 | This template was considered for deletion on 2006 June 22. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. | [edit] Please do away with Associated Acts The "Associated Acts" field is misused and abused 99% of the time on Wikipedia and really serves no purpose in an infobox. I implore anyone here to take a random sample of 20 different musician biographies and see just how poorly it is being handled. There are times when the best solution to a problem on Wikipedia is corrections through editing, but in this specific case the "Associated Acts" field is nothing more than a super-magnet for trivial and loosely related artists by the dozens, cluttering up an infobox. That is exactly what we're aiming not to do in the infobox. JBsupreme (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - We did rewrite the instructions for this section earlier this year. It's not likely that many old articles were changed to conform to the new instructions, so that may be what you are seeing. At that time, we did not notice such a great abuse of that field that made it unusable. Please provide some examples, and feel free to change any that need fixing. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- The current instructions are pretty mucky I feel... too ambiguously defined. :( JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you're not saying what is specifically wrong, or what articles are using the parm incorrectly and why. The rules were clarified, and show how the field should be used, with a list of do's and don'ts, so I don't see how it can be vague. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Okay. Test case: Take a sampling of 20 miscellaneous artists from various genres who listed Associated Acts in the infobox. Are they being utilized correctly or not? If not, why not. I'm interested to see what results you get. JBsupreme (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I can't help but notice no one is interested. JBsupreme (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Sorry JB, but this is like when an editor objects to removal of uncited claims by saying we could probably find proof if we used google to search other websites (the point being, that's the job of the person who inserts the content). I haven't come across a big problem with the use of this field in the articles I read and edit. If you have, let us know which articles, and we can help fix those. If you can't provide examples as suggested, I'm not sure you are justified in thinking there is such a serious problem as to call for the parm's removal. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely should NOT delete the parameter. Abuse of a parameter needs to be dealt with on a "case-by-case" basis. Should we eliminate the "Genre" parameter because of the endless edit wars concerning that issue? Eliminating parameters "outright" is not the way... Doc9871 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Uhh, can you answer my question please or NOT reply below the part where I'm asking a question? Please refactor or move your non-response. JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Non-response" - The answer to your question is... "No, there is no chance of the incomplete pseudo-proposal (that you may be attempting to suggest?) passing." I don't really see the need to "refactor"(?) or move my "non-response" anywhere - interesting terminology. I suspect you may want only opinions that agree with you. That is not WP... Doc9871 (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- No, I'm looking for feedback in general regarding the articles I just mentioned, as was requested earlier. Feel free to continue typing away, Doc. JBsupreme (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Last typing you'll see from me - seriously, best of luck eliminating the "Associated Acts" parameter. Seriously. Good luck... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Random sampling (indentation reset) Okay, interesting response. I'll take the bait. Here's a random sampling of articles which I believe are mis-using / abusing the Associated Acts field. What is the opinion of others who are reading this talk page? 40 Glocc, Bishop Lamont, Crooked I, C-Bo, Daz Dillinger, DJ Skee. I could go on, but I'd like some input first. JBsupreme (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC) - First, I don't know why you're saying "I'll take the bait". It was you who wanted us to chase down some examples for you, but that's not what we're here for, and what Doc said is what I've been trying to tell you.
- On to a reply: There may well be a problem with the field that is particular to rap artists. I have seen occasions in the past where a certain music genre goes off in a different style direction, and it happens because creators of those articles use similar articles as an example. The most popular articles in the genre become a "template" for the others. I recall some years ago when editors of "metal" articles claimed certain formatting standards were different for that genre, but the real explanation is that conventions just developed from article to article by editors who probably rarely worked on articles outside their genre, and did not have a broader view.
- Just taking a quick glance at a couple of your examples, it seems the article subjects did do collaborative work with other artists such as doing remixes of each other's music, etc., and that is probably being used as the reason for the mention in "associated acts". Since that kind of cross-collaboration work goes on frequently in rap and DJ/dance music, this may explain why these articles have so many AAs, and in some instances they might be justified. But it's important for editors to remember the field is for collaborations "on multiple occasions", and not a "one-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song" (both quotes taken directly from the guidelines).
