Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 30 December 2012

Template:Infobox musical artist is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Biography: Musicians Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Notice: Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that fields like "spouse" will not be added to this infobox, as they are not pertinent to a person's career as a musical artist in the vast majority of cases. Before proposing the addition of new fields, please search the archives to see if they have been proposed before, and read the arguments for and against. Please do not propose a new field unless your request addresses an argument that has not already been discussed.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

French Musical Artist Template

I've been scoping out the French Misplaced Pages, and it seems they are a bit more creative than English speakers. Does anyone know how we can match or exceed the standard demonstrated here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/Madonna ie: http://fr.wikipedia.org/Mod%C3%A8le:Infobox_Musique_%28artiste%29 , I must admit, I am also behind the curve which is why I can only point it out at this point in time.

Twillisjr (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a big difference apart from their liking for logos and a slightly more decorative name bar. --Michig (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And the breaking of WP:INFOBOXFLAG. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

years active parameter for bands who have announced that they will disband

Should the years_active parameter be {{start_date}}–2013 for a band that has announced that it will be disbanding after a tour that completes in February, or should it be {{start_date}}–present until they have actually disbanded? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The band in question is Underoath, just for relevance. For transparency, I was the one who reverted Walter Görlitz. I actually don't care one way or the other, I was just trying to be accurate, but if listing a future disbandment in the years active parameter is non-standard, I apologize.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Signatures

I've noticed many articles seem to be inserting signatures into the website parameter as the infobox lacks a signature parameter, such as in this example:

| website = {{url|example.com}}
<br />]<br />Example's signature
}}

This practice is done on a wide array of articles which include the featured articles Elvis Presley, Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson, and the featured article John Lennon contains a file of his signature immediately below the infobox. This is also done on a lot of good articles, including Beyoncé Knowles, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Madonna. I'd like to note that the majority of the articles that do this specify the signature's width to be 100px. This is to give it the appearance of being centered, which it is not, as infoboxes are divided into two fixed-width columns (i.e. Column one: "Birth name", "Born". Column two: "Michael Joseph Jackson", "August 29, 1958") and the signature file is only piggybacking on the website parameter's second column.

I've noticed debates about adding a signature parameter to the infobox have occurred in the past and would have to agree they are purely decorative and do not aid in the immediate identification of a person, which is the purpose of having the artist's image.

To get to the point, signatures should be removed from all instances of this infobox until a parameter supporting signatures is added, if it ever is. Scarce2 (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

They should be removed. I removed them from the four articles. The one for Lennon is outside of the infobox and so it's not an issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove on sight. Not infobox content. Inserting via the method above is weaseling around the lack of a supported parameter for the purpose of pure decoration. Totally superfluous to the purpose of an infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your claims are contradicted by the presence and regular use of signatures in other biographical infoboxes. As with other generic parameters discussed here in the past, we should have one standard for Misplaced Pages, not one for one infobox and another for a different infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why remove them, and not move them outside the infobox, as as already the case for Lennon? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove them because they're not part of the template. If editors on those pages want to move them outside of the infobox, they may. Doing so is not our responsibility. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy, the presence or non-presence of fields in other infoboxes is of no consequence here. This infobox does not support signatures, because they are not relevant to the person's career as a musician. Thus they should not be included. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is a non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to both make sense and follow the discussion. His comment stems from the use of the signature parameter in the person infobox. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've said many times in past discussions, Template:Infobox person has something like 50 fields, many of which do not service a presentation of basic biographical details. As usual, I refer to WP:IBX#Purpose of an infobox: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." If you believe a signature is a "key fact" and "necessary content" for an infobox in a biography of a musician, please explain why. The fact that some other infoboxes have them is irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you might read my above comments as suggesting that (or even addressing whether) I believe a signature is a "key fact" and "necessary content" for an infobox. Perhaps, rather than tilting at windmills, or dismissing the point I did make with a bogus claim of irrelevance and an out-of-context quotation, you might address it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

