Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 3 January 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81

Papa Haydn

By accident far from my wiki-home I discovered Papa Haydn without any project banners, although talk is relatively recent.

Its only category is Joseph Haydn. The article may be more about classical music than about Joseph, eg:

"Papa" as founder

Another sense of the term "Papa Haydn" comes from his role in the history of classical music, notably in the development of the symphony and string quartet.

So I "assigned" it to you as well as to Biography and Composers. --P64 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Antonín Dvořák

Lately, I have been thinking about doing a GA/FA push for Antonín Dvořák. The discussion is here if anyone is interested. Comments, additions and ideas on how to improve the article are always welcome. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Classical Barnstar

Template:Classical Barnstar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 19:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sebastian Lee and Sébastien Lee

Sebastian Lee and Sébastien Lee were both cellists who lived from 1805 to 1887, but the articles claim one was German and one was French. It looks like they are the same person, who was born in Germany and eventually moved back, but spent a significant amount of time in France. If this is correct, the articles should be merged. TimBentley (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same person. I've merged the information and redirected to Sebastian Lee, as he is better known (and his music is still published) under this name. His "40 Studies" are still well known among cellists. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mozart GA/FA push

Hi. Just so everyone is aware, I am trying to help improve Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to GA/FA status. The discussion is at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#GA/FA Push. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Elimination of Latsabidze Giorgi biography in French Misplaced Pages

Hello my name is Adolfo, I have 39 years and I studied piano for 30 years, I'm writing from Spain. My teacher was from Georgia and he spoke of his country's best musician Latsabidze Giorgi, I study their records and know well their work and career. First I want to congratulate you for your good article on Latsabidze in the English Misplaced Pages. I'm writing because I need your help because Latsabidze's biography has been removed from the French Misplaced Pages, they have told many lies about Latsabidze, they say they have never won the international competition Rubeinstein of Paris, who has never received the scholarship Carol Hogel, who has never recorded an album etc .... As you can see here:http://fr.wikipedia.org/Discussion:Giorgi_Latsabidze/Suppression I wrote to administrators to demonstrate the lies they tell: http://fr.wikipedia.org/Discussion_utilisateur:LPLT (August 12) http://fr.wikipedia.org/Discussion_utilisateur:Wikinade (August 15) After demonstrating that they lie, I have requested that the biography is restored in the French Misplaced Pages as you can see here:http://fr.wikipedia.org/Wikipédia:Demande_de_restauration_de_page#Giorgi_Latsabidze (August 17) They've given the reasons as you can see and I have proven to be lies. I need your help and the help of the English Misplaced Pages, I need people to write to show their disagreement with the decision because only tell lies about Giorgi Latsabidze. I can not and I just need people to agree with me that it is written in the French Misplaced Pages showing their disagreement. Thank you very much for your attention--Carlitosbull (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Adolfo, some of those links are dead. gonflé. Aucune trace de notoriété It seems that they were worried about (i) Notability, (ii) puff-piece. I'm a bit surprised on count (i), and (ii) can easily be dealt with. Did they not even give you the option of a sandbox while you work on it? (that can be tricky, BLPs are subject to sourcing requirements whether in or out of sandbox). I don't edit much on fr.wp but enough to feel entitled to support an article there if 1 or 2 others did. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts not working?

Is there something wrong with alerts? I was wondering why there's been no WP:CM editor input to Talk:Tôn-Thất Tiết RM, and now I see that the alert didn't pick up the RM. I have put in one for the other well known French-Vietnamese composer, the Messaien student Talk:Nguyen-Thien Dao → Nguyễn Thiện Đạo per EMI and Erato LP covers (no sign of a CD reissue...) we'll see if that kicks the alert trigger. (not that all music editors automatically support funny names) In ictu oculi (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• ...Ah, because the article affected actually has to have WikiProject Classical music tag on Talk page, not just WP Composer Tag. Subproject tags don't get picked up by alerts... Fair enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Mass in B minor

On the talk, I had a question in April 2010 about the tempo markings, it's still open. Right now, the Mass is mentioned on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not waiting any longer, I started a table Mass in B minor structure. Please check it for omissions/mistakes, and please check if it should replace part of the Main article, I didn't dare to go that far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Planned edit-a-thon

From 8–14 October 2012, Australia's primary classical music broadcaster, ABC Classic FM, will be holding a countdown of the top 100 French works of classical music as voted by listeners to the radio station. Some Australian Wikipedians including myself are planning to be involved in an edit-a-thon and related meetup in Sydney to create and improve articles about the works on the countdown. Feel free to join in if you'd like! Graham87 13:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Very nice! For those of us non-locals, perhaps you can have participants create a list of articles created/edited, so members of this group can examine and perhaps expand. -- kosboot (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I've copied your comment to the editathon's talk page. All comments should go there rather than here so the conversation is kept in one place. Graham87 05:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The project page now includes a "to do" list which we will keep updated with all of the things we think of that need fixing/creating etc. Please feel free to add your own ideas there, comment and take tasks from that list! Here it is: Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Sydney/October_2012#To_do. Wittylama 01:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Since this takes place in a library, you should add your editathon to the events at: Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries. kosboot (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea; done. Graham87 03:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré

May I nominate Gabriel Faure for Today's featured article on November 4th? I asked the most significant contributor, Ssilvers, and he said it was alright, but to ask here, so I am.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I need to know.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Musopen: adding free music to articles

I've recently come across Musopen, which not only serves as a repository for free (i.e. freely licenced) music, but has also commissioned recordings of professional orchestras performing famous pieces which have been released into the Public Domain. A list of the "Musopen Symphony Orchestra" recordings can be found here (under Music, not Most Popular), and it would be great to have these added to the articles that don't currently have a recording for readers to listen to. In order to add them, follow these steps:

1. Register at Musopen (allows 5 downloads a day)
2. Navigate to the page of the piece you want to add (you can click on the piece's arrow button on the right under "Learn More" for the piece you want from the link above)
3. A list of recordings should appear, with buttons "Bookmark", "Download" and "Play Music" (note that some, such as the Coriolan Overture do not seem to have the recordings uploaded)
4. Click on the arrow on the far right of the "Download" button, and click on "HQ File" from the drop down list that appears
5. Download the file, and convert to FLAC (dBpoweramp Music Converter is very easy to use once installed)
6. Convert this FLAC file to OGG Vorbis (the format Misplaced Pages uses) using oggdropXPd for best results (even easier to use once installed)
7. Upload this OGG file to Wikimedia Commons (give the page URL as the source, Musopen as the author and specify "Another reason not mentioned above" with the following code: {{PD-author|}}, but repeating the source page URL in place of http://www.musopen.org/music/piece/1568
8. Use a simple filename (I've been using "Musopen - Piece name.ogg") and then add it to the article using the following code: {{Listen|filename=Musopen - Piece name.ogg|title=''Title''|description=''Title'' performed by the ] Symphony Orchestra}} (replacing the filename with the name you uploaded it as, and the title)

It may seem complicated at first, but once done the first time is really very straightforward. I've added recordings to a couple of articles, but am having trouble downloading the tracks from Musopen at the moment (which I put down to my internet connection), so if anyone else wants to help out here either follow the instructions, or if you'd rather just download them and email the files to me, I'd be happy to convert, upload and add them to the articles. Thanks. --xensyria 21:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! However, it'd be better to use the lossless files. See

Also see WikiProject Free music and its talk page, a project that dealt with many of the original Musopen uploads. You may want to contact Sven Manguard and/or Raul654 about Musopen. IIRC the latter user negotiated with the founder of the site to allow recordings from Musopen on Misplaced Pages in the first place; the former user instigated the proposal I mentioned above. I don't have much time to work on this at the moment but I wish you well. Graham87 12:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, my half-baked solution (I used the suggested general preference for ogg files, down to the encoder software - I hadn't seen the discussion you mention at the time) was based on the disappointing lack of good quality examples on most of the relevant articles, and an assumption that many of this project's users may not be very tech savvy (which seems unfounded in hindsight). Thankfully it seems to have spurred another user to use a much better set of steps than I'd taken and add many other Musopen pieces; I hope they continue to be added as Musopen produces them! --xensyria 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The code in step 8 above should be {{Listen| filename= Musopen - Piece name.ogg | title= ''Title'' | description= ''Title'' performed by the ] Symphony Orchestra | type= music}} - i.e. with an additional |type=music. That sets the appropriate icon and allows tracking of where free music is used. (I've also added white space for readability and ease of editing; but that's less critical.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Musopen}} should also be used in the source field. --xensyria 03:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nitpick: that should be Commons:Template:Musopen, to be used in the file description at Commons.