- To prepare for correcting an article, you should consider each AA that you think should not be there, summarize what the relationship is between artists (as presented in the article), and then determine that it does not meet the criteria in the guidelines. If the AA isn't mentioned at all in the article, or if the work they did together is only vaguely described, it should certainly come out. This may sound like a lot of work, but you don't have to ask permission before taking out AAs. But you SHOULD be prepared to justify your actions if they are questioned. You could essentially reply to objections before they are raised by posting a message on the article's talk page at the same time you make the edits, explaining case by case why each AA was removed.
- Why not try that with one article that gets a lot of editing traffic, and see what happens? If you're unsure about this, why not prepare an "article talk page" message on your own user sandbox page (not actually editing the article yet), and ask for us to look at it to see if it's acceptably worded? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for making my point for me. This field is completely pointless and frequently subject to overly long lists of loosely "associated artists". Who cares if they have worked together on 3 songs? Do you not see how vague your definition of "multiple occassions" is? Do we really need to clutter up the infobox in this fashion? If it is truly important, document it within the body of the article. JBsupreme (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Your "it's often cluttered in hip-hop articles, so we should get rid of it altogether" attitude really isn't helpful, and I doubt there's a snowball's chance of the field getting removed outright. For most artists it is quite relevant and not cluttered. For example, the infoboxes for All and the Descendents would be remiss not to note the two bands' association, as they share 75% of the same members. And for an article about a solo musician or single member, you need the field to list the acts that that person is or has been a member of. The infobox for Maynard James Keenan would be remiss it it did not mention Tool or A Perfect Circle anywhere in it. The problems you are describing are the exception rather than the rule, and seem to be based largely on a genre-centric problem. Sure, there's a lot of collaboration that goes on in rap & hip-hop, and listing every single act or person that a given artist has ever collaborated with would get very cluttered...that can also happen in rock, BtW: if we tried to list every act that Josh Freese has recorded for in the infobox, the list would be over 100 entries long. That's why we have some guidelines here on the template page, to keep it to the most relevant examples. In Freese's case that means acts he's actually been a full member of rather than just a session drummer. For rap/hip-hop artists this means other artists/acts that they've collaborated with on multiple significant occassions, for example Eminem and Dr. Dre. I would think the Method Man infobox rather remiss if it didn't mention Wu-Tang Clan at all. The AA field clearly serves a useful purpose when a little common sense is applied in its application, and we're not going to ditch it altogether just because it gets cluttered in a relatively small percentage of articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I lied - I'll take one more stroke at it. JB, you are getting excellent, realistic advice on an issue you, yourself, raised. The basic assessment of this small sample of editors (again, who are freely offering the advice that you sought) is that your undeclared proposal would not possibly pass. This is not to discourage you; in fact, WP:Consensus states that a small group of editor's opinions cannot preclude the greater WP community's opinion. However, for you to argue this point here any longer does not further the goal that you seek. Instead of dismissing the learned advice that you clearly disagree with, it would be best to consider compromising somehow to a more realistic proposal (if that's even proven to be warranted)... Doc9871 (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Doc, you're missing the boat completely. I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm trying to raise the red flag here that there is a problem. This field is pointless, attracts tons of useless drive-by edits, and could be handled much better in prose. This applies to ALL articles, although I do seem to notice that certain genres have more of a problem with this field than others. I am also pointing out that the criteria set forth for this field is extremely vague such that it would be difficult to argue on the talk page of each individual article why you couldn't have 50 artists listed as "Associated Acts" when plenty of musicians have worked with dozens of others "on multiple occasions". Get it? JBsupreme (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- IllaZilla, I thank you kindly for your response. My challenge still stands. If you believe this problem is affecting only a small percentage of articles, why not take a random sampling of your own. Let me know what your results are. JBsupreme (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Now you're just becoming arrogant, your argument has been shutdown, chill. Even this latest arguement - it "could be handled much better in prose"? The guidelines state that it must be handled in the prose for it to be in the infobox! The whole point of an infobox is to summarise certain aspects of an article; that's all this field does right now. If there's no explanation of artist's association in the prose, then they should be removed from the field (following some simple research). As for having an article which associates someone with 50 other artists in the article's prose, well you would need a very long, well-sourced article. Be realistic, you have an idea in your head which is just a quick fix. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hee hee.. yes, I "get it", JB! Trust me, you've got an extremely rocky road ahead of you if you are actually serious about changing the parameter, let alone eliminating it. Have the decency to quit while you're behind, at long last, sir! Have you no sense of decency?! Doc9871 (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "If you believe this problem is affecting only a small percentage of articles, why not take a random sampling of your own. Let me know what your results are." Um, isn't that what I just did? I linked 10 musical artist articles in my above comment, all of which I thought of off the top of my head, and none of them seem to have a problem using the AA field or having it look cluttered. All of them seem to be listing the most relevant associated acts without much difficulty (except for Keenan, which had the unrelated problem of listing dates next to each act, but I fixed that). --IllaZilla (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't surprise me that people here on this talk page are in favor of the field, but I've just re-read my arguments, read the documentation for this template as of today, and firmly stand behind my arguments. JBsupreme (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Let's try another approach. You have said "the criteria set forth for this field is extremely vague". What would you propose as an update to it? (Before you reply, you may want to review the discussion that took place when we changed it before. Specifically, there were objections to using criteria that were too specific, and therefore not applicable to most articles. Also, a proposal to expand the rules to twice their current size would likely not gain support, because long explanations don't get read, and usually aren't necessary to give a feel for what the field is about, which is the real point.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- At the very least, the associated acts should be associated strongly enough to be included as prose in the text as well. Method Man is a good example of having too many that only appear in the infobox (e.g., LL Cool J, Keith Murray, ...). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. Method Man has too many Infobox "associated acts". So that should be dealt with accordingly, as part of a "case-by-case" patrolling mentality. Don't erase the parameter for all - cull the abused pages of the contested few... Doc9871 (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The main problem I've encountered with this field is the tendency of inexperienced editors to add acts that in fact aren't associated at all. They find reasons such as one member in common or the bands played on a tour together to justify classifying the acts as associated. I've found this on a majority of the artist articles I watch. However, I tend to pay attention to the articles that are overall more subject to stubborn newbies than most; these same articles often have repetitive genre and OR problems as well. Although I agree there is a problem with editors adding non-associated acts, I don't think that's sufficient reason to remove the field altogether. Like the genre field, it is helpful to the reader and helps connect similar artists' articles. Timmeh 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) - The problem you describe (with inexperienced editors) could happen with any field. Look at it as an opportunity to educate new users by pointing them to the instructions, which they probably hadn't read. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This needs more guidelines than just "aim for generality". How much generality? East Coast hip hop seems like a bad example, because it's a regional scene rather than a subgenre. If an artist pioneered a subgenre X of genre Y, and rarely if ever peforms any other kind of Y, I think X should be in the infobox and not Y. There are a lot of questions this section could answer. If you do guest vocals on a reggae song are you a reggae singer? Is there a limit on how many genres can be on the list? Pwrong (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Here's my suggestion. If noone objects I'll go ahead and replace the old guideline with this. - Genre
- The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for accuracy first and generality second. The list of genres can usually be limited to two or three. Subgenres should be included if the artist has one or more albums (or a large number of songs) where they play the subgenre exclusively, or if the artist is considered influential or significant in the genre (reliable sources must be provided for this). If the artist is already covered by subgenres then the higher genre can be left out. For example if a band plays only
[[Heavy metal music|heavy metal]] then [[Rock music|rock]] can be left out. If they play only [[Black metal|black metal]] and [[Death metal|death metal]] then [[Heavy metal music|heavy metal]] can be left out. One song, a few songs, or a piece of a song in a particular genre is not sufficient to say that the artist plays that genre. The list of genres can usually be limited to 3 or 4, except in special circumstances. Genres should be separated with a delimiter, either a comma or a line break (<br/>). Genres should be linked (piped linked where needed), for example, "Rock, pop" should link to rock music and pop music respectively. Note that most genres aren't proper nouns, and shouldn't be capitalized, but the first word in the list should be. Pwrong (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC) For clarification, "special circumstances" includes bands that have repeatedly changed their genre (e.g Clutch), individuals that play in several bands or do solo work in different genres (e.g. Mike Patton, Hank Williams III), and bands that are often labeled with many genres by the media because it's not clear what they play. I think this new guideline more accurately reflects what most articles say anyway, so there's no need to go change every article. People only look at the guideline when there's a disagreement anyway. Pwrong (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - Wow, I don't think a replacement of one sentence with eight (or more, if your appended section is to be part of it), is going to be accepted. Or read, if implemented. While I appreciate the work you put into this, it is far too long for template instructions. It would do better as an essay article. The current instructions are delibarately short and non-specific, and while I do agree there should be a greater guideline for this subject, a write-up half the length of yours would not be read or followed, and a write-up twice the length of yours would probably not be enough to cover the whole topic, which is why I recommend an essay article.
