Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Logos

For bands, is using a band logo instead of traditional text in the name field a bad idea? I personally think it looks cool, but whenever I add a logo, they are always changed back to text by another user. They claim it is against Wikipedia standards, but I have seen no evidence of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liscobeck (talk • contribs) 23:19, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Huh, I see logos used a lot as a way to "show how the band writes their name" when it is unconventional (wierd symbols, lowercase, etc). I'm not sure if there is an official policy, and I do not know much about uploading pictures, but logos seem to be ok to upload. Denaar 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Logos are allowed (as long as the logo images have good FURs). Many (metal) bands have name logos that can be used in the name field. Some bands however, use all types of fonts/colors/designs to write their name and have no design that is consistently used throughout their careers (like f.e. The Smashing Pumpkins or System of a Down). In those cases I think it's better not to have a random chosen logo as name. The image should be used for visual identification of the band not for decoration Emmaneul (Talk) 09:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for the claim that logos are allowed? My impression of past discussions was that there was no consensus either way. --PEJL 09:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The widespread use of Fair Use band/organization/product/series/etc. logo's made me think there is a consensus on this. There are even FAs featuring logos. And as far as I know logos are allowed for identification (as stated in WP:NFC/WP:LOGO). Emmaneul (Talk) 11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've brought up these points before:
  • How do you decide if a design counts as a proper "logo" representing the band? Must it simply be used on a majority of album covers? How much of a majority? Must it be trademarked?
  • What about when editors create a facsimile of a trademarked logo using a graphics program and upload that under a free license? If it were very hard to distinguish from the logo, does that infringe on the trademark?
  • This practice has spread into other kinds of articles, such as those about albums, songs, and even non-musical subjects. It promotes such usage as widely accepted.
  • I still object to replacing the text in the "name" field with an image; no articles about other kinds of organizations or corporations do this. A while ago there was a suggestion to provide a new field for taking these images, but nothing was ever done. –Unint 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Emmaneul, I was referring specifically to using logos in musical artist infoboxes, not in Wikipedia articles in general. --PEJL 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's allowed as long as it's not violating any policy or guideline. Band logos aren't forbidden, so we need a place to put them. I think the infobox is fine until there is a better solution (if there is one). Emmaneul (Talk) 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Unint, I don't think the first three points are a real problem:
  • point 1: Common sense and consensus decide. Like any other content. In the majority of the cases it's clear.
  • point 2: Recreated copyright content, even made from scratch, is still copyright content (with the same copyright owner). It can't be tagged as free content.
  • point 3: I think it's just like album/book/game/movie covers, band logos can only be used in the article about the band, because it's copyright content (but I've never seen anyone claim this, however, to me it makes sense)
  • point 4: A new field or other solution might be good. This works fine in the meanwhile. Emmaneul (Talk) 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough re: allowed. My point was that there is no consensus that including them in this infobox is appropriate, but since this is just a guideline, it is of course technically allowed. --PEJL 03:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion (found in Archive 1 under "ensuring clean supercession from replaced templates"). Personally, I find the practice somewhat tacky, but not unreasonable if it actually is a logo and not just the band's name in some typeface that happens to have been used on one of their albums. I think it may be encouraging fannishness and associated violations of WP:NPOV, but probably not to any great extent (those would be major problems even if we did try to forbid this). Bottom line: it's not forbidden, so it's therefore allowed, but please keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not supposed to "look cool", and if that is your motive for adding the logo, it is a poor one. Wikipedia articles should be factual, verifiable and reflect a neutral point of view. Looking cool is...checking...yup, nowhere on the list of policies or guidelines. And since the logos are not required, deleting them is also allowed. Therefore, disputes about whether they belong on a particular article need to be resolved through the usual procedures: "two men enter, one man leaves". :) Xtifr tälk 09:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note also the fork here. --PEJL 09:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had an interesting discussion with Papa November here. Briefly, there is a suggestion to add a parameter to the infobox for logos and keep the "Name" field as text. I can see the arguments for doing this, but I thought it should be discussed here. Any comments? --John (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this discussion based on one that I started at Wikiproject Musicians (here). My feeling is that logos of bands may be appropriate in articles and in most cases are probably allowed, but that the name field of the infobox is not the place for them. Here are my main points:

  • The purpose of an image in the infobox is to provide quick visual identification of the subject. In the case of a corporation etc. this is done with a logo, as a corporation is a non-corporeal entity and no single image of their products would adequately convey the full scope of the company. A band or recording artist, however, is a corporeal entity and therefore a photograph provides identification, not a logo, and that photo goes in the image field of the box.
  • The purpose of most logos in musician infoboxes seems to be primarily decorative, not informative. In most cases where this occurs there is already a picture of the artist in the image field. That makes the addition of a logo image in the name field unnecessary for identification, hence it fails fair use criteria in that case.
  • If a band/artist does have a logo and it is noteworthy enough to be included in an article, then it should be in the body of the article, in its own image box, next to a discussion of its significance. I can think of several examples where this would be appropriate, such as Black Flag and Bad Religion. Unfortunately neither of these articles yet contains such a discussion.
  • Precedent does not necessarily dictate appropriateness. If it did, we'd still have cover images in discographies. 90% of musician articles I have seen that use logos in the name field of the inbox are not even using a logo, they are simply using an image of the band's/artist's name taken off one of their albums. This is not a logo, it is simply stylized lettering or in some cases a font (ie. this and this are logos, while this is not).

Right now there are examples of FAs with both styles (see Slayer and The Smashing Pumpkins), so there doesn't seem to be a consensus or any kind of consistency that we can point to. My feeling, in summary, is that the name field of the infobox should have the artist's name in plain text, and the image field should have a free image (photo) of the artist. If the artist has a logo which is noteworthy, it should be in its own image box within the article body, not in the infobox, and there should be a discussion of its significance. Otherwise it fails fair use criteria. I'd like to add something to this effect to the infobox guidelines if there is consensus. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I appove. As I've stated in the discussion IllaZilla links to, I believe that using plain-text instead of copyrighted logos is in line with the goal of making wikipedia as free as possible. Zytsef (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I also approve of this suggestion. In addition, it is very bad practice for accessibility to have an infobox without a text header - screen readers won't be able to read it, people with images turned off (e.g. someone using a slow connection in the developing world) won't either. We have to remember that Wikipedia is for everyone to use! Papa November (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Since there seems to be some general agreement, I suggest amending the "name" field of the template to read like this:

| Name <!-- In plain text only --> =

And the template page to read (bold indicates new text):

Name The name of the group or artist ("the act") in plain text. This field is mandatory.

could it be even more direct and say:
The name of the group or artist ("the act") in plain text.(no logos) This field is mandatory.
Most editors don't seem to follow examples/instrustions well unless they're beat over the head with them. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


I think the logo, if an article needs one,1 should be immediately visible. A logo is for visual identification, not to make an article look pretty,2 so the best location is somewhere at the top of the page. I think the neatest solution is to have them in the infobox, but I agree, for accessibility reasons the name should be displayed in text.

We could have the following in the infobox:
Example 1
Name = Nile<br />[[Image:Nile logo2.png|90px]]

Or add a special logo field:

Example 2
Name = Nile
Logo = [[Image:Nile logo2.png|90px]] 		Example 3
Name = Nile
Logo = Nile logo2.png
Logo_size = 90


1 Only if a band has used a logo that is closely related to the band (many metal bands have one, from Megadeth to Nile), not just a band name in a random stylized font (like Smashing Pumpkins, Fall Out Boy).
2 Comparing logo use of a band to that of a company is not correct. Recording artists are generally known for their products: their music, not for their looks. It's bias to think a band photo is better for visual identification than a logo. A logo (notable enough to be in the infobox) is used on cover art, websites, flyers, etc. If a band is on TV/in magazines a lot, a band photo can be of help identifying a band, but, for many less popular acts the logo may be better for visual indentification. Kameejl (Talk) 10:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a a fair point, but I don't believe the primary purpose of an image in the infobox is identification is as much education/illustration. Seeing what a band looks like is important to understanding their nature, such that the inclusion of at least one non-free image in an article is considered fair use, failing a free alternative. If a band has consistently identified with one logo, that is notable, or if a logo has become particularly notable of itself, that is notable. Both would merit discussion & inclusion elsewhere in the article. One identifies the band by the name and the introductory info, which should mention any possible ambiguity.
Having reversed Illzilla logo excisions in the last day, I now concur with the consensus. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that a bands name (in plain text) provides the best visual identification. But really, whether a logo or an image of the band provides the best visual identification is beside the point, I feel. Images of a band are often included in articles because freely licensed photos are pretty easy to come by (for bands that are still around). I would agree that it's not correct to compare a band's use of a logo to that of a company, which is precisely why band logos should rarely be used on Wikipedia; whereas it's usually ok to include a company's logo. Zytsef (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we already subject artist and band names to the same formatting standards as trademarks (per WP:MUSTARD linking to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)), its certainly no stretch to apply similar standards in regard to the use of graphical logos. I concur with Kameejl, that notable (read: recurring) logos should appear in the infobox and to ensure that its still headed by a plain text representation of the name, the template should probably be expanded along the lines of Template:Infobox Company to include a logo field. If this logo is immediately followed by a free photograph of the subject, all the better - it would not be the first two-image infobox used by WikiProject Music (see Template:Extra album cover 2) and the average musical artist infobox would still remain a lot shorter than those for some, say, films or companies. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've thought long and hard about this and I now believe that the seeming consensus here is correct. We can dicker back and forth about when is a logo a logo and whether they are being used for identification or not. Certainly some are more notable than others. The trouble is twofold, as I see it. Like with flags, what tends to happen is that if we endorse one or two uses of logos, it becomes a precedent that results in every single band having a logo instead of a text entry at this position in the infobox. This seriously contradicts WP:ACCESS. Having both the logo and the name only results in the infobox looking cluttered.
The clincher for me though, is that these images are unquestionably nonfree, and we can unquestionably do without them. Therefore we should. Our mission is to produce a free encyclopedia and this use of logos does not contribute to our mission. The few valid exceptions where the logo is notable should display the logo in the article along with referenced commentary showing why the logo is notable. Other than that, they should be removed, in my opinion. --John (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Two remarks. One, the conclusion that "if we endorse one or two uses of logos, it becomes a precedent that results in every single band having a logo" looks rather far fetched to me. Lots of bands or musicians don't even have logos. Besides, arguments along the lines of "suppose everybody did that" are not the strongest in my humble opinion. Two, "these images are unquestionably nonfree" is unquestionably not always the case. Take anarcho punks Crass for example. Their logos and typeface are (on purpose) not copyrighted or trademarked, and people are free to use them. I'm sure there are more examples. Maybe it's just me, but I find this whole band logo discussion a storm in a tea cup. With all due respect, obviously. Rien Post (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Admin John's comments as far as Wiki's "keep it free" philosophy goes. The argument has always been "free-use wins out over fair-use". And there is nothing more "free-use" than plain text. I do see a very valid use for some band logos. In some cases, example Iron Maiden, a band member has a name picked and a logo designed before they even have a full fledged band. In any similar situation it ends up being a small piece of the band's early history and, if referenced properly can be added into the body of the main article... including the fair-use logo along with it. For the infobox, in many cases, the images uploaded are very poor quality and, because of artistic style, are almost unreadable. If the infobox is supposed to convey the name of the band its pretty hard to do that when the bands logo is written in sloppy splattered blood :D . Also some editors, in their press to get a logo in the box have placed a stylised text in the name field for bands who have never had an official logo in their entire career. And in the absence of a logo users have uploaded a font style used by a band on one, or perhaps two of their albums. Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath are two examples of bands with no official logos and yet they have had "logo-like" images added to their article infoboxes. It makes Wikipedia look like its displaying false information.and we KNOW there is nothing false on Wiki :D Keep it clean and neat. And word the template guidelines so that no one screws it up in the future. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A 'Logo' field

Alright, so we don't like the logo in the Name field. I think we then should consider a separate field for it (as mentioned above). Simply because the logo is in some cases a far better method for 'visual identification' than a generic concert photo. (Really, try identifying this decade's indie rock bands by their photo, or 60's rock'n'roll bands...) If a logo is notable enough to be in the article, there's no reason not to include it in the infobox. -- Pepve (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that, as I see it, is that if a logo is notable then it needs some kind of commentary/discussion to accompany it, stating why it is notable and maybe something about its creation, who designed it, what it symbolizes, etc. You can't put that much detail in the infobox. It really belongs in the body of the article. Really, the only reason most editors put "logos" in infoboxes is for decoration, not identification. The name (in the name field) plus a photo (in the image field) identifies the group: the photo tells you it's a band, and the name tells you what band. If we add a "logo" field to the infobox we're just going to have the usual problem where hundreds of acts that don't actually have logos at all are going to have decorative "logos" put in by editors purely to make the article "look cool" (you know, pulling the stylization of the band's name off one of their albums and incorrectly calling it a logo). This would lead to even more images in violation of fair use than we have now. Remember, the purpose of the infobox is for information, not decoration or necessarily even identification. That's why we only encourage the use of free images in the infobox and usually don't allow non-free ones (I'm speaking of course only about musician articles, other types of articles have different policies). --IllaZilla (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, 1) most fields in the infobox need commentary and discussion. That's why the infobox is a quick overview of the subject, and not the article itself. 2) Fanboys wanting to decorate their band's article are a problem with or without this. It is just as easy to put non-logos in the body as to put them in the infobox. 3) Please note that I support strict rules against decoration, an encyclopedia doesn't need that. An encyclopedia needs information, and if we use infoboxes to summarize that, a notable logo belongs in it. -- Pepve (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the idea of a logo in the infobox, either. I just don't think it will look good. If you can come up with an example that shows a logo and the band name in the same infobox it would be easier to comment on. Meanwhile, I'm ok with a notable logo appearing next to the prose that actually explains its notability. Zytsef (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
@Pepve: 1) True, but since a logo is copyrighted it should only appear once in the article. And since the commentary about the logo should ideally be too much to cram into the infobox, both the image and the commentary should go in the article body. 2) Also true, but I think if you browse a lot of articles you'll find that the 90% of the non-logos being used are currently in infoboxes, hence the need for this discussion in the first place. I just think putting a "logo" field in the infobox will exascerbate the problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: I'd also prefer not to have a logo in the infobox because the natural reaction to seeing a list of empty fields in a template is to try to fill them all in. As has been said previously, if a band doesn't have a proper logo, then someone will be encouraged to just copy some stylized text from an album cover. I think it would also make the infobox look cluttered - it's big enough already. I'd prefer to see iconic logos moved to their own section in an article, with extensive commentary. If they really are important images connected to the band, then they deserve to be talked about, not just stuck in the infobox! Also, I disagree that they should sometimes be used to identify a band in preference to a photo. This would be a fair use violation, as free photos exist of most bands while free logos do not. Papa November (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
i believe that the logo should appear somewhere in the infobox and for users to start going around removing logos from music articles is unfair, only a few users have been in this discussion and i don't see why the decision should be a few users alone to remove all the logos that people have worked on making appropriate for use in the music articles, alot of people still have no problem with logos in the name field? I'm sure some wonderful reason will now be brought up for why its okay, or something, but it seems like people are just creating problems with music articles where there don't need to be? (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC))
Allright, who died and gave User: 156.34.208.112 the right to massively remove logos from articles, citing this "consensus"? Óðinn (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give this up if you all take a course in concise reasoning. ;-) -- Pepve (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all browsers "read" these 'logos' well, Intenet Explorer frequently leaves white space around the area, this would not be the case if used in a normal 'picture box' with text underneath and supporting the inclusion. I would prefer the infobox guide to state that inlcusion should be alongside supportive text, as one might expect encyclopedia entries to illustrate and inform. Óðinn - 156.34 is acting on the clear consensus that, irrespective of inclusion elsewhere in the article (inlcusing appearing in the infobox), logos should not be displayed in the name field.--Alf melmac 11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against said consensus. I do have a problem, though, with IPs with no history of contributing something, getting all excited and deleting things other people spend quite a bit of time creating. What, is this a matter of life and death to remove it all ASAP? Modify the template first, and then move the logos from namespace. Óðinn (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What's happening now, is that pretty much as soon as a logo is not used somewhere, it gets listed for deletion by a bot. I don't think it's to difficult to understand my frustration with the prospect of uploading all those images again when finally it is decided where the logos should appear. Óðinn (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