Re steps 5 & 6: The conversion from MP3 or FLAC to OGG can also be done with Audacity (audio editor). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the template, perhaps I should have said one only needs to type {{Musopen}}. And I'm not sure about Audacity, but I know that some of the other encoders aren't at the same standard as the preferred Hydrogenaudio-recommended encoders: dBpoweramp for example gave awful results, stripping all metadata and started at about 1 minute in when played back through VLC (hence why I didn't merge steps 5 and 6). Also, the lossless audio files for most of the tracks that I saw (and I was mostly looking at the newly commissioned "Musopen Symphony Orchestra" pieces) were in m4a format, which is propriety, though it seems the HQ format for their older files is still FLAC; it might be best just to convert to FLAC and upload, but OGG's smaller file size is a strength. --xensyria 06:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're using the free version of dBpoweramp, because the paid one keeps all tags just fine and tend to be the preferred audio converter from what I've seen. But it pains me to see people talking about going from Mp3 to Ogg in the first place. :-( Yes it's smaller but it also creates quality loss on top of quality loss. Not a problem for 30 second samples, but whole pieces, especially well recorded ones it's....just bad. As for M4A, those are AAC files, like you would buy on iTunes. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Johann Sebastian Bach should be kept

Keep - My template for Johann Sebastian Bach was removed from several articles without proper discussion taking place. I believe that Template:Johann Sebastian Bach should be kept, as there are more than 5 articles related to him. Perhaps several "sub-templates" could be nested under this one.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see yet for which purpose we need this template. The articles appear on the main article Bach, and people looking up works can easily go there, I see no need to blow up hundreds of articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If this is the case, then we don't need any navboxes on Misplaced Pages at all. The navbox is designed to assist in navigating between related articles. The article about JSB itself and the articles that relate to it are long, and the navbox makes finding these articles much easier. This navbox is in line with WP:ANOEP.--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. I like the template Bach cantatas

and (almost) could not live without it ;) It allows easy links between articles of the same kind. I don't see a reader of the Mass in B minor article sufficiently interested in the Bach family, for example, to install links to those rather remote articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Given the number of Bach family members, I strongly believe that some type of navbox is in order, and recommend that people make suggestions instead of just eliminating the navbox outright. Instead of removing a navbox from all articles, which is the antithesis of consensus, it should at a minimum be brought to AfD, instead of making threats to involve an admin as was done on my talk page.--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to threaten. I asked you to wait, you didn't listen, I felt a bit helpless. Perhaps you wait now, that Mirokado said it much nicer? ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Since you have started this section to discuss whether the template should be added or not, please do not keep adding it until the issue is resolved. Generally we should ensure there is consensus to make wide-ranging systematic changes to articles, which is another reason to hold off until there is consensus to add this. If the decision is to add it, please look at WP:APPENDIX and other articles with navboxen to see where in the source it goes. I will think a bit before responding to the actual keep-or-not question. --Mirokado (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The template I removed was unsuitable for inclusion in any article. That's why I removed it. Following WP:BRD, this discussion ought to have been the next step. Now, that User:Hyacinth has made some sensible changes (and may possibly continue to so), it may be used on pages which are mentioned in the template, but it should not be deployed on every JSB-related article; see WP:NAVBOX, ("... every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." – Misplaced Pages:A navbox on every page is not an accepted guideline or even policy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur - I concur that the new navbox is satisfactory, and that whatever is related to JSB (and is not a Bach cantata) can be placed in the navbox. IMO, the navbox should have been trimmed, not deleted from all pages that it was on, including the parent article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Should birth/death dates be added in parentheses to members of the Bach family, or perhaps their relation to Bach? For example, "Anna Magdalena Bach" would appear as "Anna Magdalena Bach (1701–1760)" or "Anna Magdalena Bach (wife)". Hyacinth (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Concur? I said the opposite of what you claim to concur to; the Template:Johann Sebastian Bach cannot possibly be populated with "whatever is related to JSB" nor should it be used in articles which are not mentioned in it.

Jax 0677 has created another half-baked template, {{Bach family}}, which has inappropriate content and is mis-categorised; see Template talk:Bach family. Despite these flaws and without learning from the previous experience, Jax 0677 deployed this template immediately to 4 articles, 3 of which already had the controversial Template:Johann Sebastian Bach. I suggest to remove it from all articles, whether its obvious flaws are corrected or not, and discuss the need, name, content, and deployment of such a template.

@Hyacinth: Their relationship to JSB seems more informative to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The navbox does seem much improved. If the current "List" articles were added to the compositions section, it seems like it might be OK in the "See also" section of the main Bach article. Can't say that I care for the color though. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment

@Michael - What I meant is that articles that are related to JSB might be includable into Template:Johann Sebastian Bach. If this is the case, then they can be included in those articles. The Bach family has more than 5 notable family members, who can also be added to {{Bach family}} along with articles related to them. If there are many articles related to an individual, then an additional navbox for that individual can be created. I have deleted the portals and changed the category, which were oversights.

TfD exists for the purpose of deciding which navboxes to keep or not. Deleting a navbox from ALL articles is a lot like deleting the entire template from Misplaced Pages before consensus is reached, and opposes WP:BEBOLD.

BTW, why was the template removed from the Johann Sebastian Bach article?--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

1) Surely, that article doesn't need 2 templates with overlapping content. 2) The template seemed to be be still under construction. A template for the most influential composer ever needs careful consideration, which seemed to be lacking.

Being bold is the 1st step in the WP:BRD cycle, although in the past similar issues have been put up for discussion here first; this template might have benefited from such a discussion.

@Robert Allen: 1) Both template are based on {{Navbox musical artist}} and their colouring stems from the |background=solo_singer in the case of {{Johann Sebastian Bach}}, and from |background=group_or_band in the case of {{Bach family}}; this seems a strange choice as we use {{Navbox}} for other composers. 2) The "See also" section is not the proper place for navigation boxes, the bottom of the article is; see MOS:FOOTERS.

Nitpick: Both templates use documentation which claims they use the {{collapsible option}} but they don't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

State added to both templates so that they have the collapsible option. Hyacinth (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Should the three templates be combined into one template?

I am wondering, should Template:Johann Sebastian Bach, Template:Bach family and Template:Bach cantatas be combined into one template, having the other two redirect to Template:Johann Sebastian Bach? Any family member with less than 4-5 related articles could be put in the related articles section of the template, and and family member with more can have their very own template. Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I vote against combining Bach cantatas with anything. It's complex and dedicated to the one topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gerda that the cantatas template doesn't lend itself to further expansion. As for JSB Bach & family: several editors have spent considerable effort to sort out their content (and that of {{C.P.E. Bach}}) – their content & deployment seems now about right to me and I suggest to leave them as they are. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Leitmotif

Comments welcomed here to help resolve a disagreement. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Music for a Time of War

I encourage project members to review this newly-constructed article as well as its talk page. There are a few more sources needing to be incorporated into the article. Hopefully this will make a great addition to WikiProject Classical music and Misplaced Pages once completed and reviewed thoroughly. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryllupsdag på Troldhaugen

There's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page right now about the current title. Maybe you guys could enlight the situation a bit ! Thanks Krenakarore 01:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Missa Brevis (Bernstein)

Promising new article by a new editor. It's still a little rough around the edges, so any help with polishing it up would be appreciated. Voceditenore (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

MusicBrainz

While checking over work done by the VIAFbot and checking out the article on WP:UID, I discovered that Misplaced Pages encourages unique identifiers for recorded music using MusicBrainz. In looking over the templates at MusicBrainz templates, it seems that it applies to recordings. Is it only popular recordings, or is classical music also involved? (I vaguely recalled someone posting about this here, but I can't find it in the archives.) -- kosboot (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Krzysztof Penderecki

Hello. I am planning to make Krzysztof Penderecki an FA with the goal of making it a TFA on 23 November 2013, the composer's 80th anniversary of his birth. The discussion is at Talk:Krzysztof Penderecki#FA push?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mendelssohn Violin Concerto (Nathan Milstein album)

