It is appropriate usage.

Can we please have some opinions about these changes? I do appreciate that Freekee made his change because he was frustrated about how long the discussion was taking, and if we had more discussion we could implement the change, or at least come closer to the ideal, if there are more suggestions. The correct way to go about it is to neither rush it through, nor give up for lack of responses. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not say goodbye, and will continue the discussion if anyone else will (which you are). I did not make the changes out of frustration that it was taking too long, I made them because the discussion seemed to have ended. There was no apparent opposition to me adding that bullet point. As for the rest, I felt that I didn't change the meaning of anything, and was only making grammar tweaks. I apologize if any meaning changed. I have absolutely no problem with discussing this further (or with the reversion), and you'll notice I posted the diff, to make it clear what had changed. -Freekee (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the mission statement, One says "associations... notable to career." The second says "notable relationships" I don't see much of a difference. However, the word "notable" is a charged one, here at WP. It seems a little redundant in the sentence, so I think it could be removed from the improved suggestion. In the next part, I much prefer the comma to the colon. It is grammatically correct, and reads like a sentence. Aside from that, one reason I phrased my change the way I did is that the other three points start out with the subject ("other acts with which..." "Groups which," "group from which"), which is followed by the specific qualifiers. How about this: Groups which the artist (for an individual) was a member of

Next is the existing second section, followed by my changes (new proposal on the first bullet).

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of groups with members' solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song

The following associations should not be listed:

• Acts which are the solo careers of the band's members
• Groups with only one member in common
• Producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts), unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer
• Artists that have collaborated only once, for a single or song

Any thoughts?

There is a grammar problem here, and a related implied complexity that may not be necessary. There is a difference between "association" and "association with". The latter only needs to be followed by one "thing": the second thing that is associated with the implied but unstated first thing (the subject of the article), while "association" must be followed by the two "things" that have an association. So when you say "the following associations..." each bullet point would have to begin with:

• The subject of of the article, and...

which leads to repetition. Furthermore, if we say "the follwing associations" followed by several bullet points, this forces the reader to consider the association aspect of each point, which leads to a lot of mental parsing. What we're trying to say here, is something much simpler: don't put certain things in this field. There is no need to restate the "association" aspect of it each time. That's why I left the word out of the line preceding the list of bullet points, and only used it in points where it was needed.

I hope that this doesn't come across as picky. I think that readers who have a high awareness about grammar (and alas, that doesn't include me) read text with a greater degree of anticipation of what follows, than those who don't, and can get tripped up by improper grammar where others would not. It's like people who are picky about spelling (that does include me) who see an improper use of "it's" instead of "its", and mentally think "it is" (not necessarily the actual words, but their meaning), and mentally stumble over what follows, while a person who is more casual about spelling will be more likely to read it as intended the first time. Here's another example: "I like this song, it had me taping my foot". A reader who is casual about spelling reads it as "tapping", and does not even for a moment get a confusing mental picture of the writer attaching tape to his foot.

"...should be avoided" is a softer demand than "...should not be listed", and addresses the concern that always comes up with changes to the instructions: are they saying this field must not be used for a certain purpose, or is it just a guideline? Most instructions should be guidelines; things should only be forbidden where there is a technical reason regarding template coding.

The "mental parsing" issue is also why I prefer "for individuals: groups which he or she has been a member of", with a colon. Consider the situation where an editor is intending to add an infobox for a band, and is reviewing the the instructions and reads one of the alternate versions proposed:

• bands which the individual was a member of

Since the editor is not writing about an individual, this could create a small mental block forcing him to read it a few times until he realizes it's not applicable to what he's doing. At that point, he may wonder if he is reading the right instructions, or using the right infobox. The colon makes it clear from the start: what follows only applies to individuals, and there is no reason to try to obscure this by burying the word further into the line. As for saying the use of a comma instead of colon makes the line read like a sentence, no, none of the bullet points read like sentences, that's why they are bullet points. And even if they did, a colon is a proper punctuation character in setences, and is no less valid than a comma. Furthermore, changing "has been" to "was" changes the tense from present and past, to just the past, which I don't think is intentional.