But he's not tilting at windmills. The infobox is only for key facts about the artists. The only reason someone would suggesting that a new parameter be added would be if it were a key fact about an artist. While the question originally posted was should we allow the URL/website parameter to be used for signatures--which was pretty much a resounding no--I think IllaZilla was responding to your suggestion that their presence seems to imply that some editors think that they should be included, which is also a resounding no. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you said "Your claims are contradicted by the presence and regular use of signatures in other biographical infoboxes." I responded that they probably do not belong in these other infoboxes either, as supported by WP:IBX's advice regarding the purpose of an infobox. You also said "As with other generic parameters discussed here in the past, we should have one standard for Misplaced Pages, not one for one infobox and another for a different infobox." WP:IBX is that standard. Did you have another point in there somewhere that I missed? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is clear consensus that signatures don't belong in this infobox. The unresolved issue seems to be whether an infobox-resident signature should be deleted or moved out to the article. Frankly, a musician's signature (or fingerprint, etc.) doesn't seem very informative or useful to me, so I would be inclined to delete it. If I'm feeling energetic, and if there's an appropriate commons category, I might also add a link that takes readers to the artist's signature (and other related images) there. In any case, I would leave it up to individual editors to decide whether the signature is worthy of preservation. Lambtron (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's something noteworthy to say about the signature, I'd leave it out of the article. Have it in a Commons category, sure, but displaying signatures in articles "just because" doesn't add anything informative and thus doesn't make our articles better. Misplaced Pages isn't an autograph book. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we add a collapsible option?

Like there is in {{Infobox video game}}? Statυs (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world would one ever collapse an infobox, which is top-of-the-article content? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Spouse, partner, and children support

Template:Infobox person and Template:Infobox actor support spouse=, partner= and children=. These are not working for Template:Infobox musical artist. Is that by design? If so, why?

I noticed this as I saw that the infobox for Jessica Simpson included spouse= but the spouse is not showing up in her article. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Because every time another editor points this out and wants to add that parameter to the infobox, a small group of editors stubbornly refuses to allow it. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I looked at the archives and see that it's a regularly requested field:

1. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 1#Spouse field suggestion
2. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 1#Spouse
3. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 3#Other fields
4. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 3#Parameters for dead people
5. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 4#Spouse
6. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 4#Spouse, children fields
7. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 5#Partner or Spouse
8. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 6#Add on
9. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 6#marriage
10. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#template also seemingly fails to accommodate "spouse" label
11. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#More Fields
12. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#More parameters
13. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#Spouse(s)
14. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#All musicians are celibate
15. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#Consistency in Parameters with infoboxs within similar categories
16. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#Comparision with Actor Infobox
17. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#Spouses
18. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#Edit request from Stuffed cat, 22 July 2010
19. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 9#Spouse, partner and children
20. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 9#How do we describe spouses and children of musicians? Includes RFC discussion
21. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 10#Adding a spouse parameter
22. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 10#Spouses

It's been requested 23 times, including today's. My argument in favor of the field is simple - you leave it blank if it's not appropriate for a particular performer. Some people are private about their family lives while others regularly mention or include them. For some people I've see "children" simply listed as a number (three). --Marc Kupper|talk 20:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As I say above in regard to |signature=: "As with other generic parameters discussed here in the past, we should have one standard for Misplaced Pages, not one for one infobox and another for a different infobox." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As stated before, is it relevant to the subject's career? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As in the other infoboxes; often, yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How so? Using the example given, did Jessica Simpson's current spouse have anything to do with her career? Oh. You're saying she had two spouses and the first was more influential to her career than her current spouse both in terms of her musical and celebrity career. then we should have spouse1= and spouse2= shouldn't we? And we should reprogram that to spouseN=. I could go to the actor template and argue the same thing. In short, just because bad information has been added doesn't mean we should add them here. You should read Misplaced Pages:IBX#Purpose of an infobox: "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." So go complain that the other infoboxes have too much information instead of complaining that this infobox is "missing" parameters. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