The reason it sounds familiar is that it was the world's first classical LP. I don't suppose anyone has access to a copyrightfree picture? ...Though I'm imagining the cover was probably a brown paper sleeve. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason this needs to be its own article instead of a couple of sentences in the article for the violin concerto and possibly for LP? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melodia Chaconne, depends where one's interest lies I suppose. For example what do you consider is most notable out of en.wp's 100 or so classical album articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

David Chan (violinist)

Just created this article, based on this afternoon's nice concert at Carnegie Hall. It's a little rough, but I need to get to sleep - perhaps others can neaten it. Thanks! He's really a good violinist. -- kosboot (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Classical albums by date

Category:Classical albums by date has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Help needed at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Ernest So

A first-time editor could use some help as to establishing notability for this Chinese classical pianist and composer. Thanks for any assistance, or stance as to whether this figure can meet WP:N. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Classical crossover

cf. Billboard 2006 "On the Top Classical Crossover Albums chart, a trio of familiar acts dominates the top places. Andrea Bocelli's "Amore" (Sugar/ Decca) takes the top spot, followed by three albums by Il Divo (Syco/Columbia): "Ancora," "The Christmas .. etc. the term classical crossover is distinct enough in the record industry to have a chart. The subarticle Classical crossover mentions Pure (Hayley Westenra album) as an example, but Pure (Hayley Westenra album) doesn't have a genre tag Category:Classical crossover albums. Should there be this category? (category:Opera crossover singers does exist) In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Go for it: I don't see why not. --xensyria 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will proceed with caution. Will err on the side of considering anything borderline as straight classical at the first run-through. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Goldberg Variations

Members may want to provide input at this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved by a couple of admins. DavidRF (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Should "recommended recordings" be added to Classical Music articles?

I was looking at the article on Mozart's piano concerto no. 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/Piano_Concerto_No._19_%28Mozart%29), trying to determine if a supposed recording of it by Wanda Landowska is real or mythical. But, alas, no listing of famous and/or recommended recordings. In fact, no discussion at all of recordings of the piece.

This is a serious omission. I suggest that all single-composition articles include such a section. For example, for Mozart's piano concerto no. 19, some of the entries would look like these:

• George Szell (cond), Rudolf Serkin (pf), Columbia Symphony Orchestra - Columbia, 1961
• Neville Marriner (cond), Alfred Brendel (pf), Academy of St. Martin's in the Fields - Philips, 1971
• Alexander Schneider (cond), Peter Serkin (pf), English Chamber Orchestra - RCA, 1974
• Murray Perahia (cond & pf), English Chamber Orchestra - Columbia, ca. 1984

Note that in this example, names are spelled out in full, the part taken by each performer is specified, and the year of the recording and the company that originally made it are given. Entries are in chronological order, oldest to newest.

Given that many important recordings have been released multiple times in both the LP and the CD eras, also that downloads are gradually displacing physical media as the primary distribution channel for classical music, inclusion of specific catalog numbers would be to no real purpose. Readers wanting to acquire this or that recording can turn to Amazon or any similar online source for details of which recordings are available in what form.

Undoubtedly, enthusiasts for obscure musicians of cult status will add references to their recordings, even though neither the musician nor the recordings are of significance in the larger scheme of things, thereby cluttering up such references. I can also imagine someone with exaggerated opinions looking at the example list I provided above and deleting (say) the reference to the Perahia recording "because he's a turkey" or for some other specious reason, when the truth is that they simply dislike Perahia's recordings. My advice is not to worry about such issues until they actually become a problem, rather than try to make up a lot of rules in advance. Better that such a list be too long than too short - maybe!

Floozybackloves (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Selected discography" sections are found in many articles. WP:RS and WP:DUE are the key guidelines here. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Should "recommended recordings" be added to Classical Music articles? -- the answer is no. Either an attempt at a complete listing of (professional) recordings should be made, or nothing should be. Misplaced Pages should certainly not be recommending anything. For more popular works, there'd be nothing wrong with splitting it out onto its own page. But even going beyond people's opinions of "that one sucks" or "this obscure recording is the bomb" the issue is that there's no authoritative sources on just what constitutes the 'best' recordings -- for everyone who might remove Parahia's recording, someone else might want to add Derek Han's. Why those four in this instance, outside the fact they are on major labels (and I use that term objectively as none of them are really major in the subjective sense these days)? What about, say, the first one recorded? First digital? First surround? First on a period piano? Maybe even first as part of a complete set? Any of those are probably far more worth noting. Yes obviously a lot of reviewers and publications have their favorites, but given how subjective anything is, there's no good way of distilling it into any sort of shortened list. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please. Have you not noticed that Misplaced Pages articles incorporate images, sound files, and "Further reading" sections? Your other point is contrary to WP:RS and WP:DUE. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how images and sound files go against what I wrote. As for further reading, usually these are pretty comprehensive already given that most things don't have huge numbers of books written about them. As for going against RS? I fail to see how a comprehensive listing of recordings can possibly go against that. As for WP:DUE, it doesn't even seem to really apply to this situation. I'm not even arguing that every single recording ever should be listed, but if you consider that in pop music pretty much every artist with a page has their entire discography listed, even albums that will never get pages, I don't see listing every recording that at least could be considered to be decently distributed should not be listed in the same fashion for classical works.

Let's put this another way - consider that there are currently 90 listings on ArkivMusic for Mozart's PC17. Even if 40 of the them are the same recording repackaged (a decent estimate given how many have the same performer, though I'd wager high), that's still 50 separate recordings of the piece available at one of the largest classical music retailers. That doesn't even get into ones no longer available, never released on CD, etc. Why should only 4 of those 50 be listed? And if not only those 4, how many? How DO we determine which ones get listed? Maybe ones performed by artists with their own WP page (I would guess the large majority)? Still, a red link doesn't mean they don't deserve a WP page, so even then.

I'm actually quite curious how you think it should be determined. But one thing is for sure, the trend toward only older recordings and/or only major labels is a very bad one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Recommended" is probably a phrase to avoid here, but notable recordings would add to an article, though only (of course) if they have reliable independent sources naming them as such, and I believe some music encyclopaedias do include such lists. This would also limit the number included in the article, but wouldn't preclude a separate list of all known published recordings. --xensyria 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that describes exactly the current practice, or at least its intent, with which I agree. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Recommended" and "Noted" are words that imply a great deal of subjectivity. What I've seen that I like the most is: Selected Recordings. That relieves editors of the responsibility to find every recording, and if people feel strongly moved to add recordings, they are welcomed to do so. -- kosboot (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Under construction: Infobox Bach cantata or composition

Because the facts about any given cantata appear throughout the article, I thought about an infobox, first just for cantata, then: it might be useful for other works by Bach as well. I tried it on one, BWV 40, comments welcome. It might be expanded to more details about the included chorales, for example, more variables might be needed if not only for cantatas. I suggest not to use a picture of Bach - he looks too old for most of his works, but show the building of the (likely) premiere, to give a feeling for the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For clicking convenience: the template there is {{Infobox Bach composition}}; there's also {{Infobox Bach cantata}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't comment on the use of an infobox itself, but I noticed that the location field seems a bit isolated – I originally was unsure about which location it referred to (at first glance). Maybe include it in the premiere field: 26 December 1723, Leipzig. As for the image, maybe use the original manuscript if available? Just my 2¢. Focus (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, "Bach cantata" was the first attempt, I would like to look at the other one for now. The image is open to whatever the one likes who uses the template, score sounds lovely. The documentation should explain these things, but perhaps let's collect thoughts on the variables first. There will be pieces which were never premiered (or we don't know when/where), like the Mass in B minor, "location" is for those, could perhaps left blank (not appear) if location of the premiere is known and listed behind the date. I wonder if - instead of today's Leipzig and Weimar - we should link to the related passages in the composer's biography, perhaps with a redirect "Leipzig (Bach)", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My attitude towards infoboxes has changed. Where I was once negative about them, after it was explained to me that infoboxes are important because they create structured data for when Misplaced Pages is used as data (i.e. Wikidata, DBPedia, etc.), then I became all for them (and for more structured data on WP in general). So sure, more of them is a good thing. -- kosboot (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As I live on examples, I tried a motet also, BWV 226, with a score pic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Added - for variety: BWV 61 (Weimar) and BWV 62 (chorale cantate). In BWV 36, I felt the necessity to mention 36a, 36b, 36c - how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Starting with Bach cantatas is kind of difficult. For associated works, perhaps you can have a field "related works." I think the real problem are the chorales. Sometimes Bach uses words of subsequent verses for the name of the chorale even though the music is known by the first verse (which is also usually but not always the name of the cantata). In some cases we know the tunes are pre-extant, in others they're unknown or possibly composed by Bach. Maybe two fields: "name of chorale" and "source of chorale"? -- kosboot (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there is to be an image in a template, I think the standard 1749 portrait is probably the best. Unfortunately it's the only verified portrait. The modern Thomaskirche is a bit misleading for example: there's an older image from a painting made prior to remodelling in C-U III. The images that you use are fine in the main body with annotation. For example see BWV 105, my own effort: I now know how to extract higher resolution images of autograph scores from the Leipzig Bach archive, so would consider updating those images. Compare the high-resolution image of the autograph score of BWV 622 in OB. File:OMensch-autograph-BWV622.jpg Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Chorales: I think the box is not there to show which stanza of who's chorale was quoted or paraphrased in which movement (the text does that), but can link to used chorales or their authors.