Finally, as to the word "notable" being a charged word at WP, you're right, but usually because people are insisting that it be emphasized, not removed. I never see any controversy over mentioning it, just over failing to mention it! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I meant to say, about "One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song" vs. "Artists that have collaborated only once, for a single or song": There was discussion in the past as to whether a pair of songs, issued as a single, should be considered as one collaboration or two, and there appeared to be agreement that it should count as one. To address this: first, acknowledge that singles and songs aren't the same thing; my thinking is that "single" refers to either a single with a collaboration on both sides, or just one side, and therefore "single song" refers to other situations, i.e. an album track. Now they are two very different things, and are shown as such, with a comma between them. Second, let's not give some wiseguy the chance to say, "it says 'collaborated only once', and there are two songs on this single; that counts as two!" --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's just you and me. Thanks for your detailed explanation. It does come off as being picky, but I don't have any problem with that. :-) But I find it odd that you bring up the mental parsing issue, talking about making it easier for the average person to read, but when I changed the bullet points to a more consistent style, you claimed it added unnecessary complication. To be honest, the current version hardly makes sense to me. For example, it's saying that you shouldn't use the field for one-time collaborations. Well of course, I wouldn't put a collaboration in the field, but why couldn't I list the band this person collaborated with? Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't have a problem with the softer "should be avoided". (but the reason I phrased it that way was to say to avoid listing, rather than avoid associating. Any other phrasing keeping the intention got too long.) You're absolutely right about "has been" being preferred to "was." I don't know what I was thinking there. Though "notable" is charged, I only recommend removing it because it's redundant.

When you say you'd prefer "for individuals: groups which...", that makes sense, but then you'd want to preface the spin-off bullets with a similar "for groups:", wouldn't you? Or we could change "the individual" to "this individual." That makes it a little more apparent who is in question.

There are two sections: "can be included" and "should be avoided." I don't think having "associations" in the header, rather than in each bullet is going to cause any significant problems in understanding the section.

For that last bullet point, how about "Artists that have collaborated only once, for a single or for a song" For the mission statement, I'd prefer changing "professional" to "artistic." We want to stay away from technical associations, like producer, engineer, graphic artist, right? Hmm. I think perfection is going to be impossible. -Freekee (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little fuzzy on what your first paragraph is referring to. My objection to the "bullet points" change had to do with a grammar problem. Grammar should come first when choosing between two versions of wording! A collaboration that occurs multiple times is no problem for this field; it is often used for this purpose. You asked, "why couldn't I list the band this person collaborated with" (note, you say collaboration, i.e. "Bobby Vee Meets the Ventures" LP, not membership in a band), and I don't know what you mean; that too is precisely what this field is for.

Re. "notable" being a "charged" word, I still don't know what you mean by this; we want to remind users about the importance of notability as much as possible; there is no controversy over including it, only of forgetting to include it. Nor do I see why it would be redundant. Please explain.

Re. "groups", I see what you're saying, but I still think the proposed wording about "individuals" was confusing because it isn't clear from the start that the point only applies to individuals, and I was making a suggestion to clarify this. I don't see it as being necessary in the other points (and I think you're in agreement with that). Re. changing "the individual" to "this individual", it doesn't resolve the problem. In an article about a group, "this individual" does not refer to anything.

Re. changing the last point to begin with "artists"; are you assuming this point would be more likely to apply to individuals only? See previous example about the Ventures, and there can also be collaborations between two groups. If that's not the reason, why are you asking for a change here?

Re. "professional relationships", I added the adjective "professional" so that it won't include a marriage to another performer with a completely separate career; something that was brought up earlier. This was the question about "what do we mean by association" (or "relationship" for that matter). I don't think replacing "professional" with "artistic" helps to suggest excluding producers and others you mentioned; they can be equally described as professional or artistic.