- Near the start, your text says "the list of genres can usually be limited to two or three", and later it says "the list of genres can usually be limited to 3 or 4". In many (most?) cases we don't need more than one genre, and the instructions seem to suggest there should always be at least two or three. I am against encouraging the use of more than one, but your text only talks about using multiple genres.
- The current instructions do not demand citations when adding subgenres for certain reasons. In the past we have discussed whether citations are requred for any genre in the list, and decided against it. Your instructions state that citations are required only if the subgenre is being inserted for a certain reason, and there is a glaring loophole here. An editor could say, "I didn't add it for that reason, so it doesn't need a citation". I would advise against demanding citations in whole or in part, and although we have discussed this before, the fact that the current wording doesn't say anything about it, suggests there is no consensus for it.
- You said "East Coast hip hop seems like a bad example, because it's a regional scene", and I think that's what the author of that statement was trying to imply, but anyway it (kind of) works as an example whether it's a real genre or not. I wonder if either the current example or yours would be fully understood by people not familiar with these genres. Perhaps a less "cult following" example such as blues-rock or jazz-rock could be considered. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- P.S., a need for more general examples applies to artist names too. It's best to stick with names everyone knows, i.e. Beatles and Beethoven. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- ok, I'll write a bit more and make it an essay. What if we leave the guideline as is, except replace "aim for generality" with "aim for accuracy first and generality second", and perhaps include a link to the essay, or some other longer guideline?
- Sorry, I don't know how that happened. I get confused editing with my iPhone. I had a limit of 2 or 3 originally, but I meant to change it to 3 or 4 when I realised a lot of artists have 4. Maybe something like "the less genres and subgenres that can be used to accurately describe an artist, the better".
- Ok, I wasn't aware of that discussion. I'll leave the citation bit out. I've seen citations used in some cases where the genre is controversial.
- Maybe. I just picked an example I know. In the essay there'll be room for a few examples. Pwrong (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Accuracy is something that is almost unheard of when it comes to deciding a genre. I can only see that amounting to even more original research violations in the genre field, it gives them a reason to try to be specific, which isn't going to help. It really needs to encourage people to write it out in the prose and then summarise what is sourced inside the infobox. kiac. (talk-contrib) 15:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think the genre field should be inaccurate? The way this currently works is: people put genres and subgenres in using common sense, and usually get it right. Whenever there's a disagreement, someone has the bright idea of looking at the guidelines. They then decide that generality is the most important thing and insist that subgenres shouldn't be allowed. This is nonsense, but it follows directly from the guidelines. Is there any reason why generality is so important and subgenres shouldn't be allowed? Pwrong (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with your logic. But who decides what 'accuracy' is? The sources? They're so conflicted it is impossible to withdraw an 'accurate' reading out of them. Generality is in a sense more accurate - just not specific. Specificity can be covered in prose - it would be hell trying to accurately summarise some bands' overall style within four specific 'accurate' genres. kiac. (talk-contrib) 08:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Genre is far from an exact science. Our sources are often music critics who have a propensity to make up new genres as they write to keep their own "art" alive. If there are a majority of critics (or pop historians) sourced for an article using the same categories then specificity is probably fine; otherwise "generality" ie. "country", "rock", "jazz" or etc is the easiest guidance to reduce the haggling -- which is nearly hopeless anyway as it seems to be a favorite edit. The genre edit is quick, non-prose and subjective; who could ask for more of an invitation? Unfortunately, for the encyclopedia's sake artists are ever more so blurring genre lines. It will always be impossible to contain creativity in a small box with third party research. BTW this also was the subject of a long indepth unresolved discussion a year ago during which the field was temporarily deleted: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 9 It begins with this link and spans 7 archived pages (it could be made into a small book). - Steve3849 talk 10:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I intend to read it all when I have the time (probably some time in january). I suspect that the discussion never really finished, or that the result wasn't implemented. I understand the idea of "aim for generality", but it's not always necessary. The idea seemed to begin with "when in doubt, aim for generality", which is a much better guideline. Nearly every band article would have to be changed if we were to take "aim for generality" literally.Pwrong (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Style...? I'm wondering if it might be possible to add a "Style" field to the infobox. My concern stems mainly from Phish, where the term "jam band" is repeatedly inserted and removed from the "Genre" field. I have personally not taken sides, as, strictly speaking, "jam band" is not a genre. However, the omission of this phrase from the infobox is glaring, as that is mainly how they're known. I realize that this field might not have much use on the majority of articles and may have potential for misuse and OR, but I'm not sure what else to do. — MusicMaker5376 17:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - We discussed this during the big genre debate last year. Consensus was that one field for genre/style is enough. Adding another will not solve edit wars. There's nothing wrong with listing "jam band" in the field as long as that term is discussed and properly sourced in the article body. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Where is the big genre debate?Pwrong (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.8.232 (talk)