Images: which older Thomas would you suggest? (I didn't take Nikolai because the remodelling was even more "off", compared to Bach's time.) Bach in 1749 is much too old for most cantatas ;) - also almost everybody knows that picture already. More score images would be great, infobox or not. I love BWV 105! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The image is here.File:Thomaskirche-1885.png BWV 105 is one of my favourites. I'm not honestly sure about info boxes. Incidentally, a new large volume has appeared on the Bach cantatas in French. I got a copy but have not really had time to compare it to Durr. Mathsci (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the pic and pointing out the new book! I will use the pic and see what others think. - I have a history of reverting infoboxes myself ;) - But as said above: the bits on scoring and chorales (to name just two) are too much for a prose lead and too distant in an article. I will try to implement something like related works - which can be "base" or "base for", and wonder about key(s) , because for some it's what the piece is known by (Missa in F major), for complex works there are many, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Both 19th century pic and related works now on BWV 36, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I like this a lot! Brava! -- kosboot (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We've discuss infoboxes in classical music articles ad nauseam. I still think they are a terrible idea (Briefly: they put trivia up front, distract readers from what is important, force distortion of facts to fit template, and attract edits from people who don't know the topic) and I don't see any reason that a Bach infobox would be any different. Opus33 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you look? I added one more sample BWV 76. Repeating: for a complex work, such as a cantata, relevant information appears in different sections of the article, the scoring, Bible quotations, the poets of chorales, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Bach composition

Gerda, I was not very happy with the infobox for BWV 105 that you just experimented with. The infobox was too large and I could not see the point of replacing the image of the original manuscript of the soprano/oboe aria with a photo of the modern Thomaskirche. Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The image was my mistake, I meant to show the autograph, it's too late my place ;) - The size: what would you drop? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I think it would be better to see an infobox in the context of the article I want to be more careful and discuss a revised version in my sandbox. Please also have a look at the beginning of a documentation of the template. My next question: I think the year of a chorale should show, since early Reformation or Baroque makes a difference, but how? a figure after its name (or the name of the poet, if there is no article yet)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a version to my sandbox. The one seen here shows alternatives by Mathsci.

Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht BWV 105 Church Cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach
Autograph manuscript of aria for soprano and oboe
English title	Lord, do not pass judgment on Your servant
First performed	Thomaskirche, Leipzig, 25 July 1723, 9th Sunday after Trinity
Movements	Chorale fantasia, 2 recitatives and arias, chorale
Scoring	Solo sop, alt, ten, bass with chorus Oboes, horn, strings and continuo
v t e

Various points. The accompanying text is not for BWV 105 but for BWV 152. (The English OUP translation of Dürr's book could be added to the refs.) If there is to be an infobox, it should be more concise with less lines, taking up less space. "Premier" is not a good term to use for a sacred work. But "First performsnce: Leipzig, 25 July 1723, 9th Sunday after Trinity," puts everything together. Also "Scoring: SATB and chorus with oboe, horn and strings", all in one line. I would include the librettist if known but not the biblical passages, because there can be several sources. No need for a key, since that can change between movements. As for movements, I would write "Chorale fantasia, 2 recitatives, 2 arias and chorale" in one line, possibly abbreviated. The template should not dominate the article and detail should be left for the text. When I feel better, I might improve BWV 140, BWV 78 or BWV 39 (why are 10 lines lifted from the source without paraphrase here for the description of the chorale fantasia?). Certainly far more can be said about the Chorale fantasia in BWV 140: there is no mention of the sublime alleluias in the last stanza! It doesn't hurt to have musical quotations in the articles, if there are multiple themes in counterpoint. Lilypond is our friend and BWV 140 certainly deserves it :-) Mathsci (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Various answers:

• I only added the template to what was in the sandbox, ignore all the rest if you can. I would have added it here but it is long.
• The template is meant to be for Bach's compositions in general, "first performance" is longer, but such things are exactly what should be discussed. For many pieces we don't know place and date of that first performance, for others not even the time of composition.
• Key: for other compositions it is used, even for cantatas the key of the first movement sets a mood.
• Movements: good idea to add the character of the movements also
• No field is "required" ;)
• Please compare the infoboxes of the other Wikipedias, German for example: it makes sense to have different lines for solo - choir - instruments, you see at one glance if a piece has no choir etc.

I didn't do much about BWV 140 and 39, your improvements are most welcome, I go slowly by the liturgical year, about one a week, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is far too large as I've said. There is more that one biblical source. Why not make a template for the cantatas which doesn't require all this duplication and is more compact? These articles are not lists, where we need to see things at a glance. I have contrsucted a mock-up of something that could be acceptable. (Annotations for voices or instruments are possible.) Mathsci (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Butting in here - I like most of the current infobox (the image is too large but totally adjustable). What I feel is less useful is the characterization of the movemnents. If you intend to state them in compositional order (perhaps with numbers or text incipits), I would be ok with that. Just saying the kinds of movements I think is useless: most cantatas have such movements, so for me a generalization is pointless. I would also be ok eliminating the field entirely as it makes a lot of work, and the details would be in the article body. -- kosboot (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We have now two versions, so "current" needs to specify which one is meant. By Bible I mean precisely, when Bach composed the text of the Luther Bible, not when a poet used Biblical sources, that would be endless ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

For more examples, please see the documentation of the template. I take from the above that "First performed" is preferable to "Premiere", and agree, that the movements in sequence, with character, voice type, text incipits is in the article, no need for repetition. Repeating: all parameters are optional, I could do without "translation", for example, because there are always several, and the cantatas are known and performed in German worldwide. The question if the template should be for cantatas or all Bach compositions was raised in the beginning. At present "Infobox Bach cantata" is a redirect to the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just curious: are the abbreviations of voices {sop, alt, ten) being used here to save space, or are you planning to do this on all instances of the infobox? I don't think using abbreviations is very helpful in infoboxes, especially to those not familiar with musical abbreviations. Brambleclawx 16:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

CfD

Just alerting anyone interested to this discussion about the recently created Category:Compositions by key. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes (yet again).