← Please assume good faith. Remember that IP addresses may be dynamically assigned. The user could have a long history of contributions, and I'm sure their intentions are honourable. I agree that it would be a shame to lose all the logo images, so a better approach for the moment would be to move them to a separate thumbnail, rather than to remove them altogether. Papa November (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not assuming bad faith, actually. He's expressing his opinion that said edits are not a good thing. -- Pepve (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow Logos back

Many discussions have broken out in many bands talk pages with a lot of unhappy users, many users do not know of this discussion, however the general theme appears to be where the hell have the logos gone? to be honest something needs to be done because the logos are just going to be deleted, which is unfair as people do put effort into editing and uploading logos, and they have been in articles for a long time so why should they no longer be just because a few users feel it doesn't look aesthetically correct? This just seems like a giant waste of time, either create a logo field or just put them back, it not like you cannot determine who the band are with a logo being there instead of writing? It clearly says it to the left of the page in huge writing, also logos are generally used by the band on there album artwork, websites and other promotional items, all the logo is, is a identity for the band and by being added to wiki pages all they are having is free promotion, i know of NO bands ever getting in contact with any users or admins to have there logo removed from wikipedia which to be honest if i band was unhappy with there logo appearing on here they would do! (86.159.81.139 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

I assume the complaints on this page are just a tip of the iceberg, these massive deletions are what drives people away from Wikipedia. I urge all editors not to engage in such removal-sprees, it is counter productive. These changes should be done gently and considerate, and open for discussion. Remember that there is no cabal, nothing should look like a cabal, and no-one should feel like they're in a cabal. -- Pepve (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, no doubt many users will just continue reverting back to have logos in the article, I have uploaded many logos and i just got my first orphaned image message, i think i will have at least 30 by the end of the week, this will just drive people away from wiki, people don't want to waste time working on things, just for them to be deleted, its a waste of time. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC))
A program of notifications on the talk pages of 1) images 2) uploaders 3) articles could be instituted, similar to what the betacommand bot currently does non-fur, giving, say, 14 days to move logos into the body with appropiate commentary. After that removal could proceed. ?? Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, but a little complicated. Isn't it even easier to just manually move the logo to some place in the body. Where it can wait for an article builder to come by and write about it. And also some damage control should be done for the logos that were already removed. -- Pepve (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The orphaned image notice that automatically gets placed on the image is a notification. It gives someone a week to use the image in an article before it gets deleted, which is plenty of time to check the article to see why it was removed and then, if appropriate, put it in the article body with some kind of discussion of its significance. IMO this is a smaller-scale version of what we went through with album covers in discographies. A lot of editors will get upset because "their" images are being tagged and maybe deleted, but if they weren't serving some kind of informational/educational value and were strictly decorative, then they didn't belong on Wikipedia in the first place. Hopefully this will discourage the number of editors whose primary activity is making articles "look cool" by dressing them up with non-free images, and get them to actually work on adding meaningful content to the encyclopedia.
Also, it's not just a matter of moving the image into the article body. It needs to have some discussion of its significance in order to qualify its fair use. This is something that has to be done on an article-by-article basis, with referencing, and is thus best left up to editors who are actively working on those articles. According to WP:NONFREE, the onus is on the editor who wishes to include the image, not an editor seeking to remove it. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed the policy allows some agressive behaviour. But the question is: if we want to change people's habits, should this change be shoved down their throats, or should we cooperatively seek a solution? As long as the end goal is preserved, I think we should not mind taking a longer road and keeping more contributors happy. -- Pepve (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that perhaps a few editors acted a bit rash and a few users' feel a bit put out by the whole proceedings. Wikipedia is extremely mutable, however, and that's just one of the things we have to accept as editors. I recommend that editors be considerate and start leaving notes on talk pages explaining the concensus here concisely and encouraging more people to take part. In the mean time, let's all be sure to assume good faith. Zytsef (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well said Zytsef and IllaZilla. A discussion that has been ongoing since August 2007 is hardly rushing into it. Pepve, of course we should endeavour to be nice and not annoy people, but at the end of the day our primary mission is to write a free encyclopedia. I am happier with the default of having the infobox be a text-only field and the logo (where verifiably notable) be included as an image in the article body, than with the idea that almost every band article would be accompanied with a nonfree image cropped from their latest album cover. --John (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware as to what an orphaned image is thanks, i was merely stating that all the logos i uploaded will be now coming up as orphaned and i will have to go around and waste time putting it in the article when i could have just been left where it was. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Examples of logos being used properly

I thought it might help the discussion to list some articles in which an artist's logo is being used in a manner consistent with the consensus here. I can only think of one right off the bat, but feel free to add more to the list. Hopefully this will give some of the more frustrated editors an idea of how to include a logo in an article body with appropriate discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference? It might as well just appear in the infobox? What rubbish! And what a big waste of time. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC))
If you are seriously unable to differentiate between the examples given here and those articles which only have the logo in the information box with no information about it at all then please look at the definition of what an "encyclopedia" is.--Alf melmac 17:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, be nice. I think our sour friend (:)) knows very well what an encyclopedia is. He is in fact building one, the same one as you. And LemonLemonLemons, to you, I'm sorry for the harm done. Please bear with us as we're trying to figure out how to convince people. (I do hope we find a better way, as noted above.) -- Pepve (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
@Alf -Well considering the Kiss one just says "The Kiss logo" i am fairly sure anyone could work that out, therefore leading to why i originally said what a waste of time it is moving it to a different area of the article. @Pepve- thank you, sorry it is just rather frustrating! Anyways i give up with this now.(LemonLemonLemons (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC))
Did you actually look at the article???? Read the paragraph parked next to the logo image. + pick 1 username and go with it 156.34.142.110 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Stanley came up with the name (taken from the New York Dolls song "Looking for a kiss"), and Frehley created the now-iconic logo (making the "SS" look like lightning bolts).[10] The runic letters happened to look similar to the insignia of the Nazi SS, or Waffen-SS, a symbol that is now illegal to display in Germany. Therefore, in Germany, after 1979, all of the band's album covers and merchandise used a modified version of the logo, in which the "SS" looks like a backwards "ZZ." The band's name has been rumored to have many hidden meanings, among them an acronym for Knights In Satan's Service or acronym for Keep It Simple Stupid.[11] None of these rumors have any basis in fact, and the band has consistently denied them.

::::Okay I'm sorry for not reading the article. + pick 1 username and go with it, what? (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Please, please, no personal attacks. (And, euh... your small note is rather ironic, heh.) -- Pepve (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I added Rush to the list. Though the information accompanying the logo could use a reference, it's a good example of how the logo can be incorporated into the article body with some meaningful discussion accompanying it. I also removed Amon Amarth from the list, as that logo has no real discussion accompanying it at all and thus doesn't fit the criteria we're trying to demonstrate here. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Queen. An excellent example of how there can be an informational section about a logo/artwork that satisfies WP:N and WP:V. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Nine Inch Nails, another fine example. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Dream Theater. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I finally got around to putting my money where my mouth is and wrote this section for the Black Flag article. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. --John (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I made another one: Hüsker Dü. I'm going to keep this going in the hopes that other editors will look to some of these as examples and get ideas from them. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And another I wrote today: Ramones. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the text, the Ramones logo does not include the name, which is "above the logo". The editor who originally wrote the text had uploaded Image:Ramoneslogo1.gif to go with it. Gimmetrow 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The name is part of the logo, as without it one wouldn't know who the logo was supposed to identify. The logo almost always appears with the name above it. I worded it "above the logo" because I couldn't think of better wording (ie. "above the seal"? "above the eagle"?). The source cited explains how the name in block lettering was a part of the logo's design when Vega originally designed it. The other image that you're talking about must have been deleted. There was certainly no image of the logo in the article when I set about rewriting the section. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Further

I still don't understand why there is a desire to remove logos from infoboxes entirely... Logos of hockey clubs, breweries, and airlines don't seem so bother anyone. What's so special abound bands? Óðinn (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please point me in the direction of any hockey club, brewery or airline that uses a logo in the place of the name field. I can only find examples that are as well as the name field.--Alf melmac 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstood, I'm not insisting on keeping the logos as the name field. I just think they should be kept within the infobox. Many users argue that logos should be entirely removed from the infoboxes; it is these suggestions that I find incomprehensible. Óðinn (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
See WP:V. Breweries and airlines (I'm not sure about hockey clubs) tend to verifiably and fairly consistently use the same piece of clipart to represent their organisation. Guinness, for example, has used a version of their logo for hundreds of years. It has appeared in advertising campaigns as well as on millions of consumer items over many many years. Similarly, this is unarguably and verifiably the symbol for this airline. Now, this, which I removed from here recently, appears merely to be a grab from the cover of this album, and not to be used on any of the band's other albums. See the difference?
Many of the "logos" we had on band articles were like this. At that point it is not really a logo within Wikipedia's definition of the term. Quite apart from any aesthetic arguments, it is not a good or a valid fair use and so it is right that it should go. The occasional exception (which I put at around 1%) can be put into the article body if it is referenced that it is a recognisable logo for the band. --John (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you extrapolate you experience with logos of dubious origin onto those of us who are using reliable sources (like press sections of the recoring labels)? Óðinn (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If reliable sources exist in relation to logos of bands then adding that cite is impossible if used in the information box without adding text as the image desciption. The difference with that from being in the body of the article is that putting paragraphs of information in an infobox is counter-productive to the purposes of the box and may make further useful additions to the information more difficult, or even seem uneccessary. My personal favourite of the examples listed is Motorhead (naturally), which gives a whole section to 'cover art', including what some people seem to think of as their logo - snaggletooth (neither the lettering nor snaggletooth is an "official logo" btw). How better for encyclopedic treatment is that compared to 'putting it in the information box somewhere'?--Alf melmac 17:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, that image you removed is indeed a logo of the Possessed band, as seen here, here, here and, in fact, on all their albums. They've used it for 20 years and you claim it's not good enough? Óðinn (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you believe that these sources qualify under WP:RS (personally, I have my doubts), I have no problem with you inserting a properly-sourced section into the article body, showing how neutral, third-party, reliable sources have discussed the logo. I don't see any consensus endorsing the indiscriminate and unreferenced use of these in a text-only field of the infobox. --John (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything similar in the British Airways or Guinness articles. Did I miss something? How about Astraeus (airline), which is only 5 years old? I still don't believe that musical logos should undergo such elevated scrutiny, especially when all other entities do not. Óðinn (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Per WP:V, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". If you wish to challenge the use of the logos in the two company articles I used as examples, that would be your privilege. I suspect it would be very easy to provide proper sources for them though. As a general rule, the existence of other stuff you don't like should not be used to justify unhelpful or non-policy-compliant material. Another helpful principle; not everything has to be sourced, but pretty much everything should be capable of being sourced. Failing that, it should go. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not a fansite. --John (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing of images is done on their respective imagepages. You'll be hard pressed to find provisions requiring some sort of extraordinary sourcing just in order to be used within infoboxes. Óðinn (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And now we know more about Possessed's logo than we would by just seeing it in the information box, is any of that info in the article yet?--Alf melmac 17:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is another one I removed the other day. It's a grab from here, and a version of it seems to be used on Kraftwerk's first three albums, but not on their subsequent 10 albums. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Kraftwerk do not really have a logo. In my view it fails "Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate..." (from WP:LOGO). More importantly for our mission, it also fails "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (from Wikipedia:Non-free content). The onus is always on those wishing to retain or introduce nonfree material to demonstrate that it is essential to the article. Where this is not done, I believe we have carte blanche to remove such material. --John (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is hardly unprecedented when an entity changes their logo. Compare this and this. So? As long the logo in the infobox is current?.. Óðinn (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
As long as it is current, and is notable enough to be verifiable from multiple reliable third-party sources, I agree with you. I still think most band logos fail these requirements though. --John (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
A logo of any notable band can always be verified with their label. That should be reliable enough. Óðinn (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Inserting wikilove... -- Pepve (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Be carefull what you're inserting and where :p --Alf melmac 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think an important point being missed here is that company logos and band logos are completely different animals, as far as the infobox is concerned. In an article about a business or company, you use their logo as the infobox image because that is the single image which identifies the company. A company is an abstract entity; it doesn't have a face (at least not literally). It's made up of many people, buildings, products, etc. So the best (and sometimes only) way to properly identify the company is with their logo. You can't take a picture of McDonald's. You can take a picture of one of their restaurants, or products, or office buildings, but none of that will represent the company as a whole. A band or any musical act, on the other hand, is a group of people. It has a face: the band members. And a single picture of the band members performing sums up almost entirely what the band is: It shows you who they are and what they do. They may use a logo in addition to further identify their products, in which case it's appropriate to put in the article body, but the infobox image should always be a free image of the artist themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How many articles actually contain a free image? How many of them contain all the band members? How many of them represent the current line-up? How many of them even allow a proper visual identification (i.e.) faces are recognizable? Slim to nil, practically. Óðinn (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Most companies are not identifiable (is that a word?) to the general public by their logos, but by their name. Same with bands. The reasons for inclusion are weak for both cases. It seems pictures in infoboxes are not for identification, but solely because it looks good. And if that is the guiding principle, there's no reason not to include a band logo in the box (along with the name, obviously!). Please note that I'm fine with losing this argument, but do not assume your case is vastly superior. The difference is subtle. -- Pepve (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the rational as I see it, Óðinn: To make an article interesting we use more than just prose; by adding pictures and infoboxes and other stuff we can make important things stand out. So how do we represent a corperation with more than a description? As IllaZilla pointed out it's a fairly dificult task, so we use logos. Bands, on the other hand are usually between 3 and 6 people, making a picture pretty easy to find. We can also incorperate fair use audio clips to give people an idea of what a band sounds like. We can point at a picture or a clip of music and say, "this is what band x is". In some cases you have a logo that's closely associated with a band, but just like a clip of music it should be accompanied by prose discussion of what it is and why it's important. That's why we're not debating the merits of a fair use sound clip in infoboxes right now, and I believe that's why logos don't belong either. Zytsef (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"It seems pictures in infoboxes are not for identification, but solely because it looks good." --Pepve, if that's the best reason you can come up with for putting images in infoboxes then I'm afraid it'll never fly. It pretty much goes against everything WP:NONFREE is all about. And Óðinn, the argument that "most other articles don't have good free images" won't fly either. Every FA about a musical act I've seen has a free image in the infobox, and a clear one of the current lineup at that. For examples see Slayer, The Smashing Pumpkins, and Megadeth. If you can't find or create a suitable free image yourself, then you may be able to make the case for using a promotional or copyrighted photo of the band under a claim of fair use. But don't assume that you can just slap a logo up in its place. Doing so violates a number of Wikipedia's policies. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't buy any aspect of the "recognition" arguments - all articles should be written for readers unfamiliar with the topic. Only appropriately licenced photographs can appear in the infobox to demonstrate what the band looks like (yes I know some images are too small and too whatever - if it doesn't perfectly show what the band looks like, go take some better ones then - WE CAN!!), fair use (which is what most of these logos appear to be licenced as) has conditions. Are we fulfulling those conditions? The information from this encyclopedia, in ten-twenty years, in whatever format it be, will have readers who will not have had the pleasure of knowing a good number (maybe even the majority) of these logos, there's a hell of a lot of genres with a hell of lot of musicians, many having these "identifying" logos. The thing we can give the readers of today and tomorrow is a good explanation of "the logo" - as much as we have found recorded out there about "it", per the first pillar. As for the free aspect, regardless of which copyright may or may not apply - fair use is GREAT for encyclopedias in this respect, as long as we keep to our end of the bargain and give it encylopedic treatment.--Alf melmac 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
@Illazilla, about that quote. I meant that inclusion of any image in the infobox of either a company or a band has a pretty weak reason. But nevertheless one that seemed to suffice for the community. -- Pepve (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions about Logos

