Template talk:Infobox musical artist

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Current member parameter description

[edit]

I would like to propose an amendment to the guideline description for the current_members = parameter. As it currently stands, the guideline recommends listing members either in the order of their joining or in alphabetical order. But, in practice, many Wikipedia articles on musical groups—particularly those with recent prominence, such as Blackpink, BTS, and Twice—list members according to age. Given that age-based arrangement has become a common and widely observed format across multiple Wikipedia musical articles, I suggest that the guideline be updated to recognize chronological age order as an acceptable method of listing current members. - Arcrev1 (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from K-pop groups, recently popular Filipino pop groups like Bini and SB19 also list their members by age—not just in the infobox but also in the members section. I also noticed that most group articles don’t use alphabetical order. - Arcrev1 (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that these lists don't say that they're doing it in age order, so it just looks random. I looked at Bini and even in the article section itself it's just a list of names. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: To my knowledge, the writers of the Wikipedia articles for BINI and SB19 adopted the member listing style from K-pop musical group Wikipedia articles. SB19 began to rise in popularity in 2020, while BINI followed in 2024. Although BINI member Gwen does not have her own Wikipedia article, if you closely examine the articles of the other BINI members, you will notice that the listing is arranged in order of age. - Arcrev1 (talk)
Even if it's not explicitly stated, it's still obvious that they’re following the practice of ordering by age. Apparently, this is a common practice for South Korean groups, Itzy, for example, is also arranged by age. - Arcrev1 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's still obvious that they’re following the practice of ordering by age except... it's not. Nowhere does it state their ages or why they are in the listed order. I should not have to be a kpop fan to know why a page is ordered the way it is ordered. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: If you look at the article for BTS, the current members are listed from Jin (1992), Suga (1993), J-Hope (1994), RM (1994), Jimin (1995), V (1995), to Jungkook (1997). In Blackpink, it goes from Jisoo (1995), Jennie (1996), Rosé (1997), to Lisa (1997). It’s the same with Twice: Nayeon (1995), Jeongyeon (1996), Momo (1996), Sana (1996), Jihyo (1997), Mina (1997), Dahyun (1998), Chaeyoung (1999), and Tzuyu (1999). Birth years come from their own respective articles. Itzy, as I mentioned, follows the same pattern, and now I’ve seen that Red Velvet does as well. Although I’m only pointing this out as a concern. I’m not a fan. - Arcrev1 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I was referring to BINI, not the genre as a whole; I am not surprised other pages actually indicate the order with dates. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Ah, okay. I only pointed it out to show that the members are indeed arranged by age. It’s the same with BINI actually, from Aiah to Sheena, the order follows their age. SB19 is also arranged that way. Most recently established Filipino groups likely follow the same practice in listing their members. Bini's and Sb19's members' Wikipedia articles are all out, except for Gwen's, which was deleted through AfD. Although, if this isn't a big deal to you, I’m fine if you choose to disregard my request. My only concern is that it might lead to an edit conflict, especially since the parameter is being used in a way that's not explicitly stated in the guideline. Based on the reply below, and I’m quite certain this is the real reason, this kind of ordering might be based on tradition, nationalities and culture, which could have served as a basis for allowing the use of age as ome of the acceptable ordering method. - Arcrev1 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not against this idea, but have some questions. Should this be enforced for specific nationalities? Is it for a cultural reason? And when is it preferable over alphabetical listing? When stage names are involved? Also, this listing would not be possible for any members whose ages aren't public. And it should probably only be done when the majority of sources listing the members of the group use the same ordering by age. Miklogfeather (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miklogfeather:I can’t answer most of your questions, as I also don’t know why some Wikipedia articles for South Korean musical groups use a different member listing order. Generally, there are only two standard ways a group is formed, as outlined in the guideline description, either asynchronous, for example through a competition (such as One Direction, whose members were assembled individually rather than concurrently) or as a group formed all at once, which is also common among bands. South Korean musical groups follow similar formation processes, yet their articles often use a different listing format. What references or standards are those editors following that justify deviating from the infobox documentation? If we don’t incorporate my proposed update to the guideline description, it creates the impression that the editors of the groups I mentioned are following a separate guideline of their own, which goes against the uniformity intended by the infobox documentation. - Arcrev1 (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the only one who can truly answer your question is the one who originally implemented that kind of listing order. I'm only giving a suggestion, but if it ever gets approved, does a Wikipedia article really need to follow a specific order list format? Can’t it be based on the editor’s preference? Like for example in the years_active parameter — it can be written with commas or in a horizontal list format, depending on the editor. - Arcrev1 (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a personal_name param as well