Please see here - User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabett) has used Boxing Day to commission a bot to remove the request on composers pages not to add an infobox: and moreover this has been effected within four hours without any formal notification to the project (or anywhere else). I hardly think this stealth operation is in the spirit of WP. Is it to be taken up with administrators?--Smerus (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Fairly disgraceful, in my opinion. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If the editors who work on these pages had been consulted, perhaps the outcome would have been different. My personal preference would have been to modify the comment to something like "Please note that WikiProject Classical Music has recommended against adding Infoboxes to composer biographies." (with a link to a guideline giving the reasons why). I don't see that this would in anyway violate the RfC. But there was no discussion and this large scale edit appears to have been done essentially on the say-so of one editor and another gullible one. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Good heavens! I believe that the comment removal is just plain disgraceful. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course a full scale reversion kills all the other helpful edits the bot made as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am doing a massive revert of all of the bot's removal of comments regarding the infobox to classical music/composer/opera articles in the next couple of days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot of work - about 480 edits. Can we not get the bot operator to do an automatic mass revert? I've put a comment on his talk page. --Deskford (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also involved in manual reverting/restoring. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Same here. I am also taking the opportunity to add this comment to a few hundred composer articles lacking it. I've been meaning to do this for some time, so perhaps this wasn't an entirely useless exercise.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that Andy has posted at Talk:Cosima Wagner#Infobox. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that reverting 480 edits is a lot of work, and I can do an automatic revert to not waste anyone else's time. I appreciate the note on my talk page, before I do the reversion however I'll leave a message on the bot request page asking the users who supported the task to comment here. Robert.Allen your point is a valid one, would others also agree that updating the comment, if it is to exist, with a more helpful comment would be better? Thehelpfulone 00:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

By Jove, I think that will work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) A request lodged during the holiday season on the 2nd day of Christmas, discussed between 5 editors, not notifying the classical music project, taken on, after a discussion lasting 5 hours, by a bot using an approval from February 2009 which takes a bit of a stretch to seem applicable to this task – all this makes assuming good faith quite a challenge. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's been completed. Toccata quarta (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I assure you that my intentions were good and can only apologise for my oversight in failing to notify this WikiProject of the bot's actions. Fortunately the bot was only editing a comment which is hidden from readers which means that we should be able to have a discussion here towards putting a better, more friendly comment (AGF, don't bite the newbies and all) on the page. Thinking long-term however, the Visual Editor, an initiative to get a WYSIWYG editor on-wiki may or may not show these comments when editing the page, is that something that needs to be considered too? Thehelpfulone 01:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, the article Tan Dun opposes infoboxes, yet has one. Toccata quarta (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So it does! The comment asking people not to add one was already in place when the infobox was added on 21 February 2012. Should we remove the infobox? --Deskford (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As there is no consensus for it on the talk page, I would remove it. Toccata quarta (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! It didn't contain any information that wasn't already in the article elsewhere. --Deskford (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please help my understanding: I think an info-box should ONLY contain information that is in an article elsewhere, in a way that helps accessibility and simplifies finding essential facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As others have said, it is often not possible to decide on '"essential facts" in the case of composers, e.g. Carlo Gesualdo. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We agree, that it is often not possible to decide. But a statement above read almost as if it was wanted that the info-box contained information that was not in the article, I wanted to clarify. - Of course we need a possibility in an info-box saying that a date/name/authorship - you name it - is uncertain/debated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The superior notice I came across is: "Before adding an infobox, please consult Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page." Hyacinth (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Very disappointing to see that a note that is clearly the opposite of our editing policy and has isolates the project by way of demonstration inappropriate ownership still being debate. Linking to a projects advice page that contradicts our policy and its-self is even worst. At some point the advice given by this project should be logical and represent our policy on the matter. We have many many many editors that at this point no longer place WikiProject Composer type template(s) on pages because they dont want this project aware of them - this is a very bad thing because the editors here are so good at what they do. Moxy (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? WP:OWN is simply a different way of expressing the content of the guideline WP:CON. And in this case, the consensus is found at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I ran across this by accident, but am appalled. Wikiprojects do not own articles and should not be doing anything like this. These comments will be removed. If you want to discuss appropriateness of infobox/no infobox on each individual article's talk page, that's what they're there for, but "Thou shalt not" comments are not appropriate. Seraphimblade 23:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Good Lord; please stop distorting WP:OWN! Please see my comment above, which shows that consensus has already been sought and achieved. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not a "distortion" of WP:OWN, this is a textbook case of WP:OWN. If you had one centralized discussion, and came to a "consensus" there (which I don't even see, by the way, but for the sake of argument let's presume you did), but you find that every time you take an infobox out people keep putting it back, that's a good indication that your local consensus does not match the global consensus, which is almost always in favor of an infobox in biographies. In such a case, the global consensus ultimately carries. That's not an indication to put a big "GO AWAY, THE PROJECT SAID NO!" sign on it, it's an indication to let people add them. Wikiprojects don't get to make binding content decisions. Seraphimblade 01:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any global consensus that mandates infoboxes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Written down as such? I doubt it (though I try to avoid the MOS, generally speaking, so there might be something in there). In practice, though (and policy is just codified practice, it's not prescriptive), it's widespread and longstanding practice to put infoboxes in biographical articles. If people from outside the project are trying to do that, it's unhelpful for project members to be stonewalling them, and most unhelpful to be putting hidden text forbidding them. That is not the Wikiproject's call to make, it is the community's. I suspect that the hidden text was put in because people were adding infoboxes, indicating a desire from the community to have them there. Regardless, the previous RfC doesn't seem to have reached a strong consensus, was only lightly attended, and was some time ago. I propose a better-publicized RfC to gauge the feelings of the community as a whole, as clearly it is not as clear-cut as those here seem to believe. If the outcome of that RfC is a strong consensus to exclude infoboxes in these articles, the position will be much better-founded; if not, then it'll be settled too. Seraphimblade 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please no, spare me from a rule mandating crapboxes. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said anything about mandating infoboxes. (Who would we force to write them?) What I'd like to get more input on is whether infoboxes should be prohibited on a certain type of article. If there's strong community support from outside this group for doing that, you'll have a much stronger case for what you're doing. That would be the purpose of an RfC. I'd be happy to work with you on the wording of the RfC request. Seraphimblade 08:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What do infoboxes offer? They hardly do anything other than duplicate the lead, or present information not important enough for it, thus contradicting WP:LEAD. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Who prohibts them? Some articles for composers and compositions do have infoboxes. Those that don't follow their local consensus. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand why this project does not understand one of our most basic editing guides Misplaced Pages:Be bold - it does not say ask a project permission before editing a page. This is a prime example of wp:OWN - Its one of the example give at WP:Advice pages of how not to behave. At Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes no were does it say you must or must not have an infobox.........what it does say is each articles is different and consensus must be reached at each article.Moxy (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank god we finally got rid of this false hidden comment against infoboxes. It should be removed from any additional pages immediately. Those hidden comments were disruptive and misleading, informing editors on a prohibiton against infoboxes that doesn't exist. This project as, for years, disregarded community-wide consensus in favor of the consensus of a few select editors who dominate this project. Properly added infoboxes do not harm articles in any way, shape, or form. They only help readers such as myself obtain bare-bones information. The arguments against the infoboxes are silly; if material is incorrect or confusing it should be omitted, infoboxes do not "dumb down" articles nor should we force readers to read through articles to find basic facts. I feel a bit of the anti-infobox mentality here comes from a sense of pride, many of the editors who oppose infoboxes are hard working and create stellar articles. Infoboxes could encourage fact-skimming in lieu of a full reading. But we shouldn't force readers to read through our articles when they are looking for something basic. I am one of these readers who has been affected negatively by infoboxes. I look at many of our classical articles for basic facts and the lack of infoboxes on these articles is a hindrance to me as a reader. ThemFromSpace 19:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The hidden messages were all added back, actually. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That`s very disappointing to hear since the message violates our polices on the matter - but then again so was the way they were removed (looks sneaky - even though its the right move). Perhaps a proper RfC on the matter will help.Moxy (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not yet finished

Some of you may like to check out the "wonderful" conversation that has recently begun on my talk page. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is he edit-warring on Harry Partch? It doesn't seem like him. Mathsci (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Example infobox for composers