I see that most of us aren't against logos, but we all can't seem to agree where to put them. I think the best idea suggested so far is putting the logo in a new field in the infobox. As stated before there are other articles (besides band ones) that do indeed use logos in the infobox, though not in the place of the name. They have a field for it, and I suggest we do the same for bands. I believe the logos should be kept small as well, but that's another matter, I suppose. I want this put to a vote so we can arrive at some consensus here. Who supports or opposes a logo field in the infobox? I support it. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, on the grounds that the logo is copyrighted and needs referenced discussion in order for it to be used, which is too much to cram in an infobox. The article body is the right place. Note that policies for using logos of business and companies are different, per WP:LOGO. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the logo needs discussion (which would indeed be a lot to cram in) but perhaps that's another matter. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The numerous reasons for not having a separate field for it are already beat to death in the above discussions. And the overwhelming consensus is that the logos can be added to the main article content if it can be accompanied by some text to give it some volume and actually make it worth while having in there. I made the comment to another user yesterday that just sticking them in anywhere in the article would end up inflicting the page with an unencyclopedic "graphic wound". The articles mentioned earlier showing the band logos within the content are great examples of how these images can be used and still fall within their fair-use rationale. Putting them in the infobox?... that horse just ain't gonna get anymore dead. 156.34.238.173 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate a bit on the dead horse? I don't think you've been rude enough yet... — Please, some courtesy to those who try and sell their well-intentioned ideas. -- Pepve (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Although it's not gonna happen, I think we should come back on this later. Right now everyone is quite dug in (yup, me too)... -- Pepve (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the following reasons:
    1. Adding a "logo" field to the infobox effectively sends the message to editors "This infobox should contain a logo - please add one!". A small number of bands (e.g. Kiss) do have a definite, important logo. Many others (e.g. Radiohead) have used various renderings of their name and recurring themes in their artwork and it is misleading to call any of them the band's logo. We already have a recurring problem in the Radiohead featured article with people declaring their personal favourite rendering as the band's logo. For this reason, adding a logo field would only be beneficial to a small number of band articles and potentially a major headache for all the rest.
    2. Placing an important logo in the infobox forces the image to be separated from the discussion about it as it is unjustifiable to have a non-free image twice on the same page. We don't need the logo in the infobox to identify the band - instead it can be placed in the article right next to the description. Returning to the Kiss article, it's great to have the logo right next to the text - I can read the article without having to scroll up and down to see that they're talking about. It's better to give editors the freedom to place the logo in the most appropriate place to justify its non-free use. Papa November (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Papa November. --John (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I see no reason why should this be different from any other infobox. Óðinn (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Suport Agree with Óðinn. Not that i will happen but oh well. Also thanks to whoever was blatently looking at my contributions and removed The Automatic logo from the article. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Strong Oppose per all my previous comments on this issue (see above).--Alf melmac 09:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The whole purpose of a logo is identification. That's why companies, TV shows, etc. and bands have logos. It's obvious a generic concert photo is not always better for visual identification than a logo. A good logo (notable enough to be in the infobox, not some stylized text) is used on cover art, websites, flyers, etc and is a strong symbol for a bands music and strongly associated with a band. Only bands with a wide audience and a lot of TV/magazine appearances may be identified through a band photo, less popular acts depend on logos for visual identification. Kameejl (Talk) 13:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This logo is from a very well known band Q: is it recognisable? A: No. Q: Is it on the band's page in the wiki? A: No. Q: Does that band have an infobox A: Yes (and there is no graphic in the article). These things are not recognisable enough to anyone outside of interested parties. Band photos can be free, without any hassle, logos in most cases cannot, they need to be checked thoroughly and the right rationales applied and adhered to (if it requires supporting text then by law we would be precluded from disassociating the text from the logo).--Alf melmac 13:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Still if a band really did not want there logo on wikipedia they would just notify someone to have it removed, its basically free publicity for the band, if anything any band would just be thankful. A logo as already mentioned is part of the bands history or image, and what has really p****d me off is how you get users that don't want logos anywhere in the article making annoying remarks like here, you know, people put effort into actually putting things into articles and making them better, then you just get other users who just go on a page remove things without discuss, make sly little remarks that they know are going to annoy and gain some sort of angry response, then leading to them waving around WP:CIVIL, you see this happen so much its just annoying. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC))
What a band wants is irrelevant to us deciding on the issue(s). I understand your frustration, I got pretty pissed off myself by similar events in the intial rounds of the fair use image tagging, as I have upload two or more sheds' worth of images that I then had to go to the article, write up supporting text/find the references and amend the rationales on the image pages. This is a very similar situation, some people will get pissed off by the very act (as I was on the intial fair use runs). Which edit summary/summaries were you referring to - I see a few there that could be interpreted as being "sly little remarks"? Regards the wasted effort, the only sure and safe way of preventing losing these images is to treat them encylopedically, yes that does mean more work, but ends up with more information about the subject, which I see as a net positive. For example, it has come to light in the discussions here that the Possessed's logo has a history which can easily be expressed in words, I asked if that info was in the article, I had no reply. That info could go straight into the article and begin a section on cover art and would ensure that the logo is not lost.--Alf melmac 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Using copyrighted images without discussion and waiting for copyright holders to complain before removing them isn't the way things are done here. Neither is Wikipedia a free publicity vehicle for the copyright holders - whether or not the article helps to sell the band's records is irrelevant. Surely, the only aim we have is to create a high quality free encyclopaedia.
As for the Automatic logo, I agree with Illazilla that the "logo" image is not their "primary logo" from the Not Accepted Anywhere era. They simply did not have one. The album itself uses a different rendering of the band's name, they used another different one as a banner on The NME tour soon after the album, there's yet another one on the Recover single, another on its second version and yet another on the third version, so how can you possibly say that any of the five is the band's primary logo? If it really was so important a feature of the band's identity, why did they only use it on two EPs and then abandon it straight afterwards? Sorry to labour this point, but you must see that there's really no comparison with something like the Kiss logo which has been used consistently (except in Germany) for many years and has been the subject of much discussion in various media. It's misleading to suggest to the reader that it was really as important as you make out unless you can provide a reliable source for your statement. If it's not verifiable, or if it's not really as notable as you make out, it doesn't belong in the article. I know it's upsetting when your hard work is reverted - it has happened to me many times too, but by contributing your work to an open project you need to accept that this will happen sometimes and not take it personally. Papa November (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the "sly remark" was mine. I was feeling pretty irritated after going back and forth on this topic all day, so my apologies for the sarcastic wording in the edit summary. Basically I meant to say what Papa November just did^. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Its alright, i was a tad frustrated earlier, its fine though i think i have over reacted to it all! Calm calm calm. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Oppose — Bands are not corporate entities and there logos cannot be treated as such. Fair use deems that band logos should recieve some discussion. Stuffing all these graphics and text into the infobox will look bad. See all my reasoning and rationale in the previous 2 (3?) sections/subsections for more detail. Zytsef (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Band logos are almost always used decoratively and don't increase the reader's understanding of the band whatsoever. I don't see why this is controversial. They only prettify the article as opposed to having critical commentary. Spellcast (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You're too late for voting on this. Also, it's just about logos in the infobox, not about the general use of band logos. If you want to chip in about the issue, there's a running discussion near the end of this page. Please feel invited to contribute. -- Pepve (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Attention to all - When I had originally asked for a vote I had of course hoped for overwhelming support. Seeing the situation now, that the opposition against logos in infoboxes is winning by one vote, I will now champion something else. Those users who know my edits know that when I champion something I usually go all out and this situation will be no different. I will continue to watch this vote, but I will now start to place logos in the bodies of articles. Most of the opposers to having logos in infoboxes have nothing against this method, so I shall now start to enact it. Starting tomorrow I will be placing logos into the bodies of band articles. I ask other users such as Kameejl or any one else who will help with this to please do so. I'm a firm believer that all band articles should have logos (albeit small) but I will probabaly be focusing on (real) metal bands, so anyone who wants to do other band pages is welcome to. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In case you wondered I will do this in the vein of the Amon Amarth page. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this discussion isn't just about the location of logos in articles anymore, but the way they are used. Simply plugging them into the article body isn't really the consensus we've arrived at. The logo needs to be notable, it needs to actually be a consistent, recurring logo and not just some version of the band's name in a fancy style, and it needs to be accompanied by some sort of referenced discussion of its significance. Remember, these are copyrighted images we're dealing with (or at least assumed to be copyrighted in most cases) so we have to make sure they add some informational/encyclopedic value to the article in order for them to be used. By these criteria it's pretty much guaranteed that not all band articles should or will have logos in them. I'm not trying to sound argumentative, but I'm a firm believer that not all band articles should have logos. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please also be aware that numbers are not the only consideration in attaining consensus, weight of argument is a factor (for example; in an Articles for Deletion debate, if twenty people ask for keeping an article without providing any reason and two ask for deletion providing strong and valid reasoning, then it is likely that the article will be deleted).--Alf melmac 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The only consensus reached so far was that logos should not be in the namespace. Please don't be dismissive of opinion of those of us who still beleive that logos should remain in the infobox.Óðinn (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think the discussion was about the location of the logos. I haven't re-read the whole thing, but I think most of us agree that not each band has a proper logo. This is kind of common sense to me. Let me also ask that proper logos without 'referenced discussion' are not removed, that seems counter-productive (it will eventually be written, Wikipedia articles need patience). And what exactly constitutes a proper logo may be a judgement call in some situations, let's not be too creepy over it. -- Pepve (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That's actually quite a good point. I would look at it the other way round though; logos which are not referenced as being actual logos (that is, used by independent third-party sources over a reasonable period of time to identify the band) may be removed on sight just like anything else here which is decorative, nonfree and unreferenced. The onus is on those who want to keep them to demonstrate that they are needed in articles. No amount of back-and-forth here can neutralise this core principle of our project. --John (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that really goes too far. You don't need sources for things that are obvious. A band who has recorded a half dozen of albums, all using the same logo is not going to need any sources. Just like album covers, do they need a source to prove thet're the actual cover? Kameejl (Talk) 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say not, and I would suggest where there is information about the cover art from the band and/or the artists themselves (possibly in DVD commentaries, as in Motorhead, where views from members of the band and from the artist could be sourced, or in established music magazines and the like), a cover art section be made and these kind of self-evident observations are placed there with the logo. Sorry if that displeases those who would like it more prominent, to me it just makes sense that when patterns in the artwork/logo are established, they should be noted in a section on that aspect. I firmly believe that having this as a section increases the chances of editors wanting to expand the information therein and go looking for more information and more sources to add.--Alf melmac 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I will again point out that the proper place for verification of logos are their respective imagepages. Forcing us to do it within the article body is redundant and adds absolutely nothing to the encyclopedic value of the article. For example, this logo is linked to the band's recording label. I fail to see how further verification is needed. Óðinn (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I've found, cited and added relevant information about that logo to the article. As there were no previous cites for the article, I also created a refs section.--Alf melmac 00:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Still, I don't understand this copyright paranoia all of a sudden. We reached consensus on 1 thing: no logos in band infoboxes. OK, that's clear. But this consensus has never implied total banning of logos unless notability is explicitely proven. Logos are allowed, have been allowed for ages for identification in sports, business, TV-shows, gaming, etc. Why should music be excluded? I already explained why logos might aid in identifying a band. Imagine, you see people wearing Riverside t-shirts, or some flyer with the Riverside logo (which is not unlikely to happen). Many bands advertise through their logo/artwork, not their group photo. In fact, most generic concert photos are so blend they could depict any band (can anyone identify these bands?). If the article features the logo you'll know you're on the right page. WP:NONFREE is stating logos are acceptable fair use images, until the policy is changed, band logos may stay. Kameejl (Talk) 12:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that company/team and band logos are totally different in almost all respects. Note that fair use of a non-free image refers not only to what the image is but how and where it is used. WP:NONFREE says that team or corporate logos may be used for identification but it is usually unrealistic to identify a band by its logos. Here are two reasons why this is the case:
  1. A company or a professional sports team employs people, and is (usually) a legal entity which exists separately from its employees. On the other hand, a band is a group of people who make music, which is marketed by an external record company. In other words, the band is the group of band members and can therefore be identified by a photo of all the band members, while a company employs a group of people and cannot be identified by a photo of those people.
  2. A company produces a logo as the primary means of identifying itself, and generally uses the same logo consistently on every product/correspondence over a period of many years... many employees/team members come and go while the company/team retains its identity using a consistent logo. The logo is an inextricable, intrinsic part of their corporate identity. Although some bands (e.g. Kiss) use a logo in a similar way, most of them (e.g. Radiohead) write their names in different ways on different album covers/T-shirts/stage decor etc... It is not a logo in the true sense of the word if it is used inconsistently and changes frequently, while the band does not. In other words, the lifetime of a company's logo is often greater than that of its employees' tenure (and is the most consistent form of identity) whereas a band logo is usually a transient image which is rarely used consistently or for long enough to identify the band.
Of course, for the few exceptions where a band logo really is used in a consistent, widespread way (e.g. many metal bands, traditional colliery bands etc), it makes sense to include it in the article and to talk about its interesting history/design/symbolism etc. In the vast majority of cases, it is just a meaningless image which will most likely be changed on the band's next piece of merchandise. In both cases, putting it in the infobox is a bad idea - it either means putting an important image far away from its description, or putting a useless image in a prominent place in the article. Papa November (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Will you please relax a bit? The distinction of bands and companies in this matter is purely technical. To an average person a logo is a logo. An identifying logo is an identifying logo, no matter what it identifies. To your second point: no one is arguing that a random stylized band name should be put in an article as a band's logo. And why, why do you still keep arguing about the 'logos in an infobox' matter. We voted, it's off, now stop pretending that a horde of crazy people is stalking you. -- Pepve (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If a band/artist has been using the logo in question over several years and across several of its releases it becomes a significant part of their overall body of work, which alone warrants inclusion. A comprehensive paragraph on the artwork's inception or symbolism, like the one we have for the Queen crest is obviously desirable and if sufficient sources for that sort of content are available the logo should obviously be placed next to it. But, if all we currently have on a logo is its consistent appearance since release X, a fact that can easily be pointed out in the image's caption alone, its placement can surely be handled depending on the article's scope and structure, i.e. in the article's History or Discography sections, or (and I hear people crying foul over that suggestion already) the image field of the infobox, as long as no comprehensive fair use image for the act in question is available. I'd say our fair use and neutrality-related policies would perfectly warrant this approach. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion

I propose to allow logos in the infoboxes, under the condition that on their imagepages they are verified by a reliable source, like here. Fair-use rationales for the unfree images do not appear within the article bodies; sourcing and verification shouldn't either.

  • Support Óðinn (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I withdraw my proposal and myself from this discussion. Sadly, I've come to see it as little more than copyright paranoia. Óðinn (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Make a test case so that people can actually see what it would look like. I'm of the opinion that it won't look good, and it still doesn't address the notability concerns I have voiced. You can probably guess how I would vote, but I'll decline that until I actually see a test case. Also, how does this suggestion differ from the one above? All the information you're specifying here should be on a non-free image's page anyways. Zytsef (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I will. Give me a few hours, I have to leave now. Óðinn (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am also interested in a test case so I can more carefully analyze what you are talking about. I would say support and I stil may, but I think you're fighting a losing battle. The opposition to logos in the infoboxes won't go for this, either. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I second that, this won't satisfy the requirements of those against the previous proposal. I also don't get what exactly you want to add to the image page. -- Pepve (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment: The image use policy and non-free content criteria already state that all image description pages must contain the source so I don't see what you're proposing to change here. No one was suggesting that fair use rationales should appear in the article itself. However, there should be a discussion of the logo in the article. I doubt that this is aided by putting the image in an infobox. Also, this proposal doesn't address the issues I raised above, so I will probably oppose but I'll wait to see the test case. Papa November (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Quick question. Is the use of the logo, insignia, and uniform images in Tampa Bay Rays [1] in compliance with image use and non-free content policies? Why or why not? Gimmetrow 22:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That might be a quick question, but the answers aren't :) At the begining of the read, the team logo in the info box is clearly a team logo, it checks out to be correct, which under Non-free content - images point 2 counts "for identification" (with further guidance at Wikipedia:Logos). On reading the intro, indeed we are treated to commentary on the very subject, so we can tick off Non-free content - policy point 5 as it "is encyclopedic". Going down the page however further logos appear, which currently have no image text (they hadn't got thumb either and as someone had "fixed" the 'no size in thumbs' I had to add the thumbs...), so doubts start rising. Further down we encounter the same logo as we did at the start and thoughts of Non-free image policy 3(a) (minimal usage) start. Even further down we find a gallery with text for the images we've already seen ("The use of non-free media in galleries ... is usually unacceptable for failing the test for significance"). The cap insignia are trademarked and should be treated the same as the logos, there is one instance I note in image duplication there.
Now back to bands, which are a bit trickier. Lets take a close look at the Non-free content image section closely. Of the eight acceptable uses, only two do not express the need for critical commentary - "Team and corporate logos" and "Stamps and currency". Of the rest "Cover art", "Other promotional material" and "Images with iconic status or historical importance" come to mind when considering "band logos". The Motorhead article used to have an image in the title, as per how it appears on the majority of their releases example, but nowhere have I seen that trademarked or copyrighted. Their 'recognisable' logo, however, is this, which is cover art and therefore needs critical commentary. Now the line between "team and corporate logos" and "cover art" (in some instances "images with iconic status" such as the Rolling Stone's tongue) when we're talking about graphics usually appearing on cover art is bound to be muddy. In the instances that band is proven to have a trademarked logo, I'd have no problems with it being treated as "team and corporate" logos - for identification, otherwise I still see the band-name logo from the covers to be under "[c]over art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)".--Alf melmac 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The 8 items listed in Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images are in a section called "Guideline examples", whose intro says "These examples are not meant to be exhaustive", so it's not necessary to force band logos into one of those 8 boxes. Nevertheless, if a band uses some logo as identification (eg, by releasing a version for press use), then I have a difficult time seeing why it would be treated with rules that don't apply to other logos. If a team logo requires no critical commentary and can be used for identification only, why not a band logo? And if a band logo requires sourced critical commentary from reliable sources to establish notability, then why not the same of a team logo? I find the "critical commentary" in the Tampa Bay Rays lead rather limited ("they still use the original logo in new colors as an alternate logo"), and it doesn't even refer to one of the logos pictured in the infobox. Many sports teams at most a text description of the logo without any historical context, let alone sources. Would that count as "critical commentary" in a different setting? Gimmetrow 01:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Without getting into ridiculous levels of wikilawyering here, I would fall back on the principle that, while everything in an article needn't be verified, it does need to be verifiable if challenged. Most of these logos could not ever show critical commentary, and they have been challenged. The ones that can be shown to have critical commentary can stay under fair use. Others, like the Porcupine Tree one I removed, are mere decorative fancruft, an abuse of our nonfree image policy, and can be removed on sight. See also User talk:John#Porcupine Tree logo. As always, of course, the devil is in the details. --John (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
And why are you talking about verifiability? The response above is about critical commentary. It would be really nice if the arguments were kept distinct. Gimmetrow 09:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Then we should probably go ahead to challenge the use of every not-so-extensively-commented on logo around Wikipedia and wait for the backlash, except that this would be nothing short of disruptive, though probably somewhat reminiscent of the ongoing application of various consensuses ostensible already formed on this page. Like Gimmetrow, I find the constant shifting of (or around) arguments in this discussion rather unnerving by now, i.e. the Porcupine Tree example, which is well beside the point. Said group apparently has no recurring logo and pretty much everyone here writing in favor of using such images has long conceded that random cover art snippets are not proper logos and hence not essential for inclusion. It would probably help the situation if the opposing camp would flat out state that they consider consistent use of an image entirely irrelevant to its notability and would accept nothing short of an exhaustive, third-party look on the image to merit inclusion. Then we could all agree to disagree and finally move on to discuss this on project pages more relevant to this issue than the talk page of an infobox template. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I daresay you've misrepresented me here John. Tsk tsk. I'm not just some Porcupine Tree fanboy looking to make his band's page look fancier. I'd advocate the same thing on any band's article. Kerrow (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry if I've muddied the waters here. I'll try to explain more clearly what I was proposing. My point is twofold then; first, there should be no logos in band infoboxes; rather a free image of the band itself in the image field of the infobox should serve as the primary means of identification. The "name" field should contain the band's name, in text, as it was clearly intended to. This is in line with WP:FAIR and WP:ACCESS.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with a discussion of a band's logo in the article body. In such cases I would have no problem with displaying the image where it can be referenced to third party reliable sources. I brought up the Porcupine Tree one as an extreme example of fancruft; such abuses, which were and still are common, not only breach WP:FAIR and WP:NOR (remember I was guilty of this myself too, as I uploaded the "logo" for The Clash in my time!), but also look tacky and amateurish.

Finally, let me remind those in favour of using these images indiscriminately; the onus is on those wishing to retain or introduce them. Failing that, they can go. I hope I have expressed myself more clearly this time. --John (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To your first point, we all know that band logos in infoboxes are not going to happen (for now). We agree they should not be in the name field, and we were unable to reach consensus for adding a field. Let's not come back to that again, it's clouding the second point.
For the second point, let me first agree that fancruft should be removed. A 'logo' just taken from one album cover is not a real logo, it's fancruft. But if a band has a real logo, it should be in the article, it's a piece of notable information. It is preferable if each logo is then discussed in the article, but it stands on its own as notable content. They should stay with or without critical commentary. (And I do imagine that when an article reaches a certain quality level, that commentary will be present.) -- Pepve (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
One concern I have here is the inconsistency of application of "policy". After I mentioned the Tampa Bay Rays article above, WikiAlf edited the article but did not remove the gallery of fair use images. Also, using the logo as a visual identifier for a time period seems to me almost identical to the way album covers used to be used on many musician articles; it seems those should have been removed. Finally, the only text in the entire article referring to any logo is essentially descriptive, unsourced, and only refers to *one* of the logos. If we're really going to require "critical commentary" to justify the presence of a logo, it's fine with me, but I would expect this standard to be applied to all logos. Gimmetrow 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I only started to edit it as I went down the page, and then just to add "thumb" as the pics were splayed across the page, pretty much as I described it above, I didn't even notice the gallery until last.--Alf melmac 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The approach

The approach taken here needs to be addressed. It seems to be a recurring theme with images that in some little corner of Wiki, a group of editors work up some interpretation of "policy" and run wild removing things. This is not the way to handle this. As one editor above had the sense to suggest, you start by talking on the talk page. Had someone made a nice, polite suggestion that hey, this or that aspect of these article could use some expansion, you know it might just have happened. And wiki would be better.

Let's remember that essentially all these logos have been through at least one round of this already, if not two. They've been reviewed from the last fair use purges, and have fair use rationales. Now the sand shifts. And I suspect it will shift yet again, and some of the supposed "good examples" above (which are quite weak) will not be good enough next time. Gimmetrow 07:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't how big an area on wiki that editors could "run wild removing things", I have noticed enough images being used in the name field for me to conclude that it is/was a growing habit, we've all agreed that is not acceptable. We've already noted that some "logos" are really not the actual current band logos, and in some cases indeed the band actually has does not have a "logo" as such. Some of the logos have already been moved into 'thumbs' with a caption, I was pleased with how fast I was able to find information about the Ensiferum logo, but note since, that despite having entered commentary with a valid cite, IllaZilla removed it in this edit saying "There is no discussion of the logo's significance or references as to its notability. it adds no meaningful content to the article and therefore fails WP:N and WP:NONFREE". Now there was an intermediate edit so IllaZilla may have missed my addition, but this edit by Gracz54's put the darn thing back in the name field. So yes we are not being careful enough about this.--Alf melmac 11:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for that one. I was basically doing a manual rollback of dozens of logo moves that Navnlos had done. He'd simply moved them from the infobox into the article body with the boilerplate caption "the logo of ____ that has appeared on every single release" (or occasionally he'd substitute "graced" or "adorned the cover" for "appeared"). Anyway after looking through a few of them it was clear that a) most of them didn't appear on every release, or even a majority of releases, as the captions said, and b) there was no referenced commentary either in the image box or the article body pertaining to the logo. So I felt justified in removing them on the grounds that they weren't adding any informational content to the articles and thus failed WP:NONFREE. However I see that at some point a referenced commentary was added to the Ensefirum article describing the logo's significance, so I apologize if it was there when I removed the logo and I simply didn't notice. I was dealing with a couple dozen articles at the time. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And that's exactly what I'm talking about. If you don't know what you're doing, you're coming from a position of ignorance, and you can only destroy. To create requires research and reading. Among your supposed great exemplars above, Tool (band) has no commentary on the image. It has a caption saying who allegedly made the image, without a working reference. If that's enough to satisfy your interpretation of the fair use policy, then a trivial degree of research on your part could have found this info for some of the logos you removed. And yet you removed them. You are known by the paths you choose. Gimmetrow 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
In defense of the Tool article, I see now that the reference link in the image box doesn't actually lead to a source on the logo. I've made a note of that on the article's talk page. But you'll notice that right next to the image, in the article body, is a section of referenced text pertaining to the design of the logo:

Although "lachrymology" was also explained to be an inspiration for the band's name, Keenan later explained their intentions differently: "Tool is exactly what it sounds like: It's a big dick. It's a wrench.... we are... your tool; use us as a catalyst in your process of finding out whatever it is you need to find out, or whatever it is you're trying to achieve."[11]

We are dealing with a common practice that stretches across hundreds of articles, and one that involves copyrighted images being used under fair use claims. When that is the situation, often it is pertinent for a group of editors to step back and (re)evaluate whether such practices are in accordance with WP's policies, and whether they truly further the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (both gratis and libre). That was the situation when it was decided that the liberal use of album covers in discographies was inappropriate, and it is a similar situation here . Obviously there are cases, like the articles above, where the use of such images does seem to meet these goals. But there are far more in which that is not the case (note that I was on the other side in the debate over album covers, and that in this debate I've also removed logos which I myself uploaded and put into articles). As to the specific image you seem to be concerned with, I still don't see how having the logo in the Evanescence article is anything but window dressing. Even in its current state within the article body, there is no referenced commentary or informational value to it. I will once again remind you and others that when it comes to non-free content, the onus to keep is on those seeking to include it, not those who believe WP can do quite well without it. And I have seen no compelling argument that leads me to believe that that particular image is serving anything but a decorative purpose. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
First a note, the onus you speak of (btw, never heard that word before, thanks) is very clear to all of us. The issue is not that we are not aware of this principle, one that strikes me as quite logical. Second, why are you convinced that a logo without commentary has no informational value? Is a logo not something an encyclopedia reader may want to know? -- Pepve (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And this is STILL the problem, Illa. The "onus" clause does not give you veto power over every image on wikipedia. Compare WP:V, which says the burden of evidence is on the editor adding material; nevertheless, it is not necessary for writers to provide cites to the obvious when an ignorant reader demands them.

