Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Children field

Could a children field be added please? Spectritus (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

This request has been asked and rejected a dozens of times over the years. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I wonder could you link to the latest request so we can see the reasons? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, maybe slight hyperbole, but at least 13. My point was more that a new consensus is needed before a parameter can be added. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll need to sift through those, as it looks like some the "child"s in that list have nothing to do with a children parameter in the infobox. Has there been a recent RfC on this? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I forgot about "children". 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, going back 10 years. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Any RfCs there? Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC) p.s. the last one there is about spouses? I commented, back in 2015, in number 5.

Why? There's a spouse field so why not a children one? Other infoboxes (e.g. Infobox person) have one. Spectritus (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Without repeating my entire comment in link [2] above, it has a tendency to be abused, and a lot of infoboxes that aren't ib person are moving away from it. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If this is about privacy/not having non-notable people it doesn't really make sense to have the spouse field either then since a lot of spouses are non-notable as well.★Trekker (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Bit of that (we shouldn't be including someone's kids' names), but also a bit of having the "useless trivia" bit with e.g. |children=2. Personally speaking I think the best option is a |relatives= para, which makes it more obvious that it should be notable relatives. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair point. Spectritus (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting adding "someone's kids' names". I was suggesting that notable musicians often have adult children who are also notable musicians. I'm not sure on the relative proportion of musicians who have more notable relatives than they have notable children, but I wouldn't have thought it was very large. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

And yet, that is what people tend to use it for; I have removed the parameter from at least two templates where that was the concern raised. Primefac (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think misuse is a good reason to remove it. There will always be misuse of anything.★Trekker (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Loads of people have their spouse listed in their infobox. I doubt that will change. Spectritus (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Well aware, that's why I think it's nonsensical to exclude children.★Trekker (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Add Bandcamp section

Add a section to link an artist's bandcamp using the Bandcamp template

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

XlosVSM (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata

Could the template use some of the code used in similar template to "fill in the blanks" from wikidata?

Things like their homepage shouldn't need to be hardcoded (for example) and would maintain consistency across wiki's when they make a change

Back ache (talk) Back ache (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Current member parameter description

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

We should have a personal_name param as well

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)

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)

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)

Adding four additional name parameters would be wildly excessive. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Why? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes. Thank you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)