"You're saying..." You're inventing. And, like your colleague in the signature section above, you're tilting at windmills. where do you see me "complaining that this infobox is 'missing' parameters"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not directed at you specifically Pigsonthewing, but to those who commented originally. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree with adding fields related to friends or family members of the subject. In addition to Walter Görlitz's points above would also cite under 'General Considerations' of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all." The spouses/partners/children of very few musicians are relevant. J04n(talk page) 02:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The MoS is meant to be descriptive, not proscriptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps but it certainly is a good place to start, a VERY small percentage of musical artists have notable family members and very few of those are relevant to the artist's career. J04n(talk page) 16:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree per the numerous arguments I've put forth against this in the past, as well as the numerous arguments against it made by other editors. I'm not going to rehash it all for the umpteenth time, since the old discussions are all linked above. Numerous requests ≠ compelling reason to add. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support sometimes a spose is very important part of a musicians career John Lennon and Yoko Ono being a classic example. There are also many examples of musicial families, e.g. Lennon beget Julian Lennon. Having the data in an infobox would allow external tools like DBpedia to extract family tree data which is almost imposible without it in an info box. In reply to the question multiple spouses {{Infobox person}} allows a single spouse parameter which can have several spouses seperated by <br> see Tippi Hedren. Allowing the parameters is permissive rather than prescriptive the relations can be included when they important and left out otherwise, a sensibly limit would be if the relation has a[REDACTED] article.--Salix (talk): 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Separation by {{plainlist}}, rather than <br />, is preferable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Sometimes", but most often not. This is an argument well-covered in past discussions. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Always, per template documentation. What past discussions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I was responding to Salix. "Sometimes a spouse is a very important part of a musician's career", but most often not. This has been discussed many times in the previous discussions linked. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, while you persist in breaking the HTML markup of these comments by swapping "*" for ":", such lack of clarity is bound to happen. I've fixed them again; please refrain from breaking them further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. A musician is not just a career person but also a famous person who the world is interested in. It does not matter whether a spouse was part of the musician's career; people in general are interested in who the spouse is or was, or in seeing a list of spouses. The encyclopedia caters to the reader's interest in most matters. The spouse parameter meets that interest. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "People are interested in it" ≠ "must be in an infobox". Spouses and other familial relationships are, one assumes, likely of interest to anyone reading a biography of a person, which is why they are (or should be) covered in the body of the article. That doesn't mean they also have to be listed in the infobox. Infoboxes are for "key facts", not every biographical detail. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Dude. There is nothing that "must be in an infobox". Nothing at all. Even the infobox is not required. What the infobox is, is a convenience. It is convenient for the reader to see key facts laid out in the infobox. A spouse (or two or three) is a key fact in a musician's life, and is something we can tell the reader up front as a convenience. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment about past discussions. The following editors have indicated their preferences in the many preceding discussions:

Just thought a sense of scale should be brought to bear on the question. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Walter, I have not seen you put forward a reason to say no except that you don't think it is needed. You have not cited policy, because there is no such policy regarding this question. Clearly it is a matter of personal preference. As such, it is one of the most promising candidates for YESVOTE I can think of. In the past, people who have said 'no' to this proposal have relied upon having multiple voices against it, upon outweighing the opposition. I find it interesting that when the !voting begins to look like a close race you attempt to close that line of leverage... Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I support this 100%! I really don't see what the problem with including it at all. It will be useful for artists such as Jennifer Lopez, who is well known in the media for her relationships.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Lopez is a prime example for why it shouldn't be there at all. It will detract from important information. If celebrity gossip hounds want to read about her failed relationships, they can read the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Are we now seeing the real reason you don't want this parameter to be included? What you consider "important" or "gossip" seem like very personal values. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that this discussion has been cross-listed somewhere and it would be nice to know where that is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What makes you say that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Because people who have never commented here have suddenly taken an interest in this discussion. So rather than be evasive, please state if you've listed this discussion elsewhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It also goes against the canvassing guidelines on Misplaced Pages. The entire discussion is suspect until you come clean on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Let go this ridiculous line of questioning. There is no canvassing; no cross-listing that nobody is telling you about. Even if there was, it would be perfectly legitimate to bring more people here—you act as if only the regulars here are allowed to make a decision. You know, all you had to do was click on "what links here" over to the left and you would find out for yourself any and all cross listings. Now, let's focus on the question at hand rather than throw out red herrings about methodology. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Walter is making a direct accusation against me. I do hope he has evidence to support it, or will retract and strike it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is not my line of questioning. It is legitimate to bring others here, it would be good to know from where they were brought here and what the motives were. No herrings, red or otherwise, and the question can't be answered effectively until we know the motives for modifying this infobox template.