When you removed the Evanescence image, your edit summary was "(logos don't belong in the infobox. if the logo is notable, it belongs in the article body w/ a referenced discussion of its significance. otherwise it fails WP:N and WP:NONFREE)".[2] This is all you said; you didn't bother to explain on talk or state what part of NONFREE you felt was a problem; you just removed. Nevertheless, to satisfy your concerns, the image was moved out of the infobox. As for the rest of your edit summary, it is obvious you misunderstand WP:N, and you didn't point to anything specific in NONFREE. The image seemed obviously in compliance with the 10 NFC, and multiple editors, with far more experience on the project, some of whom were involved with writing the fair use policies, had reviewed the logo and found it acceptable. As such, the onus is on YOU to explain why YOU think the image fails fair use criteria. I see now you don't even *cite* policy when removing images. You could also benefit from reading WP:WIP - the lack of something in an article is not an indication that the content isn't notable. Gimmetrow 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Onus: Latin for 'burden'." ... I realize that issue is clear to most people here. I was addressing that comment specifically at Gimmetrow, who has placed the burden on me to do the background research on logos and to find references for their significance (see his comment above). As to your question, I guess the best response is to flip it back around: In an article about a musical act, what informational value does a logo without critial commentary have? The answer is, by and large, none. If the only purpose in having a logo in an article is to "show what the logo looks like," then as I've said before it adds nothing useful to the article and fails a number of WP's non-free image content criteria. Let's say I did want to know something about the logo: who created it, how it's used, what it symbolizes, etc. How does this tell me any of that? It doesn't. This does, and if the logo is notable enough then should be possible to put together a referenced discussion such as that. If you can't come up with anything more meaningful than "this is the logo of the band," then it's simply not notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. I don't want to lean too heavily on an admin's opinion, but I really think John put it best earlier in this discussion: "these images are unquestionably nonfree, and we can unquestionably do without them. Therefore we should. Our mission is to produce a free encyclopedia and this use of logos does not contribute to our mission. The few valid exceptions where the logo is notable should display the logo in the article along with referenced commentary showing why the logo is notable. Other than that, they should be removed." And as he's pointed out, if those who want to keep the non-free content can't demonstrate that it is essential to the article, then other editors have carte blanche to remove them.
And Gimmetrow, I've stated several times at Talk:Evanescence why I don't believe that image belongs in the article, including specific points of WP:NONFREE, WP:LOGOS, and WP:N which I don't see the image fulfilling. I have well explained why I feel the image fails fair-use criteria, yet you have not provided a compelling (to me, anyway) explanation of how it fulfills those criteria nor why it's essential to keep it in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
And I responded to your points regarding NONFREE, which you only provided after prompting. You continue your confrontational rather than collaborative approach. Logos are the classic example of fair use, because there really is no good way to convey a logo without displaying it. The section you quote above from the Tool (band) article is not about the image, but about the band name. Gimmetrow 05:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"Carte blanche: Unrestricted power to act at one's own discretion". I think we should not use this term for editing behaviour... But to the point, are you convinced that audio clips and band photos have informational value (in themself)? If so, what is the difference from logos? If not, can you imagine any medium other than text that has informational value? (Btw, Gimmetrow, you're both quite confrontational right now, if you ask me.) -- Pepve (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree I'm being confrontational here. Not sure how else to proceed with this, though. Gimmetrow 06:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As you're probably well aware, I'm not the greatest fan of non-free image proliferation, but I agree that mass removals of non-free content with fair use rationales is a bad approach. It simply puts people on the defensive rather than encouraging them to improve articles/rationales and notable images can be lost in the crossfire. It's better to state your concerns about the images on the image description page and article talk pages. You can request their deletion if the rationale looks very bad or the image is non-notable. However, as Gimmetrow said, Wikipedia is a work in progress so it's not the end of the world if proper discussion for a non-free image isn't already present - it's better to request that someone adds it, or request the image's deletion as a non-free use violation if you think it's a no-hoper. If we're talking about good articles (such as Evanescence) or higher, then the concerns should be addressed rapidly as people look to them for examples. Just as I object to mass-uploading of "logos" in all band articles, I also object to a mass removal of those which don't quite meet the inclusion criteria. It needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Papa November (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Name field of infobox (this isn't about logos)

I propose unto you lot of incensed wikipedians that we remove the name field from the band infobox. It is unnecessarily repetitive and (as it's apparent) provokes too much argument. Previously I'd argued with a few individuals over the inclusion of a band's stylized representation of their name in this field. Some, such as User:John, felt that this was because I love cruft. This is incorrect. The name field is inherently repetitious; the band's name can already be easily located in the article title, the primary paragraph, and wherever the reader clicked to see the article in the first place (excepting random article viewing). With the foreknowledge that we must strive to create the end-all best encyclopedia ever, and we are not at liberty to provide variations of the name which might be preferable to stifling repetition, it is only logical that such a useless appendage as the name field of this band infobox template. Kerrow (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't help anybody, you know (:rolleyes:) --IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you were blinded by my humor. I'm quite serious about this as a preferable alternative to bland repetitious text.Kerrow (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You might want to take this issue elsewhere, most (if not all) infoboxes have this repetition. The talk page of just one infobox is certainly not the appropriate platform for such a far-reaching discussion. -- Pepve (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Different infoboxes have different protocols, etc, and cannot all be dealt with simultaneous regarding an issue. Even something so broad as this would be disputed, to the point that WP:SNOWBALL would certainly apply. I think it would be more prudent to make sure that it works for one infobox before attempting to change all of them. And please don't label your edit as 'reply' if there is no true reply. Does anyone have a valid reason to keep the name field? Kerrow (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I find your dismissive attitude offensive. (And your comment on my edit summary nonsense, what I wrote may not address your question but is a reply nonetheless. Please also take this opportunity to use the edit summary field yourself, and not just criticize other people's use of it.) You ask for reasons to keep the field. How about clarity? It is the only clearly defined location where the exact name of the band appears. (The page title may have a disambiguation suffix, and new readers may not yet know that the bold faced part of the first sentence is the exact band name.) -- Pepve (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, I must still be feeling sarcastic; I thought you weren't taking me seriously. I don't believe that many people could mistake the bold text in the article header for anything other than a band's name. I find it similarly unlikely that a reader would have difficulty remembering the name of the band they just looked up. Kerrow (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The day I don't take someone seriously will be a cold one (hell freezing over and such), but you couldn't have known that... I did not say many people will not recognize the bold text as the band's name, I said 'new readers'. And even if the 'repetition' is beneficial for just a few, we should include it, since it also doesn't hurt anyone. To your final comment: should we then abandon every mention of the band name? -- Pepve (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize I said that. Sorry, let me answer your question: No. Kerrow (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The manual of style for infoboxes states that "The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It should not contain a link. Avoid {{{PAGENAME}}} as pages may be moved for disambiguation." For this reason, and for consistency between wikiprojects and for accessibility, all infoboxes (not just this one) should contain a text header field. Papa November (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's mostly an accessability thing. Text browsers (and most screen readers, I imagine) start with the infobox. Starting with the alternate text on the photo or worse, "Background Information" wuold be pretty unfriendly. Zytsef (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) would be the most appropriate place to take this up. --John (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If I had less faith in you John, I'd say that you're trying to scare me out of this. It'd be foolhardy to take this argument up another level. There's a point where no matter how well you argue, if you're just one person you won't be listened to. So, if that's your final word, you all win, excuse me for being bold. I will say that I had hoped there would be more concrete rebuttals than WP:ACCESS or some quotation (sans logical argument) from a different policy article. Kerrow (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Zytsef, the article title would still appear above the infobox. And there's still the very obvious fact that the reader would have had to search for the article or click on a link to it before actually reaching the page. Even with tabbed browsing or multiple windows, there are more obvious indicators as to what page you are on than the infobox. Kerrow (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

@Kerrow, several arguments have been given to keep the name field. I feel they stand up pretty well against the "unnecessarily repetitive" argument, which seems to be the basis for your proposal. And while we're there, can you please explain exactly why repetition is bad? -- Pepve (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So far I don't see anything that 'stands up pretty well', but that's a difference of opinion. And I only feel that mindless repetition is bad habit for an encyclopedia. When you're writing an article, or an essay, or even an e-mail about a specific thing do you constantly refer to it by its proper name or do you occasionally resort to pronouns or other devices that avoid repetition of said name? Stylistically, it's almost always preferable not to repeat a name over and over again, especially in prose such as that encouraged by Wikipedia. Do you think that we remove all pronouns and other means of avoiding excessive use of a subject's whole name in every article on Wikipedia? Kerrow (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but the repetition is not mindless, several thoughtful reasons for it have been given. And your reduction is faulty: we're discussing a header, not prose. I do hope you agree those are quite different. -- Pepve (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've rebutted the several thoughtful reasons already. And there is already an article header, in the title. No, the infobox is not prose, but the large majority of Wikipedia is written as prose, and repetition is avoided. Now, "can you please explain exactly why repetition is bad? -- Pepve (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)". I explained, giving prose as an example. Anyhow, just because the Name field is not 'prose' doesn't mean that pointless iteration should be encouraged. Kerrow (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pepve, it seems to be that you are unable to be moved in your stance on this issue, no matter how well your points are rebutted. Personally I find your inflexibility rather unproductive, and I see no point in engaging further a futile discussion.

I would like to invite anyone with a less stubborn mentality to please contribute their thoughts. Kerrow (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The infobox really should have a name field, to help identify the musical artist, and to provide an appropriate heading for the infobox itself. This not only improves clarity, but it's consistent with the format of other infoboxes in Wikipedia. — Mudwater 02:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I concede. Kerrow (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree that logos should not be allowed in the info box for an artist. As far as people who have difficulty seeing images, there is plenty of text in an article (for instance the article's title) that will describe what page they are at. As far as people in developing countries with bandwidth limitations - get serious - are we talking about placing a logo in an infobox that is hundreds of megabytes in size? No - that is a fruitless argument. There is no consensus on this based on this useless talk article. Wiki-nazis should go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buck09 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't call people Nazis - it's not very nice. Perhaps when you have tried sharing a 28K connection between 12 computers, you will understand internet use in the developing world issue better. You may want to consider moving the Buck-O-Nine logo to somewhere else in the article and adding some descriptive text. As far as I'm aware, no one has objected to the use of logos outside the infobox if they are worthy of discussion and supported by a good fair use rationale. Papa November (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
User:IllaZilla has gone about objecting to tons of band logos even though they have fair use rationales. When removing them from the infobox, Illa does nto place them elsewhere in the article. Gimmetrow 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As Papa November says, "if they are worthy of discussion." I have only removed logos that are in infoboxes or that are in article bodies with no accompanying referenced discussion. It is not my burden to move them into article bodies, as that simply moves the problem to a different part of the article. They should be accompanied by referenced discussion, otherwise their use appears primarily promotional (which is to be avoided per WP:LOGO). I am not going to research and add meaningful information about each and every logo I come across. As WP:LOGO states, the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to include the logo. I have also not requested that any of these images be deleted. If they've been deleted, it's because the uploaders have not responded to the orphaned image tags and taken the time to add them back into articles with referenced commentary. As I've told you before, Gimmetrow, I have no qualms about removing fair-use abuse when I see it. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You have, in fact, removed logos that had discussion and commentary, so you're being a little misleading. If anyone wishes to start an RFC about Illa's conduct, please notify me. Gimmetrow 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Referenced discussion and commentary. Could you be specific? I don't recall having removed any that fit that description. Feel free to respond on my talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