[edit]

An artist may be known as "Fred", using the personal name "Barbara Walters" (plucked from the aether), named at birth "Rumple Aardvark" (also plucked from the aether but I hope someone on Earth is enjoying that name). We currently have |name= and |birth_name=, but need |personal_name=. See how we have {{R from birth name}} and {{R from personal name}}. We also have {{R from alternative name}} and might also consider adding |alternative_name=. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have |alias=, which displays as "also known as" and would cover any other name someone might use. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not semantically nice though, and if it were, there'd be no need of |birth_name=. I noted prior discussions about the use of |legal_name=; there's no good reason to not include that too, perhaps with variations of previous names also. |alias= explicitly excludes nicknames, so we could do with |nicknames=... Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding four additional name parameters would be wildly excessive. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template is meant to be limited to key facts and to exclude unnecessary content - adding multiple additional name parameters increases bloat and makes the template less effective. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing the article facts of a notable person or group, without properly accounting for their names as a priority seems frankly insane. By what names artists are known is often a massively important factor in their careers and personal lives, just as names are to non-notable folks. The importance of this is highlighted by the standard expected structure of the lead sentence, stating all notable names, in bold no less. Consider also that just because the options may come to exist, they needn't all be in use in all cases. Having semantically suitable options should not be rejected purely because there'd be more of them. Due weight should dictate that as many semantically accurate name params as are needed should exist. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like what would be more valuable is a |former_name= parameter for names that are no longer in use like the artist Mos Def (now Yasiin Bey) or the group S Club 7 (now S Club). This could be implemented like in the infobox for Twitter and other websites/companies, and the field would make it clear that the name is no longer in use. Miklogfeather (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with "more", I agree it would be valuable; to not derail this discussion, we can either add it to the list or start a new discussion for that specific option. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Related It's a big problem on Wikipedia overall (on many languages) that many articles use the "birth name" parameter as if it was a "full name" parameter. For example "William John Paul Gallagher" is not Liam Gallagher's "birth name", it's his full name, he was born "William John Gallagher", and Paul added upon his confirmation.★Trekker (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reference for that you can cite? If so, change it! William John Paul Gallagher can go in other names. Miklogfeather (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see StarTrekker has changed this info, without providing references, on Wikidata. The Express has decided that "John" and "Paul" are a homage to the Beatles, because they are a quality newspaper *cough*.
|full_name= is still going on the list. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in Liam and Noel's older brother's book, sadly I don't have it so I can't recal the page number.★Trekker (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to track down a copy, or another source citing it in this regard. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking around if I can find it online, otherwise I'll have to track down a physical copy.★Trekker (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the Internet Archive: Brothers from childhood to Oasis : the real story Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But as you said in your edit summary, we should return now to the topic at hand. Personally I think this might be a larger issue that needs to be taken up in general with Wikipedia on an even broader forum. It's an issue that impacts Wikidata as well, there are probably hundreds of thousands of items for persons which wrongly use "full name" for "birth name" (often imported from Russian Wikipedia I've noticed).★Trekker (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than "more options is too many options" as an argument against adding more and semantically applicable options, it seems there is little interest in this suggestion/proposal/issue. Without a more reasoned opposition, I will go ahead with the work when I have time and feel like it. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What will you be calling this parameter? "personal_name" or "full_name", personally I favor the later.★Trekker (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, those to add will be alt[ernative]_name, former_name, full_name, legal_name, nickname and personal_name, all taking a list if necessary. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though, with |alias= being labelled as "Also known as", rather than the semantically useful "Alias", alt[ernative]_name might have to take one for the team (re-labelling |alias= is not something I'd even consider doing without a suitably wide discussion ending in favour) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without more reasoned support, moving forward with this suggestion would be inappropriate at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding |given_name= to the list. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I question what that would be good for really.★Trekker (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are required to write articles from sources (WP:SUMMARY) and sources may use terms like "given name", "birth name", "personal name", "legal name" etc.; we need to be able to select the most semantically applicable option for display of those details in the infobox – details which are discussed without arbitrary limitation in free prose in the article content (MOS:INFOBOXUSE). As things stand, we can accurately summarize sources in article content, but cannot accurately summarize the article content in the infobox – which gets a lot of attention. The purpose of templating is to standardize content, and providing an option to use whatever param description the editor feels is appropriate would lead to inconsistency, so we need a selection of reasonable, semantically useful options so the infobox can properly reflect the article content – as it is supposed to. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just poking the section to keep it awake. I'll be back 😎 Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 18 August 2025