As I said above, I live by examples, so tried how an infobox for a composer might look like on Graham Waterhouse, adapting {{Infobox person}}. I miss parameters for publisher and label, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? Infoboxes are outstandingly ugly and merely duplicate information contained in the lead. Coupled with WP:PDT, it is possible for an article to state an individual's date of birth four times. Kinda excessive, isn't it? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? You mean why I tried to visualize what remains abstract otherwise, at least to me? I like the function giving the age - just celebrated 50 ;) - To have key facts concentrated seems not excessive to me, rather helpful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a few parameters to the existing infobox Harry Partch, asking that someone who knows the subject better selects more relevant info, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Missing publisher and label"? How does that add to the understanding of the subject? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I inadvertently intruded on the the Wikiproject's holy ground some time ago and beat a hasty retreat. I'm delighted to see someone challenging the lockhold they have on "NO INFOBOXES." Yopienso (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not helpful. People here have spent many thousands of hours building articles on classical music, and have largely agreed that infoboxes add little to them. If you have an argument otherwise, you may state it reasonably, but ratcheting up the rhetoric, throwing sarcasm at us, and expressing "delight" just make everything worse. Antandrus (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So how come nobody has weighed in on the fact that the request on the Harry Partch article for discussion and consensus was met by summary removal of the request and the uninvited imposition of an infobox?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Harry Partch affair makes me sick. User:Beyond My Ken violated WP:3RR (see , , and ]), and then went to my talk page, and threatened to report me for "disruptive editing" if I remove the infobox he added to the article. The subsequent discussion showed that the user in question is not interested in achieving consensus—in spite of his "I'm a peaceful person" user page—, as you can see at . Toccata quarta (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Waking up to this: I found an infobox on the article that indeed had only rudimentary information which I think is not helpful to a reader who will have to decided at that point, entering the article, if he will read more or not. I asked to add - for example more of his notable works, but somebody who knows his works better should do this. I - as a reader - would be helped then, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Beware of unintended consequences. Are you ready to determine J.S. Bach's most notable works? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't dream of adding one for every composer, only where it might help. "Notable works" is not the same as "most notable works". If filled at all for Bach (but why, it's in the lead?), I would say something (with links) like Brandenburg concertos, cantatas, Passions, organ preludes, ouvertures, Wohltemperiertes Klavier, Mass in B-minor, - differentiating him from a composer of operas, string quartets and symphonies. - For Parch, the works don't appear in the lead, it would be more useful in his case to see a few, - he has striking titles I would like to see right away! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Organ chorale preludes, surely, not to forget the violin and keyboard partitas. But this is the impossible "Desert Island Discs" question. At one point the Harry Partch article just had an internal link to the complete list of all his works lower down the article. The answer is quite subjective. For Ravel would it be the Bolero or Gaspard de la nuit? Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I didn't answer the desert island question, but think the reader would be helped by knowing what the composer stands for, Lieder for Hugo Wolf, for example, - much more needed for unknown people than those who everybody thinks he knows anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Gerda is quite right (see above) that it is important "to have key facts concentrated". The way to do this is to write a well-crafted lead section. We now have a huge amount of experience showing that infoboxes fail at the task Gerda wants them to perform -- they inherently emphasize trivia, and they force editors to invent key "facts" when they aren't even facts (such as, which are the composer's greatest works). Opus33 (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeating: "most notable" is not the question, notable or characteristic is. I come from the Bach cantatas (see thread above): key, scoring, poets of lyrics and chorales, relationship to other works (based on/base for) seem no lead topics to me there. For a composer, "influenced by/influenced" seem no lead topics but useful to see connections. I installed an infobox and added to another to actually see what we are talking about, without "wanting" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm. There are discussions of "greatest works" (which is essentially "reception") in the leads of FAs/GAs such as Edward Elgar, Gabriel Fauré, Gustav Mahler, Felix Mendelssohn, Bedřich Smetana and Karlheinz Stockhausen. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. How dare people make uninvited edits to Misplaced Pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Example infobox)

I am waiting for a clarification from WT:INFOBOX but it is my understanding that - aside from aesthetic value (or lack of it), the true function of infoboxes is that they provide structured data for projects such as Wikidata, DBpedia, and other potential Semantic Web applications that will take advantage of Misplaced Pages. Most articles are just text--useless when being read by computers. But if it's marked up in a structured format (of which infoboxes provide a minimum), that makes the information harvestable for bigger projects. -- kosboot (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The true function of infoboxes at Misplaced Pages is to make pertinent details conveniently accessible to our readers. Some of the long-time editors of classical musical articles do not seem to realize their project is one very small part of a much larger project. It is not an enclave for snoots that expect every reader to read every carefully crafted word of a scholarly treatise; it's an encyclopedia that aims to serve a very broad public. Some of the public will appreciate long, detailed articles, and some want just the bare skeleton. The infobox is that bare skeleton. Yopienso (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an aside (I don't edit in this area, though I have some interest), the use of infoboxes is becoming a standard across much of wikipedia. For areas where people are seeking basic information, they are very helpful. Much has improved in the last few years in terms of design and syntax. I think this project needs to move into the second decade of the 21st century in this respect; an infobox doesn't need to have all parameters included in every article, particularly if some are controversial or would lead to lengthy laundry lists (such as "notable works"), but that concern is an editing issue for the info box template itself, not whether the infobox itself should exist. For example, I recently worked on an article that is outside my general area of interest or expertise, (Yogo sapphire) where another editor kindly entered the appropriate infobox for gems, and it contained a great deal of summary information that tightened up the text of the article itself, which went FA and was also TFA. Montanabw 20:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You both fail to understand what the actual objection to these boxes is. Nobody objects to summarizing crucial information. However, summarizing such information in tabulated form in a box is helpful to readers only under certain conditions: there must be certain pieces of information that (a) can be reliably summarized in a few words, (b) are at least as easy to take in in the format of isolated tabulated words as in the format of prose text, (c) serve a significant role in characterizing basic aspects of the article topic, (d) occur predictably across a whole class of articles. Condition (d) is particularly important, because the whole idea of quickly finding information in a table relies on the fact that readers already know where and under what keyword to look for – if the reader first has to parse the box in order to understand what kinds of information it is going to offer him, then the box offers no advantage in reading speed over a piece of well-written prose. The consensus in this project is simply that for composer articles, no such set of information items exists that meets these conditions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The "consensus in this project" is of no import whatsoever. How many times must you all be told that before you accept it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I find the infoboxes at classical composers articles rather confusing, determining the style/"era" was often incorrect and misleading, as far as I can remember. I think it is definitely better to offer a well written lead section mentioning all the specific explanations regarding their major works and stylistic character. It is better than oversimplified and often incorrect compartments labelled "classical", "romantic", "impressionist" etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

But, for better or for worse, students are routinely required to pigeonhole them. The words "classical", "romantic", "impressionist" etc. do have a meaning, after all. Yopienso (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Infoboxes on WP are neither compulsory nor forbidden.
2. The editors who align themselves with specific WikiProjects are likely to be amongst the most prolific, or indeed the most prolific, editors of topics covered by their project. They can not unreasonably be assumed to be amongst the better, or even best, informed on such topics in the overall Misplaced Pages community..
3. If (to take an example at random) the editors on a WikiProject feel that Infoboxes are inappropriate (perhaps on the lines suggested by Fut.Perf. and Vejvančický above), they are likely to object if an individual or a pressure group including individuals, not associated with the Project, seek to change this consensus on an organised basis. And at the end of the day they may themselves seek to defend their attitudes and policies. This is in itself perhpas neither more, nor, less, reprehensible than the behaviour of those who seek to overthrow the consensus established by the Project. Such behaviour is called (among other things) human nature.
4. Given 1) above, both 'having infoboxes' and 'not having infoboxes' are WP:POVish.
5. But I submit that on the bases of continuity, good faith and other nice, warm and positive things, the views of WikiProjects should be accredited a certain moral authority over outsiders who wish to disrupt a consensus on the basis of a POV-interpretation of alleged Misplaced Pages 'principles'. It is true that the editors on a project may represent a minority of the Misplaced Pages community. But those who assail the views of such editors cannot prove that they themsleves represent a majority of this community. That is indeed why they typically justify their assaults by reference to supposed WP 'rules' or 'traditions' (or their intepretations of same), in lieu of reasoned argument or persuasion.