Don't be discouraged about perfection. Changes at WP aren't supposed to be the final ideal solution, and nothing is ever permenant. Just improving what we have so far, is worth making a change. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really tired of arguing about the grammar. I don't care for some of your suggestions, but I don't dislike them enough to keep discussing it. I'd like a purpose statement. Yours is fine. I want that first bullet point added. Your version is fine. Beyond that I don't care. By the way, when I changed that one to "artists", I was looking for the term that applied to both individuals and groups. I should have said "acts." -Freekee (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the "grammar" issue, I didn't realize we were arguing over it. I don't see where you actually disagreed that the grammar was incorrect when I pointed it out. Groups (bands) are also called artists (or even "artist" singular!), and I prefer this term to "act" because the latter sounds like circus performers! - and may be inappropriate for artists that just make studio albums, and don't perform live. (However, we have agreed on using "act" on one line, and I'm not going to propose changing it now.) Speaking of terminology, I'm not sure whether it's best to always use the same terms for consistency, or deliberately use different terms in different places to break up the monotony. It's also regrettable that we didn't get more input from other users. Thanks for all your help; the version we've hammered out is as much your work as mine (and thanks to past contributors too). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit has been made. Let me know if there is anything missed or different from what was agreed upon. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: "arguing about the grammar issue". It wasn't that, specifically, so much as it was a long grind of a discussion looking for the perfect phrasing. For example, like you mentioned, we couldn't necessarily find the balance of consistency. It's also regrettable that we didn't get more input from other users. More evidence that it wasn't all that important to find perfection? But we got the important things changed. Thanks again for your help. -Freekee (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Members fields

How these lists should be delimited is not stated in the template. I know most articles have them separated by line breaks, but is this the preferred format, and if so, shouldn't it be stated in the appropriate section in the template? Timmeh! 04:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The "commas vs. line breaks" issue has been debated multiple times, though usually pertaining to other fiels like genre. For the members fields, consensus (at least de facto, if widespread practice is an indication, even if it hasn't specifically been discussed) seems to be that line breaks are preferred. I would say it's safe to add that to the template page, as it seems to be the common practice. I've certainly never come across an article that uses commas in the members fields. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I just wanted to be sure. Thanks and happy holidays. Timmeh! 14:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

I don't think a change is going to happen. But in answer to your question, if you don't know the ropes, you should start by reading WP:Consensus which explains how changes like this are supposed to develop. I think that in reading it, you will find that those few of us who have been discussing this proposal here do not have the authority to make the change, even if we are in agreement. I do recommend you read that article, just because everyone who uses Wikipedia more than casually should be familiar with it. It is more than a guideline; it is policy. Now if you really want to give yourself a headache, go to the Music project talk page, look at the "archives" infobox at the right, and read all of archives 9 through 14, labelled "Infobox debate". It's about a change that went in, then got taken out again. Do yourself a favour and don't even bother going there to read it! :) But do read the Consensus article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Add on

i beleave for non-group Musicians infobox should have an extra feeled for the sing as spouse(s) (spouse(s) = ) --Christian P. (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And why do you feel this? Please consider the infobox is there to summarize the important points of the article. If the artist collaborates with a spouse who is also an artist, "associated acts" may be the appropriate field. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooo and height and hair colour and eye colour and shoe size.... weeee let's add all kinds of useless bubblegum fields to the box. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

additional microformats change requested

{{editprotected}} Please add vevent to the classes on this infobox. The changed item should read infobox vcard vevent