-
-
- The bulk of it is in archives and 9-14 and 16 of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music (yes, 7 pages of archives...). Here's an earlier discussion that's actually about exactly what you're proposing. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Religion Could we please have an optional field added for an artist's religion? It would be valuable to know what religious views have influenced an artist's work or what music a particular religion has inspired, and AFAIK there's no other place on Wikipedia where this info is organized. NeonMerlin 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC) - Please no. That information does belong in the article but not in an infobox. Garion96 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Not a chance. See the numerous other suggestions for additional fields in this talk page's archives. This has little bearing on an artist's musical career in most cases, and "what religious views have influenced an artist's work or what music a particular religion has inspired" is not something that can be reduced to a bullet point in an infobox. It needs to stay in the prose, with context, explanation, and sources. Simply not appropriate for an infobox presentation. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Completely agree with IllaZilla. J04n(talk page) 23:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with above responses, if more support is needed! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] All musicians are celibate How come musicians are not entitled to have spouses the way that actors do?
Varlaam (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC) - The reason the musical artist does not contain a spouse parameter is because who an artist is married to is often not part of the person's notability. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the majority, marriages can be discussed in the prose if it is even notable. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But this is an encyclopedia. It's fundamental personal information. Why is it significant for overpaid actors, but not musicians? It's a fact(oid). It's one data point in a big article. I don't see a compelling reason for exclusion. People in general won't be noting this information when it is not noteworthy. I got onto this in the first place after learning that Miles Davis's wife appears on the cover of one of his LPs. Interesting, albeit minor, information. But there shouldn't be an artificial hurdle to documenting it.
- Varlaam (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I'd say it'd be better to take it off the actor one, but that's a discussion for there. There's no hurdle to documenting it -- if they were ever married it'll almost surely be there in the article. But it's just not relevent to the infobox. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's even not well-used for actors - look at, for example, Kevin Costner. Under "Spouse(s)", there's no mention of his first wife, whom he was married to for 16 years and had three children with! Their divorce was somewhat publicized, and only Costner's spouse as of 2004 is listed is his Infobox. Again, this is just one example, but why include an already poorly implemented and admittedly "fact(oid)" and "minor" parameter on a whole new slew of Infoboxes? Keep it in the body, even for actors, I say... Doc9871 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think your argument cuts the other way. Rarely used, so little overhead, except when it matters. Lennon's marriage to Yoko has a huge impact on us as listeners. So why disguise it? Dylan has a secret marriage to a black lady. In some instances, it's worth featuring, either for musical import, or human interest. Androgynous Bowie -- the guy with an LP actually called "The King of Gay Power" -- marries a sexy model. That's one of the most notable things about the guy. I see no downside to making it available.
- Varlaam (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I... certainly never thought of it that way... I guess. I don't think anyone could "disguise" the fact that Lennon married Yoko... really? The next two sentences you state are even more interesting, and yet I find still very unrelated to Infobox parameters. It's all still "available" - just read the body of the article. "Secret marriages" and "androgynous" are things that need to be backed with references in articles, as otherwise they are "original research"... Doc9871 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I disagree with adding any fields unrelated to the majority of musical artists. If it is relevant in a particular case (such as Candice Night) it should be written within the text. J04n(talk page) 05:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC) - Oppose as superfluous. For the vast majority of musical artists who even have a spouse, the spouse is irrelevant to their career as a musician. Infoboxes should only contain parameters that apply to the majority of articles that will use the template, per WP:IBT. Spouses can of course be discussed in the article body. Not every potential detail about a person needs to have its own field in the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
|
