Template talk:Infobox musical artist

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

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]

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]
Done. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:59, 28 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]
 Done Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation for years_active is against MOS

[edit]

|years_active= should be a MOS:DATERANGE of {{start date}}–{{end date}} "or –present" which is contrary to MOS:TOPRESENT and needs addressing. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Bkell. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this also be addressed for Template:Infobox person? (And any other infoboxes with years active fields like the new Template:Infobox social media personality.) It would be good to have consistency across all of them. So many articles use "–present"! Miklogfeather (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this should be discussed on a much larger scale before implementing such a change. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree Miklogfeather, but am drowning in a swamp of despair right now and can hardly raise the energy to type this.
That seems like utter nonsense to me 4TheWynne; it's a change in documentation of usage to fall in line with our manual of style, not a change in the functionality of the template. A wider discussion would have to be about the MoS itself; have fun with that. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a small batch of template docs. Use this to search the template namespace: incategory:"Template documentation pages" insource: /–present/. There's not that many; 81 as of now. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this change and have reverted the ones on my watchlist pending further discussion. The advice at MOS makes no sense, since "Since 2010" and "2010–present" have exactly the same meaning. I did a bit of searching through the history of that MOS page and posted a few thoughts. The advice on that MOS page is not sensical, has changed from its stable form in the last few years, and is subject to objections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox person has an RfC

[edit]

Template:Infobox person has an RfC for possible consensus regarding the removal of color from person infoboxes. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image size and landscape parameter removal

[edit]

Fixed pixel values using |image_size= are discouraged per Module:InfoboxImage with WP:IMAGESIZE as the policy. Images will now be automatically displayed at the same width as the infobox; if they must be resized (ideally they should be cropped) then |upright= can be used with values less than 1 (such as .75) like other image templates. |landscape= was also removed as images scale up the same regardless of ratio. — Dissident93 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't understand why the landscape parameter was removed, it was incredibly useful and convenient, and basically every article that uses it looks worse now with smaller, harder to make out images. I expect it to be reinstated soon as I can't see any good reason to remove it. I'm not sure if I'm getting your point right, but images don't automatically get the same width when using the landscape parameter, they vary based on ratio. Miklogfeather (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I forgot the default size for images changed to be ridiculously big since I used my own user settings to turn them back. I could never find any discussion about that either. Bizarre. Anyway, please add back the landscape parameter for users like me who hate all the portrait images being large and just want the wide ones to take up further width space like they did before. Miklogfeather (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The landscape parameter just forced images (of any ratio) to 320x200 and existed prior to the infoboximage module making them automatically scale. As far as I'm aware, there aren't many examples of this in other infoboxes. — Dissident93 (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are other examples, see Template:Infobox person which has the same parameter. You have messed up the image formatting of about half of musical artist infoboxes in articles, at least for any user who has their images sized below the default. Add it back. Miklogfeather (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The landscape parameter just forced images (of any ratio) to 320x200" No, it didn't??? The width depended on the ratio. The image height was limited to 200, and all image ratios remained completely intact. Landscape formatted images have never appeared squashed or stretched for me (except in the situation the image itself was updated and my browser still had cache saved from the previous version of the image, which has nothing to do with the landscape parameter), if that's what you're suggesting. Miklogfeather (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wtf is this, restore the landscape parameter please. Also stop messing with things that arent broken FMSky (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they dont scale with the infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disturbed_(band) FMSky (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a bad decision. Most band images now look tiny on a browser, whereas with the landscape parameter, they were far more appropriately sized, and as far as I can tell, this parameter caused no issues to anyone; please restore it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a controversial change; I have reset the sandbox to the state prior to this change so that testcases can be compared (added first if needed) for example and discussion. Keep in mind how user settings and other environmental (device, browser/app, skin etc.) differences may affect the results each of us see Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Gandt: Could you revert this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_musical_artist&diff=prev&oldid=1315844316 FMSky (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since responding positively to the edit request to revert this controversial change, my change to the sandbox has become redundant. If side-by-side comparisons in /testcases are desired for continued discussion, the sandbox can be put into a state that replicates Dissident93's version, without causing any disruption to articles. Being a sandbox, anyone can do that, but feel free to ask if unsure. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented this change on several other infoboxes without issue. |landscape= is an archaic thing that was made before images automatically scaled. Are there any other infoboxes that do such a thing? There really is no technical reason for it to exist; if an article is using an image too wide it should be cropped. MOS:IMAGESIZE clearly says "Except with very good reason, fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified" so at the very least, |image_size= should be replaced with |upright=. — Dissident93 (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox person has a landscape parameter, probably the most notable example. See the article Rhett & Link where it's being put to good use. I don't get what you mean by automatic scaling. For me, all images in musical artist infoboxes without upright parameters became the same width, which with my user preferences is 220px, when you removed the landscape parameter. It's clearly not "archaic" since it still affects the way I and other users see images on the site, and the ability to add "landscape = yes" to the code of any infobox with a wide image is incredibly useful and more intuitive than finding out which upright value would look best. You've probably been removing landscape parameters from infoboxes that get less use, which is why no one has noticed or has cared enough to dig deeper and find an edit history or talk page message and give their disapproval.
"if an article is using an image too wide it should be cropped" Except some images can't be cropped without losing information. How would you go about cropping the lead images of Blink-182, Disturbed (band), Therapy?, Audioslave, Cardiacs, Spiritbox, AC/DC, U2, Queen (band), Yes (band), King Crimson, Eagles (band), Brockhampton (band), Linkin Park, Falling in Reverse, BTS, The Beach Boys, N.W.A, Bon Jovi, Slipknot (band), Toto (band), One Direction, Paul McCartney and Wings, No Doubt, Red Hot Chili Peppers, or Guns N' Roses to make them less wide? And that's just a very small selection. Authentic photos of groups are going to be wide, very often. That is an inevitability. Even single musicians can benefit from a bit of width in their images, especially drummers in action. See: Adam Wakeman, Tré Cool, Charlie Cawood, Dave Lombardo, Aphex Twin, Eloy Casagrande, Bill Bruford Miklogfeather (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, I just assumed the infobox would scale it properly but clearly others say it didn't. — Dissident93 (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the focus of the discussion, this is exactly why we have testcases, sandboxes and special protection for high visibility templates – so we don't have to assume anything. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2025

[edit]

This edit should be reverted per the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Image_size_and_landscape_parameter_removal FMSky (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done; the contention is abundantly clear; further discussion is needed. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add signature?

[edit]

Is there a reason that |signature= is not in this template? Keep coming across pages that have {{infobox person}} embeded as a module for the SOLE purpose of using |signature= (example Marshmello). Any objection to adding support for a signature at the bottom? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures are just not as important to illustrate for musical artists as they are for visual artists who consistently sign their work or politicians who sign orders. 90% of the time, I think adding a signature to a musician article is a waste of space which distracts from the actual content of the page. Very rarely would they aid the reader's understanding of the article like the other images in a page. Musicians rarely have a consistent signature either, Google John Lennon's signature or Sia's for how much they fluctuate. Having the parameter invites copyright violations, either through uploading sigs from countries where even simple signatures are subject to copyright, or uploading complex signatures under public domain for being 'simple geometric shapes and text'. And so often are signatures badly converted to a pixely png file, a noisy jpg, or an svg with massive blank space on one or multiple sides that they make the articles look like shoddy fancruft.
I'd be for removing signatures from most person infoboxes too, except those whose notable job involves officially signing things often, which in that case could make their signature actually somewhat noteworthy. Miklogfeather (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]