← I think it's going too far if you're removing logos just because the discussion doesn't have a reference yet. A better approach would be to add a {{fact}} tag and move the logo next to the discussion. Remember that we should assume good faith! Papa November (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. The problem is that 90% or so of the logos I come across only say "the _____ logo" in the caption, and there's no discussion in the article body at all (either of the logo or the band's artwork in general...nothing that goes with the logo). In fact many of the ones I've removed were in stub articles, so there was hardly any discussion of the article's subject even. So there's really nothing to fact-check. As I said, I'm mainly removing images that are obvious cruft. There were a few that had some kind of discussion attached to them that was unreferenced, and in those situations I did add a {{fact}} tag. For example, in the Evanescence article. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Adding a fact tag to an item which you were told was verifiable, and which can be found in five seconds with google, hardly seems appropriate. Gimmetrow 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, when did it become inappropriate to request citations for information that is claimed to be verifiable yet appears in an article unreferenced? Last I checked, verifiability was one of our core policies. And as I've told you numerous times, the burden of proof is on the editor seeking inclusion. I'm not using that as an excuse to be lazy...I truly don't believe that the image in question adds anything of value to the article. You clearly do, however, so all I did was request that you provide a citation. Since you yourself were the one who claimed the information was verifiable, you were in the best position to do that. And you did, after which I have left the image alone. I believe the article's talk page will attest that I'm not the only one who believed the {{fact}} tag was warranted, and you're the only one who seems to be up in arms over it. Frankly, I'm done rehashing the same argument with you. I think that image merits more significant discussion if it's going to remain in that article (especially if the article is eventually going to have a FA review). You don't, but I'm satisified with the fact that it now has some referenced commentary attached to it, whereas before it had none, so I've backed off. Let's both move on, shall we? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
So naturally you've fact-tagged Rush (band)#History, rather than use it as one of your exemplars? Do not hide your actions behind verifiability. Gimmetrow 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now that you've reminded me of it. When I added it to the list (as you can read in my comment in that section^) I noted its lack of a reference. However, I neglected to fact-tag it. I should have done that originally. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fuck Logos

I'm tired of this bullshit! Wikipedia is retarded! I added about 70 logos back in to the articles of bands (as suggested before) only to be reverted by User:IllaZilla. No one else seemed to care but ol' Illazilla decided to get his/ her knickers in a twist and destroy logos altogether. WELL THEN FUCK LOGOS! I'm sorry for this little outburst but I can't take this crap anymore!!! No one can agree on shit and it seems even when the majority does agree on something one individual (such as IllaZilla) has to fuck it all up straight to hell. WP:CON is nonexistent and is only in the eye of the beholder and the same with many of the rules here on wikipedia. Let's just eliminate ALL images altogether!!! What's the point of constantly arguing about free and nonfree and all this bs when we can just eleiminate the problem! After all, images are so unencylopedic! I'm sick of all this arguing and whining and the fact that some people just don't get it and refuse to work with others. Oh yeah, it's unneccesary to cite WP:CIVIL to me, ok? I'm well aware of wikipedia's "rules." Heaven Shall Burn... When We Are Gathered!! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, some day all non-free images will be deleted, leaving only the absolute minimum necessary. As far as I know, there needs to be some critical commentary in order to qualify for fair use, putting logos in articles just because they belong to a band is apparently not enough to qualify as "critical commentary". -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There'se some discussion about this two sections above (The approach), including viewpoints to the contrary, feel invited to comment there. -- Pepve (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
"some day all non-free images will be deleted, leaving only the absolute minimum necessary". Any evidence for this statement? Indeed, those logos are not ours to upload (only under fair use can we upload a reduced version), so it's lucky we're allowed to; no band article needs a logo. CloudNine (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Since I am here (this year is my third), I have seen the fair use content being diminished. First requesting source for images (people hardly put any source back then), then requesting fair use, then forbidding fair use images of living persons. I have already stated at the old fair use criteria page (now called non-free content criteria) that we are aiming at becoming completely free. I don't see that as something wrong myself, though. In a couple of years, it is possible that the amount of fair use is completely reduced to book and album covers, everything else except historical images, would be deleted. And in the end, only historical images would be keep.
Other Wikipedias can survive without fair use. So we can. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well alright, that seems to be enough stress to warrant WP:IAR to some degree, I won't cite you any policies. You might want to take some time off, and perhaps leave this issue for a while. I know that sounds like giving up, but it isn't. You can still try to build consensus for including band logos (several editors are with you) but not right now. -- Pepve (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

I think that the nationality parameter should be added to all templates about people. The general Person infobox does have it and there is no reason to omit it in these other templates. Birthplace is not enough in some cases. 

{{#if:{{{nationality<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
! Nationality
{{!}} {{{nationality}}}
{{!}}-
}}

Preferably placed under the birthname parameter. -RayLast (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace is enough, see the previous discussions over this. I've seen horribly extended and bitter slow edits wars over nationality. Nationality usually has no relevance to the immediate understanding of the topic. I don't see a point in adding parameters to a box that various aspects are warred over enough already.--Alf melmac 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Nationality is usually noted prominently in the first sentence of the lead. For example: "Frank Black (...) is an American ... " CloudNine (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to agree with Mistman123/RayLast but after reading Alf's and CloudNine's comments I think it's unneccesary. I mean, birthplace and origin for all articles pretty much cover that. Not to mention (as CloudNine pointed out) it usually states the person's nationality in the first sentence in the article. Then again, there's a group of people that seem to think I make no sense, and I them. Whatever. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures in band articles

Are they neccesary? Look at Motorhead. Are any of those photos neccesary or even helpful to the article. We know what Lemmy looks like, do we need a million photos of him plastered everywhere? We want to keep wikipedia encyclopedic, right? Why are pictures any more important than logos? Isn't a logo a picture? Yet, logos are getting deleted/ removed at a rapid rate. I'm not saying logos belong in the infobox, but certainly they have a place in the article, right? Apparently I'm wrong. I move that we delete all pictures from wikipedia band articles. They are not encyclopedic, they junk/ clutter up the page and are unneccesary. Besides, over time pictures have been slowly delted from wikipedia anyways. Maybe not as fast as logos, but with all this argument over fair use and free vs non free, I've noticed a serious declind in pictures for all articles. They are slowly being removed anyways so why don't we quicken the procedure? Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are the pictures you speak of in templates? --John (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter where. In the infobox, in the articles, anywhere. They're all uncyclopedic and unneccesary. The only ones that really need keeping are maybe the ones for math-related articles. Or maybe if they're talking about something specific that needs to be viewed, like a famous painting, such as the Mona Lisa. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarcasm is really helpful. CloudNine (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The key difference is free vs. non-free. If pictures are free, ie. public domain or from Commons, etc. then an article can have as many as the editors deem appropriate. Common sense limits how many, since we don't want the article to look like a gallery, but they can simply be illustrative since noone owns them and there are zero restrictions on their use. Non-free pictures, however (most logos fall in this category) have a lot of restrictions on their use since they legally belong to someone else. As more and more editors continue to work toward making Wikipedia as free as possible, you'll probably see these restrictions tighten and more non-free images disappear, except for those that are most essential and meet the criteria. And CoudNine is right on about the sarcasm. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic. Also I have seen IllaZilla manipulate this logo bashing thing. You removed almost all of my logos that I put back into the bodies of articles, yet i couldn't help notice you put certain ones back in yourself that you had removed. Such as Immortal's logo. Don't bother explaining, it doesn't really matter what you say. Anyways, I'm being serious. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion between myself and another editor in the edit summaries of the Immortal article, and my edit summary says why I moved it back into the article body. The Immortal logo is not tagged as non-free, hence it doesn't fall under the same non-free content criteria. Any of the ones that were put back were done so by other editors, and there's usually a discussion on the talk page or in the edit summaries justifying why. The ones you inserted were all non-free, and I explained (somewhere further up on this page) why I removed them. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Net worth

{{editprotected}}

I suggest that net worth be added to this template. It may be valuable information for some people. 

{{
#if: {{{networth|}}} |
<tr><th>Net worth<td>{{{networth}}}
}}

, placed somewhere around the "Occupation" parameter.Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 18:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is very useful, but if nobody has any significant objection I'll add this in a couple days. Gimmetrow 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see how this is valuable information for this particular template. It's borderline trivial except in a few cases, and even where it is important to the artist in question it obviously requires a citation and probably more context of discussion than is appropriate for an infobox. The infobox is, after all, meant to be an at-a-glance summary covering basic information. That's why most things in the infobox don't need to be cited, as they should be discussed more fully in the article with references. If we add this field to the template it's just going to encourage people to try to slap $$$ numbers into every musical artist article, and the vast majority of artists' net worth has no bearing on their notability and would probably be impossible to source. IMO this is a field best suited to Infobox Celebrity, where the vast majority of subjects do have a significant net worth that is relatively easy to source, not this infobox. Is there a better reason to include this than "it may be valuable information for some people"? Because I just see it spiraling out of control. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
While such a field exists in the more general Template:Infobox Person, I doubt it would be useful information in the context of most musical artists' careers and verifiable through third-party sources in even fewer cases. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's how I felt too, but this sat here for almost a week without an objection. Denied. Gimmetrow 07:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Associated Acts

This was brought up before, but there wasn't too much discussion. Is simply sharing one member sufficient for a band to be included here? The way I've seen this implemented on another wiki was that if the band member has a separate solo article, then you don't list the other bands he or she is in as associated. If the members don't have separate articles, then list the bands that share one or more members. (Sharing two or more always means the acts are associated.) —Torc. (Talk.) 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. However, I'm not really sure there needs to be a guideline about this. I've never seen a case of the Associated_acts field taking over the whole infobox. I think whatever works for a particular article should fly. I believe that stipulating a complex criteria for whether or not an act is considered associated will lead to headaches later. Do you have an example of this getting out of hand? Zytsef (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, just something I saw that was unclear. No worries. —Torc. (Talk.) 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts

How do I increase the left column width so that the phrase "associated act" does not get forced into two lines? --165.21.154.92 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}


{{#if:|
! style="padding-right:1em;" | Associated <br /> acts
| {{{Associated_acts}}}

Can someone help remove the <br/> from the entry.--165.21.154.88 (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Happy-melon Icestorm815 • Talk 21:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Classical composer - which background?

None of the seven categories seems to include a classical composer - "non-performing personnel" specified "non-classical composers". Where is Karl Jenkins supposed to fit? PamD (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's room for a Template:Infobox Music composer...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The good folks at WP:Composers really take issue with infoboxes, for some reason. I tried reading the debates about it once and my head nearly exploded. Anyways, they suggest not using them at all. If it was me, I would pick "non_performing_personnel". Generally, the labels that were chosen for the backgrounds for this infobox don't actually describe what we're using them for. "solo_singer" is used for backup singers. "non_performing_personnel" is used for DJs who perform live. Go figure. Zytsef (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Template name

Sorry if this an old chestnut, but suggest template's name amended to "Infobox Music artist" (or perhaps better still "Infobox Musician") to avoid confusion with Musicals - or even fine artists described as musical! Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind an "Infobox musician". It's less ambiguous, consistent with, say, Template:Infobox actor and Template:Infobox Person and certainly no worse a fit to describe groups of musicians than the current name. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And, for the sake of consistency, I'd say make that "Infobox Actor" as well as "Infobox Musician", i.e. "Infobox" (template class) + sentence-cased topic name. Anybody with the powers to rename protected pages reading this...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Awards parameters

I'd like to propose adding awards parameters to Template:Infobox Musical artist, similar to those in use in Template:Infobox actor. We would need to agree on which awards were worth including in the template. My initial suggestions:

  • Grammy awards – artist awards only, not album-specific awards, so The Beatles "Best New Artist" Grammy would go in, but not "Best Compilation Soundtrack Album".
  • Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees — while I hesitate to elevate a single publication to Canon Authority status, this happens to be a great list, and there has been some demand to have it linked to included artist pages. Down Beat has two awards, "Readers Poll" and "Critics Poll".

There is some demand to add awards listings to artist pages. Categories have been rules out (long story, start here), and a set of large templates for one particular award is currently in TFD for the 2nd time (first here) because of the clutter such things would cause on Jimi Hendrix and The Beatles.

I think it would be a good idea to have a specific parameter for each award as a barrier to non-notable awards (cough Digital DreamDoor cough). Input would look like this: 

 |grammy     = 1975 [[Grammy Award for Best New Artist|Best New Artist]]
 |downbeat   = 1984 Critics Poll

If no award parameters are entered, the word "Awards" and the box would be suppressed. I have a demo version at User:Edgarde/awards. (See below for demo.) Questions:

  • Is this acceptable? Can I add this to the Template:Infobox Musical artist?
  • Are there other awards we can easily agree on?
  • Any other suggestions for this template modification?

/ edg ☺ ☭ 13:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any awards should be included in the infobox. There are so many music awards these days that choosing just a few to include would be highly subjective and culturally sensitive. Even if a few awards could be agreed upon, it would be likely to result in a mess of clutter for some artists and would not apply at all to the majority of artists. This kind of info is best left in the article body. Strobilus (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think if we limited it to artist-specific awards (i.e. no song/album/performance awards), it wouldn't be terribly long. And this is collapsible. A similar setup in Template:Infobox actor doesn't seem to cause much trouble. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I won't request this change until there's some agreement on this, but it would help with some controversies I've linked to above.
Before some nitpicker points it out, yes I've given Mariah Carey some awards she did not really win. This is just for demo purposes. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
My hesitancy on this is similar to the discussion above^ relating to net worth. Basically I'm not comfortable adding fields to the infobox that don't apply to almost every artist. 99.9% of artists have a genre, a place of origin, a record label, etc. Much fewer have received any notable awards (offhand I'd guess 30%-40%). So adding a field to the infobox is just going to encourage people to cruft up articles with non-notable, unverifiable, unreferenced, or even made-up awards. If the artist in question has won some important awards, like Grammys, then the place for that to be mentioned is in the article body. In fact it should probably be right there in the lead paragraph. Of course we already have fields in the infobox that cover information that should/is also in the article body, but they are fields that apply to almost every artist. Adding an awards field to the infobox will, IMHO, open up further cans of worms that we don't really need. Ie., which awards are notable enough to go in the infobox? Do we put a limit on the number? Why shouldn't we list album awards? Etc. I wouldn't be opposed to a separate "awards" box being created, to go alongside an "awards" section of the article discussing what awards the artist has received, but I just don't think it's necessary in the main infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question - Has the kind of deplorable behavior, feared and depicted by IllaZilla, been observed for the infobox used for movie and TV artists awards (e.g. Spencer Tracy)? Jazzeur (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Short answer: No.
Long answer: mentions of "awards" in Template talk:Infobox actor and the most recent archive are divided between outright praise for the feature, and tweak requests for CSS compatability fixes (which have already been implemented in the version I'm proposing). There was some discussion in 2007 of whether the awards list (about 20 award parameters) was too broad, or too exclusive, but this did not devolve into edit-warring. For comparison, {{Infobox actor}} has been edit-warred over other fields, including one for "height", so acting editors do not seem immune to idiocy compared to music editors. There has also been a proposed policy on awards nominations; it was decided without drama to not include these. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note to make sure we're all on the same page regarding the potential for infobox clutter: If the parameter is left blank, the "Awards" section wouldn't even show up. So for most readers of most articles, it wouldn't add any clutter. ... Of course, that doesn't affect the more substantive concerns that people have, about the existence of an infobox field encouraging editors to fill it in unnecessarily, and the potential for creating disputes about what to put in it. --Lquilter (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Opinion - I believe that, overall, the proposal presented here is the most sensible that I have seen to deal with music artists awards and recognition. Jazzeur (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem this is meant to address is a threatened proliferation of large templates, such as these:

The need for these is being resisted in various venues. As new templates, these are being TFD'ed; using categories for awards was CFD'ed; the idea for a combined "awards" template has already been met with resistance. My suggestion for adding these to the Infobox is based on what is already in place for {{Infobox actor}}. — edgarde — continues after insertion below

  • Comment - This is why I am proposing, here (near the bottom of the thread), that if the music artist infobox solution is adopted, then the three "Down Beat" templates (the last three in your list just above) would be eliminated in favor of a template with simply two references under the "Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame" banner: "Critics Poll" and "Readers Poll". Each of those two links would point to the appropriate list of inductees. Jazzeur (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that regular editors of this template do not want a new, administratively complicated feature set to be added here. The best I can say is this has to happen somewhere, and we are getting NIMBY'ed to death.

