Biography: Arts and Entertainment

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This template is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Please activate the signature parameter. The discussion above from 22 October 2014 is about a close to consensus as Wikipedia is likely to get. If anyone wants to remove the signature parameter then that should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox person, not here, as that is where the parameter is implemented. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Sorry. The template has not supported a signature since 2009. I would want to see a stronger consensus before changing the status quo. And it is quite reasonable that a parameter exists on the parent template, which local consensus determines is not appropriate for this particular infobox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although given the significance that is often attached to an artist's signature, I am surprised not to see an option to include this here, frankly. That should be interpreted as a sign of support for the idea of adding it. KDS4444 ^(talk) 15:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering why the signature does not show in the infobox. Lotje (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a technical question, because the template has no signature parameter.

As an aesthetic/practical question, #Activate signature parameter further up the talk page. There's been no consensus for its addition. for (;;) (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly support inclusion of signature parameter. I have been working on cartoonist and illustrator articles, whose signatures are almost as iconic as their artwork. Despite claims of no consensus, there has actually been surprisingly little discussion (see 2009, 2010, 2014). The arguments against seem to be that artists may have more than one signature, that it is not relevant to their work, and/or it looks amateurish. I would counter that it should be an option, not a requirement, and the inclusion of signature fields on {{infobox person}} and {{Infobox comics creator}} attests to its utility. Including a verified signature from a visual artist can help in identifying their works (probably more important for less famous artists). The fact that signatures can vary over time matters no less than that people themselves vary over time: just as in infobox portraits, it should be up to editorial discretion to select the best representative signature, and discuss any significant variation in the article. The last "debate" consisted of 2 supports and 1 oppose, so I think more input is needed. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, Animalparty. In the meantime, as a workaround, you can either use infobox person (which does support signatures, as you know), or embed {{Infobox artist signature}}, my ugly rough-and-ready response to the stone-walling here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per long standing argument: [1]...Modernist (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A photograph or portrait of the subject is expected and is useful for identification; additional forms of ID such as signature, height & weight, fingerprints, family tree, etc. seem overkill. A signature by its nature is a bold graphic and unduly distracting, like a flag; possibly this is one reason Template:Infobox person contains the command "Do not use a flag template" 16 times. To encourage fixation on the artist's signature seems to me a disservice. A signature in an infobox can be of little use to somebody seeking to authenticate a work of art, as signatures are much more easily forged than artworks, and authentic signatures usually vary considerably, so what is the point of displaying one specimen so prominently? It's better presented in context as in Albrecht Dürer or William-Adolphe Bouguereau. Ewulp (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Except that the general public reading a Wikipedia article on an artist might fully expect to see an image of his/ her signature here— not in order to definitively identify some unknown work, but because artist's signatures are an important part of their identities as artists and are almost ubiquitously placed by those artists on their works as a sign of authorship (and artists seldom intentionally vary these signatures, even though some variation is inevitable). The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that this parameter really aught to be here. Forgeries are irrelevant (we are not an auction house). The fact is, artists sign their creations, and those signatures mean something about those creations. We should have a template that matches this fact, and the absence of a signature parameter here truly surprises me. KDS4444 ^(talk) 15:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ewulp: You fallaciously equate an artist's signature to "height & weight, fingerprints, family tree, etc." as if the inferred triviality precluded its inclusion. Note that in certain fields, height and weight are commonly tracked statistics. (See {{Infobox boxer}} and {{Infobox professional wrestler}}). I'm not saying height and weight are relevant to artists, but the mere option to include a signature certainly seems appropriate. Can you then explain why it is common in other infoboxes? Do you also find the signatures included in countless politician articles from Barack Obama to Hubert Humphrey or writers like Vladimir Nabokov to be overly bold and unduly distracting? Are we worried those signatures might not be the most exemplary? I see signatures as much more timeless and significant than "residence" (which was added below in total disregard of the opposing view). All of the current fields are optional, to be added to (or debated) based on editorial discretion and consensus at each respective article. I simply think that option should extend to signatures. There are books compiling artist signatures, monograms, etc. and for some (but certainly not all) artists, a widely used mark is probably more familiar than a photograph. --Animalparty! (talk)

The reason signatures are common in other infoboxes is presumably because consensus was in favor of inclusion, or because inclusion was decided in disregard of the opposing view. Politicians and writers usually write with a pen, which makes a signature like Hubert Humphrey's fairly discreet, whereas artists commonly sign with paint or charcoal, and the result is obtrusive in an infobox. An artist's biography usually includes several jpgs of the artist's work, and if the artist signs his/her works the signature can be seen there, which makes the signature in an infobox redundant as well as distracting. Ewulp (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artists sign in the corners where the sig can be found only if looked for carefully, and for paintings is often covered by frames anyway. Also, I should point out that the Village Pump RfC happening right now about the use of the signature parameter generally in infoboxes has had at least two participants other than me indicate that the parameter should probably be retained for artists specifically, even if it is lost almost everywhere else. KDS4444 ^(talk) 10:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Until recent centuries, most artists did not sign their work, or did so in block capitals. Most signatures will not show up well in a snippet, with usually a dark background, and many will take a lot of space. If we allow this, before too long vast numbers will clutter up the infoboxes we have, reducing still further the space for actual pictures. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a prediction of doom with no evidence that it is likely to occur. I'm also not sure what you mean by "won't show up well in a snippet"— maybe, thumbnail? Aren't signatures mostly black lines on white backgrounds? What could show up better than that? How much space do you think such a thing will take up? And who is limiting the picture space available in our articles?? KDS4444 ^(talk) 10:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Is there a reason "residence" is not supported in the artist box? It is useful when converting an infobox person to an infobox artist, and provides important information. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support addition of |residence=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - invasion of privacy...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example Françoise Gilot, the children field is present, and it is a valid field in infobox person, but the info isn't displayed.

It's not a valid field in infobox artist. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that this template does not include a parameter for the artist's principal media (oil, watercolor, charcoal, glass, steel, acrylic, pastel, marble, photography, etc.)? I am not saying that only one medium should be mentioned, but rather the option for several important/ relevant ones, as anyone who is considered an "artist" by definition needs to create his/ her "art" out of some kind of material/ media and there doesn't seem to be any other parameter here that covers this. I checked the archives, but found no discussion of artistic media as a parameter. Could one be added? KDS4444 ^(talk) 15:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the documentation, that information is included in |known_for=. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, except the documentation says this field is for "Main fields in which the artist works" and gives examples like "sculpture" and "painting". But one can sculpt out of clay, wood, string, steel, and foam rubber, and one can paint out of almost anything liquid. I don't get the sense from the parameter description that "fields" is meant to include "media worked in" but rather "areas of acknowledged expertise or fame". We can't really say "known for marble" or "known for charcoal", and knowing what media a particular artist "works in" is often fundamental to their artistic record, yes? KDS4444 ^(talk) 21:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly say "known for marble sculpture" or "known for charcoal drawing". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could also add a parameter for "media", which would let new editors using this template know that this is where to put that artist's media. Is adding this to the infobox problematic for us to do somehow? Would it cause issues in the template? Also, if you look at brochures for gallery showings of groups of artists, the brochures often say things like "Alice Smith/ ceramics" and "Steve Andrews/ acrylic, colored pencil, mixed media", etc. KDS4444 ^(talk) 10:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]