[edit]

Request to reflect in the template page that the "discography" parameter is now deprecated in favor of "works". I'd suggest doing this by including this field in the "Parameters" section, which currently doesn't show either field. If you do, you may want to consider also modifying the "Usage" and "Examples" sections as a result, but I'm not 100% sure if that would be necessary. Thanks, Fundgy (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're referring only to editing work on the template documentation; that's only semi-protected so you're free to make whatever changes you deem fit. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An "awards" parameter, like in Infobox person?

[edit]

Hi! I think having an awards parameter in the infobox for a musical artist may be useful since musical artists, whether individuals or groups, receive awards. I think this parameter is useful, especially if some musical artists have their own list article for their awards, and can be easily linked in the main article. I hope this suggestion comes to fruition. Thanks! Relayed (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. Anything that might get its own section in an article should probably have space for summary in the associated infobox. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Fred. Yeah, I agree with that as well. In connection with this, I have also made a formal edit request below, which I hope can be viewed by a template editor. Relayed (talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a template editor, and as you can see just a couple of sections up, will not rush to make this kind of change without first at least trying to have a sensible conversation about it. While another editor might just go ahead with your requested edit, and while I personally support it, I won't go ahead with (sandboxing, testing, then maybe) the change before other possibly interested parties have had time to get involved. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry, and apologies for the hasty action. But I find that point a sensible move to make. Regardless, I hope this thread gains traction. Relayed (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 21 September 2025 Addition of awards parameter in the infobox

[edit]

Description of suggested change: As per discussion above, for me, having an awards parameter in the music artist infobox is useful (similar to the one we have with {{Infobox person}}), since musical artists, whether individuals or groups, receive awards. This will be useful in linking the awards list article of a musical artist (e.g., List of awards and nominations received by SB19) right in the infobox of the main article of the subject (e.g., SB19). A testcase can be seen at Template:Infobox_musical_artist/testcases#Awards_parameter.

Diff:

−
| label20 = <span class="nowrap">Partner{{Pluralize from text|{{{partner|}}}|likely=(s)|plural=s}}</span> | data20 = {{{partner|}}} | header21 = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed|}}}}}|yes||<nowiki />}} | label22 = Members | data22 = {{{current_members|}}} | header23 = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed|}}}}}|yes||<nowiki />}} | label24 = {{Nowrap|Past members}} | data24 = {{{past_members|}}} | header30 = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed|}}}}}|yes||<nowiki />}}
+
| label20 = <span class="nowrap">Partner{{Pluralize from text|{{{partner|}}}|likely=(s)|plural=s}}</span> | data20 = {{{partner|}}} | label21 = Awards | data21 = {{{awards|}}} | header22 = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed|}}}}}|yes||<nowiki />}} | label23 = Members | data23 = {{{current_members|}}} | header24 = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed|}}}}}|yes||<nowiki />}} | label25 = {{Nowrap|Past members}} | data25 = {{{past_members|}}} | header30 = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed|}}}}}|yes||<nowiki />}}

Relayed (talk • contribs) 10:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template.
Let's see how or if possibly interested parties respond to the proposal before leaping to the finish line. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]