In response to IllaZilla, yes there would probably end up being at least a dozen award parameters (as already exists for {{Infobox actor}}), and yes none of them will be used on most artist pages. However, the suggestion I'm making takes up as little article space as possible (one infobox line for awarded artists, no space at all for unawarded artists), and is the least offensive to WP:MOS. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Or, at least, I second a separate template to put in the miscellaneous section that can serve this purpose, just like the extra tracklisting templates for the single templates. – The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 01:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Idea from the French Wikipedia

I really love the design of the title section of the French Wikipedia. Can somebody add the nice musical notes and adjust the padding on this one? It looks squished and somewhat minimalistic in my opinion. おべんとう むすび (Contributions) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you want to visit the template, it's located at fr:Modèle:Infobox Musique (artiste). おべんとう むすび (Contributions) 05:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I must say, the French one looks better than this one. I'd like this one to look like the French one (they apparently allow flags and logos and aren't afraid of line breaks or long infoboxes, and theirs doesn't look crammed), but I wouldn't like to see the musical notes. Kameejl (Talk) 10:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So it still contains all the useless bits that the en-wiki has thankfully gotten rid of. And the little musical note, the only thing the original post was trying to promote, is the only thing you don't like? 156.34.239.151 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"useless" is just your point of view. I know, from my own experience, and from usability point of view, the use of illustrations and well thought-out lay-out can increase comprehensibility, it can speed up and deepen the understanding of articles and can be used for navigational benefits. The French are apparently aware of this. Kameejl (Talk) 12:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The French ones are nice looking but graphically not very consistent with other infoboxes on English Wikipedia. I dislike long infoboxes, and since music is not limited by countries, flags are inappropriate per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags), so neither of these are positives. I'd be more okay with adding the musical note to the title bar if similar graphical flourishes were being added elsewhere on en-wiki. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Thumbs up" to the line-spacing used in the French version! And rename the template here to "Infobox Musician" or, like the French one, "Infobox Music artist". Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems like a really good idea. I don't know what flags you guys are talking about, but I think that if we incorporate ideas from the English and French Wikipedias, we can make a kick butt infobox! – The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 23:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I also know that lots of you guys hate logos, although I must say, having logos in infoboxes can be helpful. For some, their logo is their trademark, and by denying logos in the infobox isn't good, IMO. – The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 23:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the only problem with renaming it to Infobox Musician is that not all musical artists are musicians, in the same way that not all musical artists aren't bands. – The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's not open the can o' worms on logos again. It was pretty much agreed that their place is not in the infobox. I don't care for flag icons, as it's just as easy to type the name of the country and wikilink it. To the layman who doesn't necessarily recognize every nation's flag just by looking at it, using just flags is confusing (I realize the name of the country displays when you hover over the image, but that is not necessarily the case for all users and all browsers). And having both the flag and the name of the country is redundant. As for the name of the template, I'm perfectly happy keeping it as Infobox Musical artist. Just "musician" would seem more limiting and I don't really see the need for a change, especially when it would affect so many articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I see... you're a Hem. So many people here are... Just because you don't like change doesn't mean that it's bad. Flag icons (I think I know what you're talking about now) do not affect me because I am pretty comfortable with flags, and I don't find them confusing at all. If they don't like flags, then why don't they just get rid of it? About logos, then where do the logos go if not in the infobox? And the whole original idea was that there were the musical notes at the top of the page, which I find to be nice. Also, I was talking about the padding, which seems more spaced out and less squished than the English version. – The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 23:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with change. In fact I'm involved in several Wikipedia-related projects which consist of lots of change (ie. the Wikiproject I recently launched). I do find that many of my opinions here err on the conservative side of things, particularly with changes that are merely cosmetic or that serve no practical purpose (like renaming the template). As for flag icons, there are lots of situations where it is pertinent and appropriate to use them, and there would be no reason to nix them altogether. To your question about logos, I think you'll find my opinions on that matter explained ad nauseum up above^. Basically there are several reasons not to have them in the infobox, but rather in the article body where their design and significance can be discussed (note that I'm speaking strictly about their use in musical artist articles). I actually do kind of like the padding in the French template, but in general I find the current English template to be more utilitarian, which I prefer. Renaming it or making major changes to its format/appearance will affect hundreds of articles, many of which will not adjust automatically and need to be fixed. To create that many ripples simply to make a cosmetic change appears, to me, unnecessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree with the fact that it would be detrimental. I'm not saying that we should format our WHOLE infobox to the French one, because I don't think that's necessary and/or practical. I'm glad you think the padding is nice. Now, do you think the musical note would fit? That's all I'm asking, because nothing else really matters to me besides these two things. – The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 01:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the music note. It's nifty, and kinda cute, but I'm fine without it. I'm satisfied either way. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
By "not all musical artists are musicians", do you mean artists who use music to create art but haven't been formally trained in music? And "not all musical artists aren't bands"... I don't geddit. Sorry if I'm missing the point. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, I guess it's sort of like how not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles. You see, "Musical artist" is directed towards everybody who is an artist in music, including musicians (i.e. Karen Carpenter, Paul McCartney, or Debbie Harry) and bands (i.e. The Carpenters, The Beatles, and Blondie respectively). You see, Blondie isn't a musician, and Deborah Harry is not a band. The Carpenters aren't a musician, The Carpenters are a band. However, Blondie and Deborah Harry are musical artists, and Karen Carpenter and the Carpenters are both musical artists. That's the way I see it, though. – The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So, is any admin interested in fulfilling this request? It seems like there is a consensus that there should be the musical notes, as there is nobody so far that is opposing it (just supporting and neutral). I'll take this to WP:RfC. –The Obento Musubi 16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

LOGO VOTE

In light of new image deletings, I am going to call a vote. This vote is for images in the infobox. What I am suggesting, is that logos can go in the infobox if no other band photo has been discovered. However, if a band photo is found, and it is legit., and it is accepted by wikipedia, then the logo will go and the band photo will replace it. What I have noticed, is that many, many good band articles do not have photo's. (See Disturbed (band). I think that the logo is encyclopedic in it's own sense. If you want to vote, Vote Yes for logos in the infobox with a small sentence describing why. Vote No if you don't want logo's and give your reason. ONLY give GOOD REASONS. No votes because of "I'm voting this way because I like it." Put the votes below with the number sign before it.

  1. Yes per my reasoning given above. Undeath (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. No It's been beat to death and a consensus reached... keep the fluff out of the box and save it for the amateur fansites and schoolboy book reports. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. No If a band is still active, then a free image can reasonably be taken of them. If they are not, then it is possible to use a copyrighted photo under fair use. A logo does not serve either of these functions and therefore does not belong in the infobox. This topic has been argued to death and I think that was the one thing most of us agreed on. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, and Wikipedia decisions are not made by voting. Band logos are a potential WP:COPYVIO; this is sufficient reason to not include them. Many de facto band logos are actually derivative of larger cover art, which is usually not permitted under Wikipedia:Non-free content. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. oppose: Wikipedia never accepts the outcome of votes. Instead, the aim is to reach consensus on an issue. Bearing this in mind, I prefer that we do not include logos in band infoboxes. We have discussed this before - it only encourages people to upload non-encylopaedic images. The vast majority of bands do not have "logos" - they only have renderings of their names in an assorted, non-consistent set of typefaces in various different media. They are nothing like company logos, which are consistent means of identification. Of course there are a few exceptions such as KISS, but that's not a good enough rationale to suggest uploading many thousands of non-free images. Non-free logos are quite acceptable outside the infobox, if there is a decent amount of commentary and a good fair use rationale. Papa November (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    ^Thank you Papa November, that sums up my feelings on the issue almost exactly. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Only for bands with logos used extensively on albums/merchandise throughout their career (e.g. Metallica=OK, Smashing Pumpkins=NOK). Band logos are used to identify a band. There is no good reason to assume they're used for different purposes than company logos. Kameejl (Talk) 08:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I understand the principle of what you're proposing, but I don't think it's workable. The manual of style guidelines recommend that if an infobox field applies to a small minority of articles, it is best to leave it out. Editors usually try to fill in every field in an infobox: by adding a "logo" field, it will encourage them to find a "logo" for a band even when they don't have one. If the logo field was included, there would be an additional job of "policing" the infobox, ensuring that "logos" aren't just randomly selected bits of inconsistent text/artwork from an album cover. For consistency, and to avoid repeated arguments, we'd also need to define some criteria for whether something qualifies as a band logo. I think it's simpler to place the logo outside the infobox, next to the section of text describing it. Papa November (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What about WP:IAR. In my opinion, not having any image at all detracts from the overall quality and importance of the article itself. The logo at least provides something. If no image is available, use a logo as a place holder.(So to speak) Undeath (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not to sound rude, but can you show me a single example of a band for which no free or fair use image can be found? I sincerely doubt such a case exists. Logos are (almost always) copyrighted images which are subject to numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They are not "placeholders" until you get around to finding a proper photo. "Ignore All Rules" is not a carte blanche, nor an exemption from accountability. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not that they can't be found, or made, it's that they are not currently on the article. For example, Disturbed is a huge band with a lot of success. Yet, there is no photo taken of them in the act. Logo's should be able to go in the infobox until an act photo is found, then the logo can be moved into the article.(an example of in article logos would be Drudkh.)
Again, not to be rude, but there is a whole lot more internet out there than just Wikipedia, with many resources through which to find freely licensed photos of bands. Flickr, for example. In fact Wikimedia Commons has a very easy interface for finding & uploading freely licensed photos from Flickr. Go to Wikimedia Commons, create an account, click "Upload file", then click "From Flickr" and just follow the instructions. It will tell you what licenses are acceptable and even do the verification for you. All you have to do is run a search on Flickr for the artist you are looking for. You can even filter the search to show only freely licensed images. Why, just between last night & this morning I've added 3 pictures to band articles through that method (see 1, 2, and 3). To want to substitute a logo into the infobox simply because there isn't already a photo of the band in the article is simply laziness. It takes no more effort to find and upload a freely licensed photo than it does to upload a non-free logo. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact, here, I'll do the legwork for you on this one: here are couple of photos of Disturbed (the singer, anyway) licensed under Creative Commons: [3]. Hmm, it seems there aren't many good photos available, but I'm sure there are other online resources you could use. For example, you could go to the band's messageboard forum and ask other fans to upload their non-copyrighted live photos to Flickr, or to just send the photos to you directly so you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons yourself. I've used that method in the past. After all, fans on a band's forum usually have lots of photos they've taken of the band in concert, and they usually aren't copyrighted. If a person gives you a photo that they themselves took, and they tell you it's not copyrighted, you can go ahead and upload it to Commons under a free license. Again, logos are almost always copyrighted and therefore cannot be used simply to illustrate the infobox, especially when there are so many reasonable ways to find free images of bands. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The Disturbed example was just that, an example. There are many other bands, that no matter where I look, I cannot get a wikipedia allowed image. Some of these bands include Setherial, Drudkh, and Old Funeral. I think, that in the absense of "in the act" images, a logo should be allowed. Undeath (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how else to say this, so I'll just say it: NO. You seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that the infobox absolutely must contain some kind of image, otherwise the article is incomplete and readers will somehow not know what they are reading about and be confused. In the case of articles about musical acts, this is simply not true. Images complement the article, yes, and provide an illustrative example to the reader, but if they can't figure out which act the article is about from the opening paragraphs, then the article has serious problems that no amount of images will fix. In any case, a logo does not serve the same purpose as a photo and therefore cannot be substituted for one. How does this tell me who the band Drudkh is any more than their name (which is already in the article title, the first sentence, and the top banner of the infobox) or the article's opening paragraphs do? It doesn't. As I've said multiple times, logos (especially non-free ones) are subject to many policies, guidelines, and criteria (WP:NFC, WP:LOGO, etc.). They cannot be substituted into the infobox simply because you can't find an allowable photo. I'm done discussing this, and I doubt you'll find any sound editors here who will agree with what you're proposing, as the votes above indicate. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
My respect for you, as an editor, is now at zero. Your tone was completely unacceptable and unprofessional. Per your last sentence, there is already another editor above who agreed. The logo being in an infobox cannot violate any sort of copyright. For one, the infobox is only found on the band page, as is all other non free content. There is no copyright violation. There is no clear rule breaking in putting an image in an infobox. Undeath (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
IllaZilla is right though in all the arguments he has made. This has been discussed to death now and it is clear there is no consensus for using logos for bands' infoboxes as the problems greatly outweigh the advantages. Please remain civil when editing here; it is neither necessary nor helpful to talk about how much or little respect you have for another editor in a debate like this. Thanks. --John (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
His comments were the cause of my frustration. I considered them rude and I let him know that. I had remained "civil" until the civility was broke by IllaZilla. Undeath (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Yes per Kameejl. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for a 'recommended list' of genres?