This adds an additional microformats class, and has no visible impact on the articles using this template. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Martin^msgj 09:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks dude. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

marriage

Can we add a section called "Engaged" or married. The format would like so Married to {{Married|[[Person X]]}} Married to {{Remarried|[[Person X]]}} or Married to {{MStat1|[[Person X]]}} Married to {{MStat2|[[Person X]]}} where MStat1 is married, MStat2 is Remarried if the word "married" offends a certain culture, religion or spiritualism...etc. Sorry I don't know what is the exact term. However, you can only put the present marriage status, not previous status. Previous status such as divorced should be in the Personal Life section. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been proposed before & rather roundly rejected (see the archives). Who the person is married or engaged to rarely has any pertinence to their career as a musician. If it's pertinent, it belongs in the article body. Plus it would only apply to some artists, so it's not a pertinent field for an infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to the say it, but the way how you reply it sounds like you think these contents are paparazzi-ish or you are against multimedia. These are infobox, more correctly the article is a biography of the person. This not even a Regular Navigation Template. I see this infobox is extremely biased.

Look at the article, Albert Einstein.

Even though Albert Einstein is an influential person, but the infobox didn't use things like Background information or any scientific related stuff. Thus it doesn't connotate, one field of studies is more important the other. I mention this, because you are dealing with Art, abstract studies. Why are you putting sensitive titles that will raise more battle wars?

What background information does the artists came from, is none of anybody business to be dealt with. You don't even understand that if you put Marriage it is actually helping the article.

For example, if an artist is a son / daughter of parents (that came from Musician family), by placing "Marriage" readers can be guided to technical information (like which member of Jackson family if they wish use to know. (e.g. the Jackson family).

I also think Notable instruments should be changed to just instruments. The notability of the instruments is preferences. Even if it is the news. Multimedia news are news targeted at a particular audience, so just because one news appear on the internet that is a trusted source, that doesn't make the artists skill notable. They are know “Globally “known, “known to” Hollywood, “Locally” known, where is notability.

If you want to place notable instruments, give evidence that why should local, be more important than Hollywood? The world constantly have a chain reaction, so if you saying notability is important, than you are saying that if somebody created a Green technology that coincidentally succeeded and is made Globally, then you are saying the technology is more notable over the creator?

That is purely WP:OR.

Similar if Saxophone is more famous than Jazz, and you put Saxophone on the infobox, section: notable instruments. Are you telling Saxophone is more important, notable the artist? Or the best Saxophone player in the music industry is this particular artist?

Says by who?

Is an ENCYCLOPEDIA equal to a JUDGE.

Notable is an adjective, an deviation or description about a word. Give details if necessary, this is a ENCYCLOPEDIA. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia = a biased Wikipedia, that is why it doesn't grow bigger and things don't get done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.186.241 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Very little of what you just said makes any sense, but I see a few things that are just flat-out wrong:

• it sounds like you think these contents are paparazzi-ish or you are against multimedia

While it is trivial in most cases, I don't understand the "multimedia" bit. This doesn't involve multimedia in any way. This is just text.

• Look at the article, Albert Einstein. Even though Albert Einstein is an influential person, but the infobox didn't use things like Background information or any scientific related stuff.

Um, the Albert Einstein infobox is filled with background info (places of birth & death, citizenships, alma mater, etc) and gives a ton of "scientific-related stuff": "Known for: General relativity, Special relativity, Photoelectric effect..." etc. etc. I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this.

• Why are you putting sensitive titles that will raise more battle wars?

First, "battle wars"??? Second, what are these "sensitive titles" exactly? The Einstein infobox has a field for "Religious stance". I can't imagine anything more sensitive than that.

• What background information does the artists came from, is none of anybody business to be dealt with.

Again, I have no idea what you mean. Isn't background information pretty damn important, like, to any biographical article? You know, who the person is, where they're from, what they're notable for? The Einstein infobox has tons of background info. This infobox has pertinent background info like which acts the artist is associated with, what instrument they play, etc. I think you may be confused by the meaning of the "background" field. All that actually does is determine the colors of the box.

• For example, if an artist is a son / daughter of parents (that came from Musician family), by placing "Marriage" readers can be guided to technical information (like which member of Jackson family if they wish use to know. (e.g. the Jackson family).