Editors working on a project normally have reasons, and often good reasons, for adopting or promoting specific policies. This applies in my view to the Classical Music project's views on infoboxes.--Smerus (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Such special pleading and "accrediting a certain moral authority over outsiders" is contrary to core Misplaced Pages values. The RfC called by this project reinforced that view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Shut up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andy Mabbett for providing a perfect example of the attitudes which I find unconstructive. Without event attempting to address the issues I have set out, he has made an appeal to core Misplaced Pages values (5P); these however do not in any way refer to what he calls 'special pleading' or to 'moral authority'. They moreover point out that Misplaced Pages 'is not a soapbox an experiment in anarchy or democracy', and that 'Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules. Rules in Misplaced Pages are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Misplaced Pages's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Misplaced Pages requires making an exception to a rule.' So it seems that we are in fact allowed some latitude against Wikipedean Puritanism. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The five pillars also include "no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited..." and "Find consensus" (links in original). They include nothing giving special privileges to arbitrary groups of editors. The principles and spirit of Misplaced Pages's rules do indeed matter more than their literal wording. Your special pleading is contrary to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I'm sorry to say that, but when you talk about special pleading in this way, you yourself are an example of such behavior. See Help:Infobox: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. There's no rule that using infoboxes is mandatory. Why do you think the opposition is contrary to the principles and spirit of Misplaced Pages? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a case of me using special pleading, or strike your unfounded accusation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Message to Andy Mabbett : "no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited..." and "Find consensus" (links in original). Or did somebody already say that?--Smerus (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a point? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I missed a day of discussion and find it rather overwhelming, more than I can read now. Do I get it right that the use of infoboxes is not mandatory and not prohibited? Can we return to look at the two composers with an infobox, as samples? Can we agree that composers and performers are persons who produce something notable, like writers (Franz Kafka) and painters (Vincent van Gogh)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons for the opposition to infoboxes may be that the Wikiproject members see the composers only as composers, not as human beings, and Misplaced Pages's general public as classical music fans rather than people--often, students--who just want to place the composer in time or space or want to know very basic information about the composer. Yopienso (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of the use of infoboxes in much of any biographical articles, as I think the idea of trying to cram little details of something so complex as a human life into a box is a basically wrong approach. (I will grant I see some exceptions; for example, holders of political offices having their terms in office listed seems to work well.) Having said that, I've certainly never been bothered enough by the presence of infoboxes to fight over it. I've removed some infoboxes from classical music articles; this was not on principle, but because the infoboxes in question were unsuitable, using popular music terms that aren't used in classical music. What does get my dander up is this attempt to enforce a policy that doesn't exist. There is no policy mandating or even encouraging infoboxes. They are allowed but not required. Why people are so obsessed with adding them has always been beyond me; composers just don't have that many common characteristics besides birth and death date to make meaningful fields in a box. I'm not going to fight about it, as I said, but I do wish people would enforce actual policies, not made-up ones. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, HL. Besides having birth and death dates, all composers have birthplaces and nationality, education or training, marital status (sometimes including sequence of spouses), do or do not have issue, may or may not have famous family members, major works for which they are famously known and kinds of music--orchestral, solo, etc., as well as periods, may have famous teachers or students, usually have been influenced by and have influenced others, etc. An infobox also provides a standard place for an appropriate--perhaps iconic--image of the composer right at the beginning of the article. There are plenty of fields the general reader is interested in. And yes, in an encyclopedia, reducing a human life to a neat little box is not only acceptable but useful. (But not demeaning--no one objects to reducing the composer to a 2" by 3" flat image, for example.) Yopienso (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How? How is it useful to reduce a life to a few stats? I'm afraid I see no serious advantage to reducing it that way. When I read an encyclopedia (such as when I read World Book as a kid) I don't expect to see little neat and tidy boxes, I expect to see prose that tells me these in meaningful detail. And as for your fields, I find them far too complicated to reduce to little blurbs. Teachers? Does it count if they were at the same conservatory, or does it have to be individual study? Students, same problem. Known for what music? Umm, according to whom? True, some, such as Verdi, have a certain genre, but not all do. (And frankly, preventing the absurd genre wars of pop music articles from showing up in classical music ones might be the best argument for banning infoboxes ever.) Yes, birthplace, birth date, death date, but those are easily accessible in the lede and need no infobox. And nationality? That's also very complex sometimes. (The encyclopedia as a whole ought to get away from its obsession with immediately tagging people by nationality. But I digress.) And as for an image, that's not a worthwhile argument, as one can have images without an an infobox. I'm afraid your comments have only left me less inclined to support infoboxes, not more. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's useful to reduce a life to a few stats when that's all the encyclopedia user wants. Encyclopedia articles are not full biographies, and many persons who consult encyclopedias want only the barest outline of facts, not a well-rounded prose portrait.

Portraits themselves are only very limited representations. Look at the one of Bach--has he no legs? did he always wear a wig? what did he look like without it? did he ever smile? I am not faulting the portrait; it's perfect! I'm just saying we don't need front and back drawings or dental x-rays to be happy with the physical representation in an encyclopedia; I mention this to bring out the fact that it's likewise fine to have a bare-bones summary of a composer's life in an infobox. "Sometimes less is more"--sometimes less information is more helpful.

There's nothing complicated about birth, death, spouses, famous relatives (Yes, you could argue "How famous?" but, like every detail at WP, that would just have to be weighed and decided. Obviously the Bach family had famous relatives, but the JS Bach article doesn't link to them in the lead, which mentions only his father and brother. People aren't born knowing the facts about the Bachs; we can reasonably assume a fair percentage of people who turn to WP to find out something about JS don't know about his family. This is just an example I'm giving of the usefulness of an infobox. I'm guessing the members of the CMWP are so knowledgeable its hard for them to imagine that what they consider common knowledge is considered esoteric by many people.), teachers and students. Why do you complicate that with whether they were at the same conservatory?

It's fine if my arguments turn you more strongly against infoboxes. My aim isn't to shout down an opposing view, but to examine the issue. Yes, I would much prefer to see my suggestions implemented, but the bottom line here is consensus after reasoned discussion. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not mandatory and not prohibited, that's what I said above. Did you actually look at the two composers, the writer and the painter? - I don't think common characteristics should go in a box, but personal characteristics, that can be a teacher, a work, a genre, occupation(s), you name it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Naive suggestion: In order to resolve this, might we say that those who want to use infoboxes can, and those that don't, don't need to. If someone puts an infobox in an article it won't be removed. -- kosboot (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Then that means that they are automatically included whenever one person adds one. What if it's wholly unsuitable, as some I've seen have been? It has to be removable.

Gerda Arendt, yes, personal characteristics, but for it to be an infobox, it has to have certain common fields. So I guess I mean not common characteristics so much as common types of characteristics. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this jousting since that bot made that first edit and I wonder if one remembers that every composer article falls within the scope of other WikiProjects which have no restrictions against infoboxes, much on the contrary. The issue here now seems to veer towards what to include in them, which by the way is a much more productive way of making progress. Krenakarore 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this for a few days (it is hard to keep up with the sheer volume of stuff going on here though), and my first instinct throughout all this has been to suggest that while the previous consensus by the WikiProject should be taken into consideration, it should also be noted that the RfC closing indicates that individual consensus should be reached on individual articles. Of course, I hesitate to suggest this because from watching the amount of division in this discussion, it would probably spark mass talk page flooding on several articles, which would certainly be not constructive. It would also be nice if both sides stopped making digs at each other, and be more civil. Trying to offend someone who has offended you doesn't help. One thing it seems to me both sides have neglected is the fact that not all articles falling under a certain WikiProject or category need to have a uniform appearance, i.e., there is nothing wrong with having an infobox on an article where it may be useful (let's say Johann Sebastian Bach as an arbitrary example), and not having one where it may not be as useful (let's say, Ferruccio Busoni as another random example). I do seem to recall reading some sort of guidline/advice/essay indicating this, but I'm not going to cite it because I don't remember it, and I don't feel like discussions should be throwing policy shortcuts left and right like this: the point of developing consensus is discussing ideas in a logical, cogent manner, as opposed to appealing to "guidelines" as a trump card. Brambleclawx 03:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I came to music for the first time recently and automatically added an infobox to an article which did not have one...because it is uncontentious elsewhere that all articles will have one, if only for completeness. It seems to me that music are burying their head in the sand, refusing to accept something which at worst does no harm to an article, and at best improves the overall coverage of articles on wikipedia. I am seriously annoyed by objections to infoboxes on the grounds they are repetitious or a waste of space. wiki is not paper and we do not waste it by providing readers with alternative ways of gathering facts. To those who feel infoboxes have poor factual content...maybe they should be putting some effort into devising a better box rather than refusing to consider one. I was myself particularly impressed the first time I looked at an article on a mobile phone, where the infobox just beautifully fitted the small screen and presented the key points without having to search tiny text. Before this I had come round to infoboxes because some people were keen and i saw no harm (though in some circumstances they are very useful indeed). Now I think the encyclopedia has to have them universally.