I know genre is hard to pin down, but is there a recommended list of genre codes that I should use when describing a band? I am making an article for Payola (band), and I am not sure if I am using the template correctly. I am copying from the usage on Fat Freddys Drop. Any help / suggestions would be welcome! --Dan|(talk) 08:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, genres are hard to pin down and often lead to edit wars and NPOV issues. That's why the page for this template advises to "Aim for generality (e.g. [[Hip hop music|Hip hop]] rather than [[East Coast hip hop]])." I find that the best practice is to first write a paragraph or section within the article body discussing the act's genres, with references to reliable third-party sources. Then I list these genres in the infobox. I only list genres in the infobox that are mentioned in the article body. It shouldn't be necessary to use references in the infobox, since the genres are already referenced in the body (plus it just makes the infobox look cluttered, and it's supposed to be a simple at-a-glance thing). In general I encourage other editors not to add discussions about genres into articles without references, and to only list genres in the infobox that are discussed in the article. Sometimes I'll insert a hidden message to that effect using the <!-- --> markup code (you can see an example I recently did in the psychobilly article. If you click "edit this page" you'll see the hidden message in the infobox code). --IllaZilla (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything IllaZilla wrote, particularly the bits about avoiding references in infoboxes and links to articles about overly specific sub-genres (as these tend to be fairly short and/or have serious verifiability issues anyway). Likewise, I also generally avoid links to country-specific articles, e.g. I would not link to British rock in Queen (band), at least not in the infobox. If an artist is notable in the context of their country's local, say, rock scene, it should be discussed somewhere in the article, but per the quick-glance concept of the infobox, it should answer the question "What is rock music?" rather than "What is rock music in...?". – Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Influences" field

Is anyone else aware that "influences" is something of a hidden field in the infobox? Was there consensus to add this (POV-battle fodder of a) field to the infobox. If so, where s the discussion, and why isn't the field documented. Furthermore, if this was not an approved change, it needs to be killed quickly. Wikipedia isn't All Music Guide; we don't have professional musicologists who will actually provide researched options for this field. Instead, we'll get kids trying to claim that...I don't know, B2K inspired Chris Brown and such...--FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion on that here which I'm going to move over here, since it's about this template:

Discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Influences in infoboxes:

Looking thru artists and bands, I think there's definitely scope to add "influences" and "influenced" to the Infobox, as in Template:Infobox Philosopher. I dont really have the musical knowledge to start adding them, but I'm sure there'd be many who would. William Quill (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There is so much edit-warring and POV arguments already over the "genre" field in most articles, adding fields like "influences" and "influenced" would simply compound the problem. Plus, most musical acts have many influences, too many to list in the infobox. Conversely, a majority of acts likely have very few other acts that they have influenced. This is information that would require detailed sourcing and is best left in the article body; it would be extraneous in an infobox which is meant only to provide information about the act which is the subject of the article, not other acts that they may have influenced or been influenced by. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be an "invitation for pov and original research". It should not be added. As mentioned... if referenced it can go in the article. The box already has enough cruft magnets. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
End of moved discussion.

Freddy, how is it a "hidden field"? I don't see it anywhere in the template. If you're seeing it in articles, it likely means some editor has added it themselves. But since it doesn't exist in the original template, it doesn't appear on the final page. You should just be able to delete it as an erroneous field. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that this topic has been discussed before (see here in the archive) and there was no consesus for adding such fields to the template. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposed to the "influence" field. It sounds like a great field to have, and I like to know the influences of bands sometimes, but that field will only create edit wars, so I oppose it. I think if it's notable enough, put it in the article. Many band articles on wikipedia usually say, somwhere in the article, that that band was influenced by this band or that band. Look at how Queen has a section talking about its influence on music, genres and certain bands. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The influences field is in the template(between associated acts and URL), just not in the documentation. Field added on July 06 He probably forgot to add the field to the documentation. There are articles using the field, so any wish to remove it from the template should take that into account. --165.21.154.92 (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Strange that it doesn't appear anywhere on the current template page. Well, per this discussion I'd say remove it, though I can't do it myself because it's protected. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Landscape field

This was brought up before but I don't think we ever came to a conclusion about maximum width for images. It tends to be more problematic with landscape-oriented images, which most of the images in musical artist infoboxes are. Could we discuss a maximum size for images in the infobox, and make the appropriate change to the "Img_size" section of the template page? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IBX recommends a 300px width for the infobox. I guess the absolute maximum image width should be a few px smaller on either side. 250px width looks pretty good to me though. Papa November (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Since that was Kameejl's suggestion and since it's what I have been doing since he made that suggestion... I agree. with 250px too.:D. 156.34.215.213 (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
250px looks best. Has the template been changed yet? Kameejl (Talk) 12:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No it hasn't. After the discussion was archived in favour of spinning wheels on the other issues it was a forgotten topic. I requested IllaZilla re-table it just because, unlike the other discussions, this one seemed to have no sand chucking or hair pulling. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

infobox icons

Ella Fitzgerald
Born
example

there's been a discussion opened up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#image icons and flags in infobox headers. although it may or may not be the correct forum, it is certainly of concern to all infobox tenders. all are invited to participate. cheers! --emerson7 01:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories for logo images

Just an FYI to all: There have been a couple of categories/subcats created for musical artist logo images. They are:

The parent category for both is Category:Musical artist logos. When categorizing images, however, [[Category:Musical artist logos]] should not be used unless neither of the above subcategories applies, per WP:SUBCAT. If you have uploaded logo images for musical artist articles, or if you come across any during your editing, please make sure that they are placed in one of these categories by adding [[Category:Non-free musical artist logos]] or [[Category:Musical artist logos ineligible for copyright]] to the image description pages as appropriate. This is purely for organizational and maintenance purposes. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Reproposition from the French Wikipedia

I don't know if the other one technically got consensus, but nothing has happened yet. I propose that our infoboxes have the nice musical notes and a little more padding than this one to make it look a little more aesthetically pleasing. Anyone else for it? If so, is anyone else interested in applying it to this one? –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 05:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Alias vs. nickname

The alias field is almost always being used for nicknames (see, for instance: Willie Nelson, Steven Tyler, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards. I believe the people of Wikipedia have spoken. The guidlines for the alias field should be include nicknames, or a distinct nickname field should be created for this infobox.

TuckerResearch (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Spouse

{{editprotected}} I think it'd be beneficial to add a "spouse" field.. even children would be good. It's included in the actor infobox so there's no reason it shouldn't be included in the musical artist infobox.. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 06:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't be appropriate for this infobox, because this box covers not only solo artists but also bands, ensembles, etc. So in this case it would be a field that only applies to probably less than half of the articles that use the infobox, therefore not appropriate. I wouldn't be adverse to it being added to the solo artist box, but not the band one. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Not done. Please get consensus for new field(s) before requesting an edit. Prolog (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvements are needed

Hello can i move this page to Template:band infbox cause it will be more easier to remember then Infobox musical artist to hard and well i alway's type dow Band infobox so can i move it and for Deceased members you should one like that cause then if a member is deceased then just put'em there that simple.  Demon Hunter Rules  {{SUBST:Kate Beckinsale is hot}} 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't move it. Sorry, but this infobox is meant to cover all musical artists, not just bands. It covers solo singers, guitarists, orchestras, etc. as well. It's also not appropriate to add a "deceased members" field. There's already a field for "past members" and as you can see on the template page we'd rather not have people adding things like (deceased) after their names. If there is an article on the person, then that article will say when they died. If they died while they were in the band or something, then that info will be in the article body. A "deceased members" field wouldn't be useful. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well then move it to Band/Musical infobox it will be easier to remember cause that way it will be also on the deceased members like Metallica they have a deceased member so put the deceased member there and back to name of the templatecause then you can cover the musician and the band also how is that.  Demon Hunter Rules  {{SUBST:Kate Beckinsale is hot}} 23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the field should remain name-only-no other text. If a band has a member who is dead then those details belong in the main content of the article and don't belong in the box. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Demon Hunter, could you please try to make your suggestions a little more understandable? Use some punctuation or something. I'm not trying to belittle you, but you're saying 3 or 4 different things in 1 sentence and I honestly can't figure out what exactly it is you're suggesting. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that this template needs a deceased members bar that is what i am saying.  Demon Hunter Rules Kate Beckinsale|— 17:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Official website

For websites, www, as in "www.audioslave.com" is not standard. Shouldn't this be removed from the examples then? Does anyone disagree? Timmeh! 22:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It says "the preferred format in most cases is..." So if the case is different, like the site doesn't use the "www", then the need to use a different format is blatantly obvious to even a fairly inexperienced user IMHO. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

I've just edited the genre section and example at the top to prevent confusion about genre delimiters. No consensus was actually reached about which delimiter was preferable, so I added a note to that effect. However, I missed the big red "WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it" so if anyone has any problems with the edits I've just made, please let me know here or on my talk page. The two edits were fairly uncontroversial but I just wanted to leave a message here and make sure it was ok. Seraphim♥ Whipp 11:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow name to be optional

{{editprotected}}

Simple change to allow {{{Name}}} to be omitted if the article title is at the artist's name: 

{{{Name}}}

becomes 

{{{Name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this cause problems for articles with disambiguation phrases in their titles? I don't really understand the point of this change. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No. If {{{Name}}} is specified, {{{Name}}} is used. However, seeing as in a majority of cases the article title is the same as {{{Name}}}, there is no point asking for it unless they differ. This is a trivial change which allows for simpler infoboxes. It will not negatively impact any existing templates at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 Done Happy‑melon 19:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Associated articles section/External Links

Many bands now have many other articles, for examples The Automatic have a page for The Automatic tour history, The Automatic discography, The Automatic songs and other such pages, just as an idea could there be a section in the infobox for associated articles, or at least some elements of the Template:Infobox Artist Discography could be combined in this template? Also TV show articles have a larger area for External links in the infobox, could something like this be done with artists/bands, as more people are interested in seeing the myspace (yes lots of people also hate myspace but oh well). Its just a few ideas i thought i would share, although I very much doubt anyone will be interested in this. Ha. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

If there are a number of associated articles all revolving around the same topic, you might consider creating a navbox template to place at the bottom of each article. For an example see Template:Blackflag. All you have to do is place {{blackflag}} at the bottom of the article to get this navbox to pop up, and any changes to the main template will be reflected in each article the box appears in. You might consider creating something similar for the artist you're working on. As for the external links, these should generally stay out of the infobox except for the artist's official website and, in the case of album articles, links to the reviews. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Label help

I don't know what to do in the infobox for label since sony has changed names so many times. see Katy Garbi. She has always been with a label of sony, and is currently with Sony BMG Greece. She used to release under Columbia Records. What should I do? Grk1011 (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess no one had a quick answer for you. My suggestion is to list Columbia separately (I'm assuming she was on Columbia before it was bought by Sony), then list Sony once. The article on Sony BMG does a good job of explaining the label's past names and the other labels it owns. Each smaller label, though, is still considered a label in its own right even though they are all owned by the same parent company (ie. Columbia, Epic, Jive, etc. are all still considered their own companies even though they share Sony BMG as their parent company). To use a parallel example, for Greg Graffin I would still list both Anti- and Epitaph even though Anti- is an Epitaph subsidiary. They're still considered separate labels and deliberately focus on different types of music. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot breaking this template

Just a heads up: I've spotted two instances of this bot (diff and diff) breaking this template when it deletes image links from it. There are probably several more instances of this infobox that have been broken by this bot. Carnildo, the owner of the bot, has suggested the template should be fixed so that it no longer shows a wikicode fragment when given an empty Img field. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that it is neither. On Drew Lachey, if you edit the last version with the image, starting at the very end of the image line, after deleting the two spaces, it then requires two backspaces to delete the g of jpg, with the first appearing to not delete anything. You get the same 'delete nothing' after the = of the Img parameter on the version after the bot removal. The same issue occurs on Jim Verraros. If you make this extra delete, this solves the issue and the empty Img parameter works as it should. I would think it's some sort of hidden character, but I can't see anything in the source HTML. I'll raise the issue at WP:VPT to see if anyone else has any ideas. mattbr 10:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I get the same issue when trying to delete [[Image:‎|220px|]] (the output from this issue) in edit mode, between the colon and the pipe. mattbr 10:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's the Unicode Left-to-right mark, which you would normally only see used when you have an Arabic (or other right-to-left language) name followed by a date. No idea why it was included in the field value when the image was added on 2007-12-25. Anomie⚔ 10:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a copy-paste artefact, and it's annoying. Since apparently it shouldn't be removed from Wikipedia interface to avoid RTL/LTR problems, probaly we should either create a bot that will remove this from page text on sight, or bug the devs to filter it in page content on saving. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully that's a pretty smart bot/filter, to avoid breaking the places that need it. For example, if I type "يورا أيشايا‎ (1933–1992)" (which should be displaying correctly as "blahblah (1993–1992)"), there is no reason for the bot to break it to "يورا أيشايا (1933–1992)" (which here is displaying incorrectly as "1993–1992) blahblah)"). Anomie⚔ 13:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. I'll point the bot owner this way. mattbr 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Spouse, children fields

I think Spouse and Children should be added to this template. It's included in the actor infobox and there's no reason it shouldn't be included in the musical artist infobox. I know I commonly look on a musical artist's Wikipedia page to see if/who they are married to and if they have any children, and I think it is information that should be in the infobox.

The argument was given earlier that this template is not just used for solo, but bands as well. However, by that arguement, his template shouldn't include a "born" field, an "occupation" field, a "birth name" field, a "voice type" field, a "died" field, or any of those solo only fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save-Me-Oprah (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay or nay?

I kind of like it, but i think it should only be used for relatives that have articles, like dont just name random members of the family who are normal people. Grk1011 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If we are leaning towards making the box look like a bio box from Tiger Beat magazine, can we add "height", "weight", "hair color", "favorite ice cream" and "pet peeves"? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, all these additional field proposals are getting really extraneous. The infobox is meant to be an at-a-glance summary of the subject of the article, not every little factoid relating to them in any way. This is something that belongs in the article body in a "personal life" section or the like. Besides, it would get really confusing when dealing with people who've had multiple marriages & the like. Also, most of the spouses/children listed wouldn't have their own articles because they're not notable, so what's the point really? As Anger22 points out, all this is moving in the direction of turning the infobox into a triviabox. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I to think that sometimes we go too far with adding things to the infobox. I just thought it might be nice because Gianna Terzi's father is also a singer and it could be easily linked from her infobox to his page: Paschalis Terzis, but i do believe that alot of users may abuse the entry and add random, unnotable family members. Grk1011 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_4&oldid=1190120319"