No accusations, just suspicions. Since no one has come forward to explain why all these new editors have come forward to enter this discussion I'm curious how they were introduced to the topic. So therefore I will not retract or strike it, however it does cast a dark light on the motives of the non-regular editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No; you made a direct accusation: "until you come clean on it". Where is your evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you take it that way.
A direct accusation would be, "Pigsonthewing has canvased and refuses to come clean on that fact and I have proof, but I'm allowing him to be a responsible Wikipedian and provide a mia culpa before I paint him negatively and have him banned for inappropriate behaviour." What I stated was a a request for information in light of an evasive response. I hope that clears it up. No accusation. Where is your denial that you did canvas? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Posting that with an edit summary of "META:DICK" is not a retraction, nor the apology I'm due. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If spouses, past and present, are to be added, why not parents and siblings? After all, they might be famous too. As its title implies, "Infobox musical artist" should focus on the musical artist; parents, children, siblings, pets, hobbies, number of homes owned, ad infinitum, are not aspects of the individual artist and are therefore better left to the article. Lambtron (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for lighting the way to the Slippery_slope#Fallacy. Remember to wear your waders and sturdy shoes. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You cannot logically argue for the inclusion of spouses and children and not also include parents, siblings, and other familial relationships, as they are all of a kind. The most common argument in favor of adding "spouse", etc. is that these are included in {{Infobox person}}, but that infobox has something like 50 fields, many of which are superfluous and trivial. Therefore the "slippery slope" argument is hardly fallacious. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You must have missed the ad infinitum part of Lambtron's argument. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I realize you're just being facetious Binksternet, but you seem to have missed the point of my argument. To clarify: Spouses (and parents, children, pets, et al) are not aspects of musical artistry, which is what this template is about. Lambtron (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I simply took the ad infinitum bit for the sarcasm it clearly was. However, I treat the thesis of what Lambtron is arguing against seriously: that the infobox is essentially for every biographical detail that readers might be interested in. Several editors have argued in the past that "the infobox should be the same as Infobox person but with some additional relevant fields". So, we should have somewhere around 60 fields, most of which are unrelated to the fact that the person is a musician (which is why they're notable in the first place)? Blegh. I've argued against this specifically in some of the past discussions. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
          • You seem to be under the misapprehension that only facts relating to the subject's career may go into the infobox. That is not so; it may be used to display any pertinent facts about the subject, including spouses, children and other relatives, when we have articles about them. Your comment about pets is asinine, since no-one is proposing to include them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As asinine as it may seem, I believe that family members (including pets) belong in the article, not the template. Lambtron (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

With "pets" you've returned to the pet argument: the slippery slope fallacy. Nobody here is arguing to put a pets parameter in the infobox. Thanks for retaining your consistency. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that your fixation on slippery slopes is interfering with your understanding of my arguments. If you keep this in mind as you review my arguments, you will see that they have everything to do with topic relevance and nothing to do with slippery slopes. Lambtron (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think that if your argument is correct and consensus is to add it that others will not come along and say that because that's there these other parameters are listed in infoboxY so they should be here just as the spouse(s) parameter is. Let's face it, Britney Spears' children, Victoria Beckham's children, Cher's child and others have quite notable children and they have affected their careers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If they do - and you again offer no evidence for your assertion - why would it be any less possible to deal with the matter for this infobox than it is or all the others that already have these parameters? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I Support adding the spouse field for all of the reasons stated above and by me in previous discussions on this issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support support for spouses in another person-based infobox. I recommend going down slippery slopes one step at a time.  The Steve  10:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Note that |spouse= has just been added to {{Infobox military person}}, because when the subject "is married to, say, a notable author, politician, scientist or singer, about whom we have an article, that should go in the infobox". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable spouse parameter for musicians

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the infobox contain a parameter for spouse, with the instructions telling the user only to fill in the parameter if one or more spouses have a Misplaced Pages biography written about them? (If one spouse is notable then all the spouses should be listed.) Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note: A previous RfC was conducted August 2011 regarding a spouse parameter, without requiring notability. See Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 9#Should Template:Infobox musical artist include a "spouse" field? The discussion ended with no consensus.