Um...how would telling you who someone is married to tell you who their siblings or parents are? Oh wait, it wouldn't. Does putting that Michael Jackson was married to Lisa Marie Presley tell you anything about his parents or the Jackson 5? No. The Jackson 5 is listed as one of his associated acts.

By the way, your whole comparison falls apart because the Einstein infobox doesn't even have a field for marriage. Why? Because who he was married to has nothing to do with why he's notable (his notability being his scientific career).

Your whole rant about the notable instruments field is more or less incomprehensible. As the template page says, the point of that field is for "Particularly noteworthy models or custom musical instruments with which the artist is strongly associated". For example, Kurt Cobain's Fender Jag-Stang which was created especially for him & which he helped design. It's not saying "these instruments are more important than others", it's saying "these are particularly special/unique instruments beyond the usual which are strongly associated with this specific artist". --IllaZilla (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Look at the article, Albert Einstein. Even though Albert Einstein is an influential person, but the infobox didn't use things like Background information or any scientific related stuff.

On point 2 you are totally wrong. The things the article mention on scientific stuffs are accomplishments, and that is part of the biography. And the following are biographical information (places of birth & death, citizenships, alma mater, etc). They are just technical, alma mater an old name for institutions.

• Evidence Alma mater#As_a_reference_to_an_academic_institution

In case you didn't know the topic we are discussing is "infobox" not biography.

Another point you mention Religious stance is not controversial at all. They are only sensitive to the people who are interested in that topics like theology. What would anyone want to argue about religion, if they believe in religion or they are not contributing Wikipedia. No one will argue things for no reasons, so stop making useless crap. And even if it is sensitive like whether or not the religious have an affect on the person work (aka musician). Wikipedia already has the articles on how to write biographies and Manual of Style...etc policies.

On Background Information The Einstein infobox has tons of background info. This infobox has pertinent background info like which acts the artist is associated with, what instrument they play, etc.

The Background Information is not bad, but it is somewhat off-topic. You are "Categorizing" the info as Background Information. They are not close to definite answers, because background information includes things like Cultures, Parents, raised by who?...etc which are totally irrelevant. Some of these info can be written in article. What I trying to say is, technical information and non-technical should be categorized and they shouldn't be categorize using any methods that are "controversial" or not "definite."

Part 2 on the Quotes

What accomplish of works has the person done, like Albums, Acts...etc are not info about the person. They are portfolios, and many biographical articles already has template for that. Even Paris Hilton, who has for very works has a template for the article.

The last point marriage, I worded a bit incorrectly. What I mean was, readers can guided to "Technical Information" if the readers were interested. If you know about

• Person A + B (suppose they were parents)

or

• Musician family A + B (suppose they son / daughters are married)

and were interested how Person C were affected by the Parents or the family than it would help. e.g. How the doctrine of teaching of each family directed the child choice, the child might choose one music genre over the other.

Or wutever technical information the readers wish to know. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

i've tried to comprehend what user 75.154.186.241 is arguing for/against, but his/her posts here are unintelligible. maybe if he/she would register an account he/she could apply for the WP:Adopt-a-User program, and someone could help him/her formulate something that someone else has a chance of understanding. Sssoul (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I can't make heads or tails of what points this anon is trying to make. 75.154.186.241, please consider registering an account and getting adopted by someone who can help you formulate a more cogent argument. For what it's worth, "technical information" is plain, factual stuff like birth/death dates, instruments played, years active, etc. The kind of information you're talking about, like "how the doctrine of the teaching of the family directed the child's choice of genre", is substantive information that cannot possibly be adequately explained & contextualized in the confines of an infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooooo marriage how exciting!. Finally we will be able to have bubblegum fluff fields like hair colour and shoe size and height... weeeee... lets turn Wikipedia into Tiger Beat. Is my opinion on adding this field obvious yet? The Real Libs-speak politely 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ix-nay on the Arriage-may - Steve3849 ^talk 05:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)