I was also particularly distressed by the hidden message falsely pretending a consensus had been reached on not having a box. Not only had there never been any attempt at creating a consensus, but the message actually refers to a project opinion about biography articles which is itself equivocal...and this was not a biography article! How can you justify inserting such a message? The aim of the message was clearly to scare away anyone who might want to insert a box, in the hope they will not bother mentioning on the talk page that there should be one. It is aimed at creating a FALSE consensus and stifling debate.

Frankly, the way music has been behaving over this, pretending some things are true when they are not, is a disgrace. It is this which particularly annoyed me and made me feel something needs to be done to stop this. Sandpiper (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

wiki is not paper and we do not waste it by providing readers with alternative ways of gathering facts.

wiki is not paper and we do not waste it by providing readers with alternative ways of gathering facts.

wiki is not paper and we do not waste it by providing readers with alternative ways of gathering facts.

Waste waste waste waste.

I hope you enjoyed this post. Please don't forget to check out the non-consensus found at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How was that post in any way constructive? That looks more like a personal attack to me. I'm CTabling it, but if you can explain how that was helpful, you may remove the CTable. Brambleclawx 16:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way. My post was not indented to appear as a response to yours, but was simply continuing the discussion, with my own take on the matter appearing in succession to yours. I have intended this post because it is now in response to yours, and this is the general rule on wikipedia. I would think someone who knows what a ctable is (I certainly dont) would understand posting etiquette. If you want to revert your own edit, that is up to you.

But incidentally, I just re-read your and my posts and dont really understand how you could have taken mine as referring to any one individual?Sandpiper (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I'm almost certain Brambleclawx was reacting to my post, and not to your. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As to whether it is constructive, I believe so. I cant for the life of me see why musical articles, let alone the subset of classical music articles, should have different rules applied to them than other subjects. It should not be within the purview of a project to set up a ring fence and depart from the general style of wikipedia. To do so is to harm the general development of the encyclopedia. This isnt really a subject which should be decided within the scope of a project, but if a project sets out to do this it also should be required to do so in a fair way. The efforts I have seen so far have simply been gerrymandering to eliminate opposition. You seem to regard my plain talking as unproductive: I think it is important to state clearly the issue. Sandpiper (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I was striving to illustrate the absurdity of saying "duplications mean nothing, because Misplaced Pages has unlimited resources". If you believe that argument is valid, then so is what I wrote. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I am confused. As just mentioned, I never met a Ctable before, so it would appear its insertion into this debate caused some confusion by hiding the text brambleclaw replied to, so I though he meant me. Toccata, I understand your point. I seem to remember I had a similar reaction to an infobox first time I met one on a minimalist stub article. Box saying nothing. However, this does not mean we should not have stub articles. It means we should improve them so that there IS worthwhile content. As an example of why we should have infoboxes I suggest an examination of some word processor program. You will find multiple different ways of achieving the same aim, all kinds of handy aids to do something, three different ways of entering commands. Why do they do this? Because some people like one way, some another, so to help everyone they provide all alternatives. Thus with infoboxes. Your example is not the same because you simply presented the same facts in negligibly different ways. I mentioned above exactly how an infobox is different in the most striking way I have seen, on a mobile phone. There is a gradation of infoboxes depending on how complex an article is. Obviously there will be trivial examples, but why is this offensive? Sandpiper (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that infoboxes can be useful when one is dealing with numerous "lists of numbers" (see for instance the article Barack Obama). However, I maintain that, as far as classical music goes, such data can usually be neatly contained in the lead, and infoboxes can easily lead to confusion. One music aesthete (unfortunately I have forgotten his name) said that the greatest music is that which is amenable to countless interpretations. And truly, countless interpretations are at the heart of musicological thought. Was Brahms conservative, or progressive? What about Schoenberg? As User:Jerome Kohl recently remarked here, the distinction between "serialism" and "dodecaphony" is quite nebulous. Is Mahler's 5th Symphony in C-sharp minor? (The lead of the article Symphony No. 5 (Mahler) provides an answer to that, while an infobox hardly would.) Is Miloslav Kabeláč's Mystery of Time, Passacaglia for Large Orchestra, Op. 31 a passacaglia? (It is not.) There are many other examples of such problems. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject notes in articles

Pls see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.Moxy (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment proposal

Since it's pretty clear that the last RfC hasn't settled the issue (nor will the current discussion), and its result was relatively inconclusive (an instruction to discuss the infobox on each article, which doesn't seem to be encouraged with the hidden markup, and would be the default practice anyway), I propose we file another RfC in hopes of wider involvement. To that end, I think it would be useful to publicize the RfC both on VPP (of course), but also to request participation from WikiProject Biography. This might get some ideas from those who work on biographies in general. I would propose posing the following questions to respondents:

• Should it be standard practice to use infoboxes in classical music biographies, to remove them from classical music biographies, or to discuss each article individually? If to discuss individually, should a lack of strong consensus either way lead to the infobox being retained or removed?
• Should the current practice of hidden text being placed in classical music biographies, which instructs editors not to add an infobox and/or to contact WikiProject Classical Music prior to doing so, be continued? If so, under what circumstances should such text be placed in an article?

I think having clear answers to the feeling of the community at large on these two issues will help put this to bed. Any other thoughts? Seraphimblade 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to this idea. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a very constructive proposal. I think it should be implemented.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This would be a good way to centralize discussion. Antandrus (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:Disinfobox (and perhaps WP:Disinfoboxes can be Useful) might be worth a look if any of you haven't already seen them. --GuillaumeTell 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC) (Just sticking my nose in.)

I support this; the RfC should be publicized as widely as possible (is there something even more public than VPP and Wikiprojects? maybe one of those notices on watchlists?). Brambleclawx 17:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly right to raise this again. The last RfC was over 2 years ago, was neither conclusive nor directly germane to many of the issues raised at present, and few if any I think of those presently involved commented on it. Be careful please with the wording of a new RfC, because the present hidden text doesn't in fact 'instruct', it requests ('please do not'). Nor does it ask people to contact the project. (At least this is true for the articles I am aware of containing a hidden text on inforboxes, e.g. Wagner, Meyerbeer).

Also NB alternative wordings for a hidden text have been suggested, so you might want to test further in the RfC on the lines 'If a hidden text is OK, is it permissible to request not adding, or can it only refer to Project guidelines and ask that they be considered....' or whatever.

But there is a problem here; whatever is the conclusion (if any) on a 'standard practice', use or non-use of infoboxes will I'm afraid always be contested in individual articles and will have to be (un)settled on consensus. I don't therefore have any high hopes that an RfC will resolve or even clarify the situation.--Smerus (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The hidden comments have been referred to as an "instruction" by more than one person trying to justify the removal of infoboxes from articles in recent weeks; just as others have falsely claimed that the outcome of the RfC is a consensus in an of itself for such removal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoever may have referred to it howsoever, it is not an 'instruction'. Consult any dictionary. Can we stick to the English language here and not use WP:POV interpretations? If the RfC is not phrased in a non-POV manner its purpose will be frustrated from the beginning.--Smerus (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My point was that such comments are seen and represented as instructions, by people pushing a PoV. Contrary to your inexplicably hostile edit summary, there's no lack of common sense, and no ranting, in me pointing that out; nor do I need a dictionary to tell me that my comment was clear, correct and appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that an RfC would be the proper way to move forward. The last one suffered from a bias by being discussed within this project's pages when the consensus needs to be broader than just this project. It should be hosted in a neutral place, outside of this Wikiproject, and advertised somewhere highly-seen, such as CENT. ThemFromSpace 20:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

To be on CENT it would have to be phrased generally, not be specific to this Wikiproject, however. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems people are tending to agree with this, though commenting has died down a little these past few days. Has anyone started the RfC yet? Brambleclawx 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One way or another, this is going to continue to be debated. Fundamentally the problem is a conflict between project members who believe they have settled this and are acting accordingly, and outsiders who do not understand, or accept, variations from normal policy uniquely on music articles. If music wants such an exception, then it must argue the case for its exception to be included in wipedia policy. It has not done this, so has no right to impose it.Sandpiper (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical composition

I was ready to use Template:Infobox musical composition but miss to add some basis parameters that I find in Template:Infobox Bach composition (under construction): key, number of movements, scoring, text, relation to other works ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)