Discussion

• Support. This would allow for parity between the infoboxes of, say, Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban, and between James Brolin and Barbra Streisand. In both cases, the actor spouse's infobox lists the musical spouse, but the musician's infobox does not list the actor spouse. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As discussed above. Note that there are also five support comments from other editors (one of whom is Binksternet) in the above discussion, in addition to those documented as having given support previously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the gazillionth time. There is no way this will work. If a parameter is added to the infobox, then editors are going to fill it regardless of whether the spouse is WP:notable or not. This is an all-or-nothing situation. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So you (and Walter) assert; but neither of you has been able to explain why that would be an issue for this infobox, and yet not for the others which us the parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Andy, you and I are simply never going agree on this issue. Continuing to debate it with you would go nowhere, as has been the case many times before. Nearly every argument you bring up is one I have addressed in the past, so I will simply stand on my previous comments. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Please point out for the benefit of others, where your previous comments have addressed why the parameter would cause insurmountable problems for this infobox, yet not in others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I have never said it would. This is a straw man argument. I have remarked numerous times as to why the fact that other infoboxes have this parameter does not mean this infobox needs or would benefit from it. That the problems it causes may not be insurmountable does not mean they wouldn't be insufferably annoying, tedious to deal with, and more trouble than they're worth. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
          • OK. You have been unable to explain why using the parameter in this infobox would cause " be insufferably annoying, tedious to deal with, and more trouble than they're worth", and yet does not for the others which us the parameter. If you think you have, please point out for the benefit of others, where your previous comments have addressed why using the parameter in this would cause " be insurmountable does not mean they wouldn't be insufferably annoying, tedious to deal with, and more trouble than they're worth" when it does not in other infoboxes.
• Oppose, with conditional exception. As the title suggests, "Infobox musical artist" should focus on aspects of the individual musical artist. Family members simply do not fit that category unless they perform as a group, in which case the article is about a group, not an individual performer. Adding spouses or other family members will only serve to enlarge the infobox and impede human readers' ability to quickly access the music-centric summary. Conditional exception: After reading the music-centric summary, some readers may be interested in detailed biographical info such as spouses and children (and other fields found in "Infobox person") and such info would also be useful for DBpedia. I am opposed to having family members appear by default in the infobox, but if there's a way to append "Infobox person" to the bottom of this infobox in such a way that it is initially collapsed, but easily expanded by interested readers, I would support that. Lambtron (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out to you in a section above: You seem to be under the misapprehension that only facts relating to the subject's career may go into the infobox. That is not so; it may be used to display any pertinent facts about the subject, including spouses, children and other relatives, when we have articles about them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This discussion is the first time I've heard of DBpedia, and having briefly looked it up my opinion is: It's not part of Misplaced Pages, nor is it even one of the Wikimedia projects, so it really isn't our concern. It's nice that some aspects of our infoboxes make whatever DBpedia does a little easier for DBpedia to do, but our concern here is Misplaced Pages, not data-gathering widgets run by other websites. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What we make available to DBpedia we make available to anyone who wants to programmatically reuse our data; this will also soon be true for Wikidata - which is a Wikimedia project. DBpedia has been discussed previously on this page; twice this year, now each in /Archive 10. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Rationale given above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: To reiterate my previous comments...Editors are arguing that some musicians have notable family members and listing them in the infobox is useful. Obviously, it is true that some do have notable spouses/parents/siblings/offspring but they are a very small minority. Under 'General Considerations' of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes it states "Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all." The spouses/partners/children of very few musicians are relevant. Infoxes for different vocations by their nature will contain different parameters, Infobox boxer has parameters for height and reach, and rightfully so, but this information isn't relevant for most other boxes. J04n(talk page) 21:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support the field. If the musician has a spouse, then it should be listed in the infobox, regardless of the notability of the spouse. — ΛΧΣ 21:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support adding the spouse parameter. There is clearly a demand for it by editors as shown by the many requests for it over the years. It will also be of benefit to the readers to have this information in the infobox where they are accustomed to finding it in other infoboxes which contain the spouse parameter. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Template-Class biography pages
• Template-Class biography (musicians) pages
• NA-importance biography (musicians) pages
• Musicians work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment