Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:34, 25 February 2010

Request for assessment (nominal B-class only): Heitor Villa-Lobos

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

Biographical infobox debates

Help! Unreferenced BLPs/approx. 130 still to be checked

Smerus and I have now saved from sharks (or thrown overboard) about 30 of some 160-odd unreferenced biographies, see here. It would be great if we could have some help! --Kleinzach 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great work! I'm a little tied up (as you know) but I can break off if you are struggling? I have created a specific listing for CTM, BTW: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Contemporary music/Articles with issues. I'm off to bed soon but I can have a go at some of these tomorrow if you need me. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, we are struggling. --Kleinzach 02:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My internet connection went down for a couple of hours there: I was about to forgo bed and help out! I'll help tommorrow as I really must go to bed now. BTW, the catscan for the CTM articles went from 104 last night to 93 tonight then to 90 a little later (my list above) then to 83 a few hours later still. The updates are quite frequent it seems so the scans are quite accurate and useful. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah nuts... I couldn't sleep so I went ahead and did a few: see the CTM listing. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Um... I just realised: shouldn't all 160 of those you're working on be bannered as CTM? Presumeably, a BLP of a composer would make that composer "Contemporary" since they are by definition alive and must have written music "within the past 50 years or so"? Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 04:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've ticked a load of these off at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Contemporary music/Articles with issues: you might need to verify and tick your list off as well. Cacilda Borges Barbosa remains unsourced, however, and I suspect she is totally NN. I certainly can't verify anything in the article using the usual methods... AfD? --Jubilee♫clipman 11:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Have now coordinated our lists. Robert Ghillies is not actually bannered for this project, but I only found one minor reference anyway. I have asked for citations for the rest which is now hidden by the template: look at the edit. He is tagged NN etc etc so probably an AfD. --Jubilee♫clipman 11:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: The article is almost completely copypasted from the website of the Scottish Music Centre (click Full biography).--Vejvančický (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted! Text now blanked and notified to WP:CP and contributor of copyvio (actually the very first edit on page). This might just be a CSD, given the lack of any sources. I pointed that out on the CP page. --Jubilee♫clipman 13:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert Ghillies seems an odd case. If he's a Scotish composer of any note, I would have expected to know about him (the contemporary music scene in Scotland is small enough that we pretty much all know each other), but I don't think I have come across his name. And yet he has a page on the SMIC website as you have spotted. The only other hint at notability I could find was this site, which claims he had a piece on BBC Radio 3 in 2002. I don't think a single broadcast necessarily indicates notability. Do you think the Sideburnsbob (talk · contribs) who created the article might be Mr Ghillies himself? As for Cacilda Borges Barbosa, wasn't this one prematurely saved from a previous AfD? --Deskford (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cacilda Borges Barbosa. My vote last time was a weak keep if sources could be found, based on the size of the Portuguese article, but other respected editors felt strongly in favour of keeping. I guess if she's in New Grove that satisfies our criteria, though I can't find any promising sources online. --Deskford (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a topic for basic Google Search. Google Books result is more interesting. I've learned my first Portuguese words: maestrina and compositora :) --Vejvančický (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What do they mean then? :P Yes Barbosa was AfDed by me at the beginning of my list checking... I got beaten up if you remember! Which is sort of funny now with all the mass deletions of uBLPs and so on... anyway I degress. I tried everything I could think of on Barbosa and even the AfD itself failed to reference her despite all the claims of notability etc etc. I note that Antandrus didn't actually add the New Grove ref, BTW, he merely claimed its existance. Adding that really would be something. Anyway enough of sour grapes! Vejvančický's Portuguese stuff is useful enough, anyway. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, no I think Sideburnsbob (talk · contribs) might be Ghillies' son: look carefully and click... It was all added en bloc and has never been changed since, BTW, beyond adding then moving the list of compositions and (very) minor cleanup: first edit to that just before I added the refs and tagged the copyvio etc... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can cite a reference work based on its appearance on the Amazon "Inside this Book" facility, but this does show Cacilda Campos Borges Barbosa to appear in the Norton/Grove Dictionary of Woman Composers. And yes, Gillies (son) does appear to be called Sideburnsbob on YouTube! --Deskford (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Especially given that the facility in this case is locked to all but registered users of Amazon... I am registered with them already and found the ref no problem. I have simply added the actual info for the NGDWC article to Barbosa's WP article rather than add the Amazon link. Good detection! The other issue: it is almost certain to be the son then that created the Ghilles article. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The work is now finished - thanks to the work done by Smerus, Jubileeclipman, Deskford and Vejvančický. Unless anyone wants to keep it, I will remove the list from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers/Composers. --Kleinzach 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Different CatScan results

I note this and this give subtly different results. The second has had "Composers" removed from the Categories box, returning slightly more names. Is this significant? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

75 versus 79. That means there must be four that have the Composers project template, but are not actually in any sub-category of Category:Composers. --Deskford (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

... namely Gwilym Simcock, Lev Konov, Nina Cassian and Pete Turner (musician). I've added categories to Simcock and Konov, and removed the template from Cassian and Turner as they don't seem to belong to the Composers project. Once the catscan catches up (it sometimes takes a few hours, apparently), the two scans should now match. --Deskford (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was as I thought. I've done more research using CatScan: see the CTM talkpage. Thoughts over there for now unless this project needs to be brought up to speed, too. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Roy Douglas

This article, though in existance since 2006, was completely unreferenced and wasn't even bannered as CTM or Composers. I spotted it in a comparision of scans using CatScan and immediately marked it up (with others) on the CTM subpage and bannered it as CTM, later adding Composers. Given that he worked with numerous important composers, especially RVW, this was a lucky find. If the deletionists have their way, this would have vanished... I have extensively sourced this but I am sure there are far more RSs to find. It could do with full inline citations and a little bit of overhaul. Amazingly, Douglas really is still alive at 102. Pure gold. --Jubilee♫clipman 10:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bother and blast... The article is a rip off from the Music Web profile and will need to be completely rewritten... I can have a go when I get time: I just hope no one else notices in the meantime. --Jubilee♫clipman 10:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagged Close-paraphrase. I just hope that allays any attempts to speedy it. --Jubilee♫clipman 10:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I never noticed until now: the author of the WP article is the highly trustworthy and reliable JackofOz (talk · contribs) I can't figure this out at all... Did the other site pinch our stuff and falsify the copyright info, or what? Comments on the talkpge, please. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

After my recent CSD experience (see the CTM talkpage), I decided to reword some of this. I'll sort it out further bit by bit. It probably has to be completely rewritten to tell the truth... --Jubilee♫clipman 05:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, where is everyone?? --Jubilee♫clipman 05:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It was less than 24 hours from your starting the thread to yur osting this. Given the age of the article it might have been in JoOs early days before he knew better. Perhaps he could be approached to review some of his early contributions himself.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you're right about JoOz and this article. I have left a message for him on his talk page. Regarding my (flippant) comment: it had actually been 40 hours before anyone at all commented on this talk page besides me. Indeed, it was 43 hours before Deskford's comments that anyone else commented: that's 83 hours without comment from anyone other than Deskford or me. I thought I was being sent to Conventry—here and at CTM! Anyway, the comment was made in jest: you're all getting on with some serious editing out there... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Oscar van Dillen

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oscar van Dillen (2nd nomination)

Note that he is an important Wikipedian and the previous AfD was closed with a comment that RSs need to added to the articles. These were not provided and I have completely failed to come up with anything after nearly 3 hours of searching. Kleinzach has added an EL to a Cybele recording of one of his records but the article remains unsourced to date. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP composers bannered by the Composers Project and other issues

• Anđelko Klobučar Two sentence stub
• Avgust Ipavec Two sentence stub
• Birgitte AlstedY
• César de OliveiraY but unsourced → refimprove
• Hans-Ola EricssonY
• Heinz ChurY
• Ilija Pejovski Prod
• Janez Matičič Three sentence stub
• Jay Alan YimY
• Jean-Marie Kieffer One sentence stub (which "incorporates information from the equivalent article on the Luxembourgish Misplaced Pages"!)
• Jeffrey Fayman moved to both WP Rock and WP Film.
• Johny Fritz One sentence stub (which also "incorporates information from the equivalent article on the Luxembourgish Misplaced Pages"...)
• Julien Hoffmann Two sentence stub (which also "incorporates information from the equivalent article on the Luxembourgish Misplaced Pages": there's a pattern here...)
• Lev KonovY
• Lotte Anker Two sentence stub (Danish WP this time)
• Marco Schädler Two sentence stub (German...)
• Marek Biliński Speedied for Copyvio
• Michael Kohler (musician)Y unsourced → refimprove and removed biobox
• Michalis Koumbios Suspicious...
• Paul Dahm Here we go again
• Pierre Cao And again
• Ralph Siegel Eurovision songwriter This one was removed from our banners/cats by Smerus, but reverted by Eurosong. I've removed them again. --Kleinzach 02:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC) _{composer → songwriter --Jubilee♫clipman 02:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)}
• Rihards DubraY
• Tom Bimmermann One sentence stub. NB:!
• Vasco Mendonça Prod
• Vincent Berthier de Lioncourt slighly longer stub from France.
• Vincent de Jesus He's a lot of things but I'm not sure he's ours... Film?/Yes, now moved to Films
• Walter Civitareale One sentence stub

We need to review the above list created at 8:20 this morning: some of these names appear to have been crossed off the list on the subpage while others are not on the page at all. I removed the composer cat from Deepak Dev just now after I ran the "Unreferenced BLP 21st-century classical composers" scan found on the CTM talkpage and found him still there. I suspect the cats/banners have not been sorted on these others. The huge lists generated by the first two scan sneed to be reviewed too, however: many will be genuine composer not properly bannered and others will be non-composers miscatted. I hope all the genuine composers were checked for the CTM banner? If not, we need to review the entire list and banner them all! --Jubilee♫clipman 08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the list is the same with or without "composers" in the categories field, so that issue has been resolved. --Jubilee♫clipman 08:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have ticked the ones still (and correctly) flagged up by the scan for CTM unrefed BLPs. They are all prodded or flagged for other issues, except Yim who might actually be notable for educating a notable composer, Mark Engebretson (no WP article on Mark Engebretson), but that remains to be seen. There is also one Joel Garten I have also prodded who is not listed above because he is an improviser rather than a composer. --Jubilee♫clipman 08:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of these are very short stubs which I don't think are worth bothering with (see my annotations above). --Kleinzach 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Some have already been dealt with, too, mind, so those need to be ticked off. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That only leaves about four worth bothering with I think! Great! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Make that one or two... --Jubilee♫clipman 03:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Now done. Do we care about the stubs? Should we just prod them or simply unbanner them and forget? The problem with th latter is that someone else could come along and rebanner. Also, some of them might really be notable... Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just leave the stubs as they are? Obviously we don't prod articles because they are minimal stubs, but neither are they worth saving. (As a reader I get irritated if I search for Umberto Cesari and I find a one-line wiki article saying "Umberto Cesari was an Italian composer", so I don't think they are worth saving.) They probably should be accurately bannered. --Kleinzach 07:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Banner the stubs and get on with better things. (It's better than "Umberto Cesari is a composer", though, you'll admit. I have seen a few of those in my time...) --Jubilee♫clipman 14:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Is there any special reason why Canadian composers are subcategorised as Canadian songwriters, Category:Canadian songwriters? This confuses the results enormously when using CatScan! --Jubilee♫clipman 10:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just fixed this. We'll see whether someone changes it back. --Kleinzach 11:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Klein: I thought I was going mad! However, "Canadian musical groups" is catted there too! It contains "Canadian orchestras" and a whole host of other non-songwriters. The whole of Category:Canadian songwriters is a mess in fact. There are a load of names strewn over the category that really should be in a subcategory, for a start. --Jubilee♫clipman 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to attempt to fix this myself but can't for the life of me figure out how I do it. Are the categories listed in the edit the higher categories? How do I tell which one to remove if so? --Jubilee♫clipman 11:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lower cats are tagged as members of categories just like articles are. So you change a cat's position in the heirarchy through editing that cat. Obviously if your're reoeating a change over many parts of the structure then a bot may be the way to go.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I get it, now. Thanks Peter! The bit after the pipe is a sort key. I just found the help page as you wrote this, though that is rather confusing at times so you just clarified what it was meaning to say. I can sort this out now if I haven't been beaten to it! --Jubilee♫clipman 11:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorted: I removed both entries that were for "musical groups". A group by definition is not "a songwriter". --Jubilee♫clipman 11:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A deleted CP listed article

I noted this just now while checking on the aricles I nomed recently:

• Anthony Kershaw (famous musician) (history · last edit) from http://www.audiophilia.com/wp/?page_id=2. Site has CC-By-NC 3.0 licence, according to Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Copyright this is not compatible with Misplaced Pages. snigbrook (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wondered if the subject was notable enough for us to create a new article at Anthony Kershaw (musician). I supose we should make sure it's well sourced, if so! --Jubilee♫clipman 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Still a little to do

We are more or less finished with the unref'ed BLPs, now. However, I just noticed that some of the articles highlighed on this talkpage are still unref'ed: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Unreferenced_BLPs contains a few that still need checking/unbannering/uncatting/sourcing or commenting out of that list. I'll have a go tommorow: I'm taking a break for now and Kleinzach has done almost 120 singlehandedly, if my maths is correct. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Kleinzach's comment (some way above): yes the list of sourced artices can go. We might need to retain the unsourced/PROD/etc so we can keep an eye on them. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Projectification"

Further to Okip's comments on the CTM talkpage, I would like to alert the project to the proposals he has been coordinating. The main result is that we have a new process called Projectification, very similar to WP:Userfication but operatated by admins. A new unreferenced BLP will be moved to a subpage of the brand new project called Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons by an admin using Twinkle for Admins 6 hours after creation and the redirect speedy deleted. The article will sit there for 7 days and will then be deleted if no sources are added. The idea is still in development and yet to be proposed to the wider community. However, the project is up and running, processing several uBLPs by hand. The full discussion is in Okip's user space but participation is by invitation only: User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs#Projectification. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, participation in Okip's proposal discussions is open to all. Comments/ideas/proposals etc welcome! (Link immeadiately above.) Don't forget the RfC, too, which is now in its second stage: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Phase_II. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PRODS

• David B. Doty created by Hyacinth (talk · contribs) mind, one very highly respected editor. Let's see what he comes up with.

  Deprodded - I refined the search terms to find out if he was a notable theorist and the results suggest strongly that he is. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Daniel Dutton created by Dand31 (talk · contribs)... Yes, well.

  Note changed to AfD after Peter Cohen's timely intervention - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Dutton --Jubilee♫clipman 19:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn and closed --Jubilee♫clipman 03:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

These are both remnants from the mass sourcing expedition we've all just returned from. Don't suppose many here care if these go... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Heinz Chur
• Lev Konov (from CTM) - quick online search for Russian "Лев Конов" reveals more, I've added his profile at www.russiancomposers.org, and I found also an article CHILDREN'S OPERA IN THE CONTEXT OF CONTEMPORARY MUSIC CULTURE at the website of Ukrainian National Library. I've notified the Russian Wikiproject. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  Deprodded - Google translate on added site seems to verify notability claims. Let's see what the Russians come up with, too. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vasco Mendonça
• Ilija Pejovski

  Deprodded by IP ("He is mentioned in the Harvard dictionary of music. I think this article deserves a second chance") and citation added by Vejvančický strongly suggesting likely notability and verifiability. Anyone able to verify Harvard claim? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Four others I forgot about. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Mall'd Vydinac

And another...(!) --Jubilee♫clipman 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Robert Ghillies just went red... --Jubilee♫clipman 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done

Most of the above have been sourced or have expired. Some of the latter have now been deleted, others await a passing admin. Only Dutton has been sent to AfD and awaits comments from editors. (Withdrawn) --Jubilee♫clipman 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Oscar van Dillen withdrawn

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oscar van Dillen (2nd nomination)

--Jubilee♫clipman 22:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

César de Oliveira

Comment on subpage:

• N please don't confuse with Brazilian composers Paulo César de Oliveira and Marco César de Oliveira Brito. This article was recently repeatedly deleted on Portuguese Misplaced Pages. No reliable sources found.

Any further thoughts on this? I added few sources but are they good enough? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Juan Carlos Tolosa

• Juan Carlos Tolosa

Is he notable? Unreferenced BLP composer, except for MySpace.

• Black Jackets Company

Another article related to the above. I'm not sure what to make of this one. Should it really be in Category:Belgian composers, Category:21st-century classical composers and Category:20th-century classical composers?

--Deskford (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put it in some more relevant cats. --Kleinzach 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd PROD or AfD the former but I think I'll steer clear of those processes for a while... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to move all BLP discussions to WP:CTM?

I wonder if it's time now to move all the BLP-related discussions to the Contemporary Music Project? Now we know which articles need to be bannered, it should be more efficient to keep the discussions all in one place. Is that OK? --Kleinzach 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. We were either missing or tripping over each other in the mass sourcing attempt! Further discussion in one place is far better and CTM is the more focussed project to deal with these people. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See also User:Jubileeclipman/CTM which is discussed at CTM. Thoughts on this are welcome over at CTM. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, comment on the subpage or on its talk page. More obvious place, for now. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Dutton

The AfD needs further comments: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Dutton. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 21:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus required

As many of you will know, I have been working on the List of 21st-century classical composers and placing problem articles in User:Jubileeclipman/List of problematic 21st-century composer articles. I broke off this work to help with the unref'edBLPs drama. Now I have resumed, I have noticed certain fundamental problems with the list and require consensus before I proceed with a huge cull of the list. Technically, most of these composers are CTM's domain (most are still alive), but since we haven't yet decided that these composers are exclusive to CTM I feel I should ask here for consensus, too. This discussion on CTM's talkpage contains my analysis of the situation and my proposal. Answer over there please. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographical infoboxes/10th discussion

Previous extended discussion on infoboxes

We are looking to solve (get input at the least) on a long standing debate on inclusion of biographical infoboxes in some WikiProjects. Specifically the debate is in how far the reach of individual WikiProjects guidelines can be implemented.Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Background references: The following archives document past infobox discussions: Composers Project: (scroll down) Opera Project: Classical Music Project: Also see: Infobox musical artist: Music Project: Request that this RfC debate be moved to a subpage to free up the talkpage for other Composer project discussions. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 04:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I see this new section..but i dont see consensus at all in this old thread that Hyacinth is providing as hes source for consensus..the Biographical infoboxes section was added 3 March 2009 a year after the discussion closed?? What is going on who and were has the ok for mass deletion of info box templates from composers articles come from.. ??? show me!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Please see Biographical infoboxes which is on the project page, and all the various links. This has been discussed ad nauseum, which in Latin means "to the point of nausea". Thank you for your understanding. --Kleinzach 03:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC) There's no real consensus, just bullies spouting idiocies that would actually apply to far more than just classical music to try and justify it for only that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC) You agree then that there is no consensus..so why are infoboxs that people made being deleted ? ..This rule you quote was added without consensus as far as i can see to the project page..very misleading compared to every other project that you link to...you sure this rule of thumb should be there?.Because you have editors deleting infoboxs from FA articles!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC) "every other project . . ." . Please check out the following: WikiProject Opera on biographical infoboxes, WikiProject Classical music on biographical infoboxes. --Kleinzach 23:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Ok you seem to not understand what i am saying ..these rules you keep quoting were added without consensus ., So no matter how many time you should me that you posted this rules all over does not provide proof of consensus .. What the problem here is that this rule implies they should be deleted...no were does it say that work by editors that is done properly and neatly with a nice format/layout should be deleted..lets just look at what you did for-instance here you removed the template and did not even take the time to add the info of who it was the year etc, you left a blank thumb. And in this case you did not even try to get the name right. So you think the new editors reading the rule and that have started deleting the infobox will take more time then you will ..i hope so! Anyways the 4 people that were deleting them have been told to stop and they have. I think i will talk to a few people see if we can start a new talk page on this topic again as it is clearly not solved..Y are you not deleting the template on Bradley Joseph one of your groups FA articles for instance??? Anyways until this is worked out i don't think peoples should delete others editors work..If you want you can promote not adding a template, but deleting i will be watching for.Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Buzzzsherman: This is inaccurate. (1) Re , see the Opera Project archive 15. This text was written jointly and agreed by the Opera Project editors. (2) Re , this material was pre-existing and merely moved by me from other locations. (3) Re Robert Nathaniel Dett, a composer given a writer's infobox, the birth and death dates are in the article. Nothing was removed. (4) Re Juan Carlos Tolosa I cleaned up the article removing Spanish (Bruselas for Brussels etc.) see Now I have taken my time to check through your points, will you please RTA. --Kleinzach 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Ok i will but this is why i did not mention your name in the first place ...i am interested in this rule of thumb that is posted on the project talk page not your editing habits. I was trying to show you with your own edits what will happen if this continues!! (1) Re , see the Opera Project archive 15 So the four of you made project wide decisions..I dont see consensus here who are the four of you to make this decisions? (2) Re ,..So you agree that your posting this all over!! ok! (3) Re Robert Nathaniel Dett,..You left a blank thumb no name nothing...yes this is wrong!!! (4) Re Juan Carlos Tolosa I cleaned up the article removing Spanish (Bruselas for Brussels etc.) see ..not sure what your trying to show me here ..His name is not Brussels from 2009 and the article is still messed up I am not one to be pushed over or have the wool pulled over my eyes ..when i speak up its because i fell i am right ..so made best we just leave this conversation die and make a new discussion page about the topic!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Just to note that WP:CTM also opposes the addition of infoboxes to biographical articles. We are at present reveiwing our scope etc so there is no specific page to point you to; however, all the members are individually opposed to the boxes. The point is that all the information is meant to be in the lead anyway so there is no point of making a big bumper sticker to say the same stuff. --Jubilee♫clipman 11:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Also, just to note that Melodia's point is inaccurate insofar as participants to this project have generally agreed in the past that we should not use infoboxes for composers. (I think we understand that Melodia disagrees, but if disagreeing with Melodia constitutes bullying, that sets the bar pretty low.) Feel free to conduct another straw poll here per WP:CCC. Eusebeus (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Jubilee's response is EXACTLY why I called it that. I mean, "ll the information is meant to be in the lead anyway"? What the hell does that have to do with classical/opera/contemporary music specifically? If that were actually the reason, then there should be NO info boxes (or at least not on people in general). Then there's a idiotic crap like "X wasn't from Germany, because Germany didn't exist! See why infoboxes sucks?! ZOMG!". And while THIS time Kleinzach's message was relatively benign, very often there's quite a hostile message against those who would DARE add an infobox. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Please remain calm Melodia. This isn't personal—the original poster also questions the removal of the boxes, too, of course. I just pointed everyone to part of the rationale behind the opposition to these boxes. There are other reasons to oppose them which other editors can probably clarify more easily than I can (I wasn't involved in the original discussions because I am relativly new to WP). --Jubilee♫clipman 15:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC) By my count, there have been nine substantial discussions about biographical infoboxes since 2007. (That number doesn't include short topics here, or long discussions outside the WP:CM projects.) Everything that could have been said about this topic, has been said, and the result is always the same. --Kleinzach 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC) "Quote=Everything that could have been said about this topic, has been said, and the result is always the same" <--< Yes your right there is no consensus, but yet here we are dealing with it anyways because you felt free to implement deleting of info boxs. So i would say its your fault Kleinzach we are here. The main reason i showed up here in the first place is that your project keeps coming up on help pages etc..People asking for help as to y there work is being deleted...And you can show me nothing to warrant your groups behavior it pushing this POV on infoboxs, "Quote = there is no specific page" WOW so you agree this is not a rule? I repeat DO NOT DELETE valid contributions because you feel all high and mighty with your non-wiki approved rules ...So in reality your project is causing work for other editors out side your project (We are getting tired of it)...dont you wonder y your group is so small...you guys have a reputation of BITE, Even someone in your own little isolated Wiki group thinks your wrong. As for Misplaced Pages:Consensus you should read it (its a real wiki rule) you would see that what you guys did here is not consensus ..its a 1 hour open then closed discussion that you guys did to make it seem like there was some sort of approval...People are getting tired of what you guys are doing and having to explain your actions to new editors.Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Your tone is entirely inappropriate. Do not come to our project page and start shouting at us in ALLCAPS; only Melodia is allowed to do that. The infobox question has been discussed by participants of this project in the past and specific concerns were raised. If you can address those concerns substantively, then I think you will find a receptive audience. But your approach is unhelpful, verging on incomprehensibly rude. The issues raised here probably do apply to other parts of the encyclopedia, but we tend to this part of the garden and do not presume to tell other projects what to do. You may disagree with our policies and editing, but you are unlikely to convince people by adopting such an accusatory stance while doing nothing to counter the objections that have already been noted. Eusebeus (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC) O well like the others tried to warn me..not to bother with this group.. you will only get fustrated (they were right). You guys have shown us nothing of this so called consensus. You link to pages that do not show consensus, so what would you like me to reply to? Your imaginary thoughts?? You guys just don’t get it.. You cant delete valid work. If you wish to promote no infoboxs to new articles that is fine but deleting them from old articles and leaving the pictures blank with no name no alttext no nothing is wrong!!! ...I wish you guys all the best and hope one day you will see the errors of your ways. There is no ownership of projects as you describe and no consensus on infoboxs that you guys can provide me. So i see no need to address your concerns substantively, because you can’t even provide proof of this so called consensus. So just like many other editors that come across this project ..i will walk away. ..But pls be aware that you are affecting other projects with your isolated rules. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (infoboxes) or Template:Infobox musical artist <--dont see anything here about your made up rule of no infoboxs. As for how i am typing..well I guess you can tell we are getting pissed that we have to deal with your editors deleting infoboxs from other project...Yes projects overlap .. Have fun!!! I know this will come up again since you guys are not doing right by editors....PS..Dont be scared of bold text..its all ok it wont hurt you... Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC) My opinion is that there are no hard and fast "rules" in Misplaced Pages, and if there is a disagreement on whether an infobox belongs on a specific article or not, consensus should be reached on that article's talk page. While I do appreciate and follow some of the guidelines here at this project, I prefer to follow the "guidelines" from the various Music projects and Biography projects with regards to infoboxes, the scopes of which composers also fall into. I personally have argued "consensus" in the past - like 2-3 equals consensus? And just because this has been discussed "ad nauseum" to a few, doesn't mean it has been discussed "ad nauseum" to all and it also certainly doesn't mean it cannot be discussed ever again. And if I were a newcomer to this talkpage, I too would resent the rudeness of first responders always to this question. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Cricket: "They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page." Therefore, this project, like you, follows the consensus on article talk pages. My guess is that the Bradley Joseph article, for example, has been discussed either on its talk page—or elsewhere—and the consensus is that the infobox should remain. Buzzzsherman: "Quote = there is no specific page" WOW so you agree this is not a rule? - Actually, it was me that said there was no specific page and I meant that the contemporary music project has no specific page. However, that project defers to other projects where points of style are in question: see our style-guidelines page, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Contemporary music/Style guidelines, and note the last three items on the list. Everyone: I have thought long and hard about this, now, and there is a serious point here, to be fair. First, though, was consensus also reached that existing infoboxes should be removed? Furthermore, I can see how we can ask project members to avoid placing infoboxes but we cannot reasonably stop non-project members from adding them nor can we reasonably remove those added by non-project members, unless there has been consensus in the wider WP community. As I recall, all the debates in the wider community fell apart because editors such as A Knight Who Says Ni, Chris Cunningham/Thumperward and others opposed such changes in usage. The proposed change to include the words "non-classical", for example, reached no consensus. (I forgot: I was involved in that.) See here: Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_7#Classical_artists and all of that which follows in that archive. As far as I am aware, that is the only place that this issue has been discussed outside of WP Composers, WP Opera, WP Classical music and WP Contemporary music. Buzzzsherman, Melodia and Cricket are correct, I'm afraid: there is no consensus in the wider community on this issue and that is where the consensus actually counts. None of us own articles nor can we place restrictions on them without consensus from the rest of WP. It is now time to discuss this issue in a calm manner in the correct place, viz either WP:TfD or WP:RfC. If we don't get this Misplaced Pages-wide consensus, we will be continually questioned by that wider community, as above. It also occurs to me that demanding consensus on talkpages that infoboxes be included is actually against the WP policy on consensus: consensus on the application of guidelines and policies to articles in mainspace only needs to be reached on talkpages where wider WP policies and guidelines are in question not where project guidelines are in question. Project guidelines only cover project members: they do not apply to non-project members and never have. Sorry to be blunt and cut across everything that has been said on this issue in the various project pages, but the editors that raised objections here are completely correct I am afraid: "In the case of policies and guidelines, Misplaced Pages expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In any case, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community." A discussion on a rather obscure template talkpage doesn't really count as "adequate exposure to the community", I humbly suggest... Just so you are clear: I concur fully that infoboxes are inappropriate for the biographical articles that we cover. The problem is that the rest of the WP community either rejects our arguments or is completely unaware of them. Kleinzach and I adding "per consensus at all classical music projects" or "see these discussions" only informs those who are interested or concerned enough to actually read the edit history. The actual infobox guideline doesn't exclude classical music articles nor does any other relevent policy or guideline I have yet found. If we continue to push this without WP-wide consent, we risk being blocked or otherwise repremanded. We must discuss this WP-wide, now. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC) My main problem is that, while I agree guidelines are good, the justification is very off, and it's a bit...wrong...to not have it for one type of person, when another it's fine. As I said, there's NO inherent reason why, /specifically/ classical musicians should be devoid of them. It's kinda like keeping them off of, say, ONLY video games on Nintendo consoles but not other companies. Or ONLY on mammals, but not other animals. Now you're going off and trying to divide people into "project members" and "non-project members" and even going so far as to say that they shouldn't be removed when non-project add them? Huh? So if I were to go add one, it'd be ok to remove it, because I'm on the members list, but someone else who isn't adds one it's "not reasonable"? How in the holy hells does that make ANY sense? Am I really missing a part of my brain or did I fall into an alternate universe? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Jubilee thank you for understanding what is going on..I like your suggestion why dont we add Melodia: no you are not missing a part of your brain! I simply pointed out that editors on these various projects can only expect other editors at these projects to follow the guidelines that said projects have drawn up for themselves. We cannot force our guidelines on, say, Buzzzsherman because he isn't part of our project. Indeed, we shouldn't impose our guidelines on each other either: that would be devisive and counter-productive. The most we can reasonably do is remind project members of our guidelines and hope they follow them. The rest of WP will go its own way without us until consensus is reached on this issue out there... Buzzzsherman (is there a shortcut for your name? LOL!): yes I agree. We need to do something to resolve this once and for all in the "greater community". If we don't we are merely fighting the wind... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Claims of universality for bio-infoboxes Every time this topic comes up special claims of universality are made for biographical infoboxes, that they are used "everywhere else in Misplaced Pages", that they are essential for all biographies. This is untrue. Scattered through all WP guidelines there are repeated explanations that these boxes are to be used appropriately, with discretion. So this is not a WP-wide problem. It's a project matter which we have the discretion to deal with here. Project-based guidelines are a fundamental feature of Misplaced Pages. (See Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects which has 94 pages listed.) Composer project editors are best placed to decide whether these boxes are appropriate for composer biographies. Buzzzsherman thinks we should conform to the style of the Michael Jackson, Pink Floyd and Mariah Carey material that he works on. Why? Do the CM editors try to impose their style of editing on other groups of editors? --Kleinzach 02:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, that's kind of the point: we are imposing our style by removing the infoboxes. I quite agree that they are not appropriate but we need to think of the wider implications here and step outside of our projects once in a while. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Composers project guidelines only apply to Composers Project articles. We have been scrupulous about that. If a composer is also a famous chess player and has a chess player bio-box, as required by the Chess project, that would of course be respected. --Kleinzach 02:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC) What we are saying is that it is not ok to remove other peoples work. Yes project guidelines are great but there just that "guidelines". WP:COMMON is what should be applied here, do you think its ok to delete editors work when they have no clue what your doing in this project? The average person will make an article base on what they see as examples, not guidelines. So as a result of this, most editors will see infoboxs with many big bios. I would also argue that most would believe that with out one an article looks unfinished. But that what i think and what i think does not matter. What does matter is that there is a problem here for no reason. Your group does not like the infoboxs that's fine, when "you guys" make an article there will be no infoboxs. But, when you see an infobox arleady in an article you should not delete it.Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC) "What we are saying is that it is not ok to remove other peoples work". That is what is called 'editing' on Misplaced Pages. We try to improve the articles by developing, changing, and also deleting content. That's the normal process. --Kleinzach 09:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC) You just dont get it...lets wait see what others say!!...??Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I think Kleinzach is gently pointing you to WP:BRD --Jubilee♫clipman 18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I see your point, KZ, but it isn't just Composer project members—nor even just CM-related project members—that edit composer articles. Further to Buzz's comment above: there is also WP:IAR... --Jubilee♫clipman 03:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC) WP:IAR is controversial right now, but also see Misplaced Pages:Disinfoboxes for some more background. --Kleinzach 15:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Well... that's true, given the whole "let's delete every bit of unsourced info on sight" attitude being advocated right now... I also note that Misplaced Pages:Disinfoboxes was created by Nrswanson and edited by Thumperward. The essay is, however, particluarly petinant I would say. Perhaps the basic ideas and concerns contained therein should be incorporated into Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (infoboxes)? --Jubilee♫clipman 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC) In my opinion, if members of this project have reached consensus to deprecate the use of infoboxes for musical composers then the case will need to be presented at WT:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes. As most composers are also musical artists then there is a clear conflict with the use of the {{Infobox Musical artist}} and/or {{Infobox Person}}. The guidelines at WP:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes state: "So, if you are intending to apply one of the templates to an article about a scientist, academic, or classical composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page." I don't see how a project can "ban" the use of such boxes without engendering the sort of conflict that has apparently resulted in 10 RfCs. I note that several editors have pointed out that infoboxes are useful to impart information to readers who may know little of the subject matter. It is my belief that much of the opposition to their use for composers arises from the feeling that {{Infobox Musical artist}} does not work well for composers. In that case the best solution would surely be to get a {{Infobox Musical Composer}} created. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Note that a related template was previously deleted four times (at least): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Archive_14#Template:Infobox_classical_composer --Jubilee♫clipman 20:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, there has only been one RfC (the present one) and one discussion over at the {{Infobox Musical artist}} talk page. The other discussions were inhouse but were often well attended by non-project members (see below). Since the projects reject the use of the boxes in principle not just in practice (Melodia's position on the matter against the consensus being given due weight, of course), the creation of a new template would be pointless. Thanks for the pointers, though. Perhaps WT:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes is the place to sort this out once and for all. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, and wasn't there further an interest in renaming musical artist to "non-classical' musical artist to make that clearer? That had widespread support from our project. (btw, JubC, nice one on the Beethoven infobox. Expect more ALLCAPS from Melodia though). Eusebeus (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC) The template talk discussion was that "non-classical" inclusion discussion. It was inconclusive, though the words actually remain in the template documentation. YES INDEED, i EXPECT MUCH MORE FROM MELODIA... (BTW, this RfC was pretty much my fault: see above. Sorry about that!) --Jubilee♫clipman 20:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC) That's ok, it's never a bad idea to challenge existing assumptions (especially since it tends to reconfirm project principles) and I always enjoy hearing from Melodia about ZOMG YOU GUYS ARE SUCH MEAN BULLIES!! I am interested that no-one has raised any of Andy's arguments which, while from a discredited editor, were at least substantive in nature, instead of this mindless palavering about ownership.~ Eusebeus (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I'll dig around the archives and review Andy's arguments. We should cover all bases since this is now WP-wide. Thanks for the reminder. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Previous discussions and primary editors Clawing back somewhat from my comments above: it does appear that the wider community have been involved in this debate. Reviewing the archives, quite a number of editors not involved in the CM-related projects commented and most often appear to have concurred that infoboxes are not useful for classical composers, singers, instrumentalists etc. The main concern is that they are misleading, the Ludvig van Beethoven article being a case in point: his birth date is not known for sure and adding "musician" or "composer" as his Occupation is not helpful. Many, many other articles could be cited in support of this but editors wishing to comment here are strongly encouraged to review all those archives first. Thank you. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC) God dammit, that's EXACTLY my point. What the hell does Beethoven's ambiguous birthday have to do with him being a composer? Nothing at all. If the 'occupation' is a problem, it can easily be left out (though one can easily put "pianist and composer" for that, for that's what he WAS). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Clawing back further still: while it may be true that composer articles—and clasical music articles in general for that matter—are not exclusively edited by editors on the membership lists of one of the WP:CM-related projects, it is certainly true that these articles are primarily edited by such editors. Thus, since these editors agree that bioboxes are to be avoided in—indeed removed from—classical composer, singer, instrumentalist, etc articles, then there is indeed consensus for that avoidance and removal among those who are mainly involved in the maintenence of said articles. The project guidelines merely highlight that consensus. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Melodia: WikiProject Composers I'm not really sure that tells us anything we couldn't work out from the lead and most of it is rather fuzzy and therefore misleading at best. We would still need to add his sig later, anyway: --Jubilee♫clipman 19:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Ok, I'm done with this idiocy. If you really can't see the simple problem I'm addressing then there's no reason to waste energy. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict - reply to that message) As far as I can tell, you are simply saying that info boxes can be modified for each individual article. That would be fine if the editors here actually wanted to use the boxes. The consensus is obviously overwhelmingly against that usage now that I review the archives in full. Non-CM editors also agreed to the non-inclusion and the removal of the boxes as far as I can tell. There are a few technical points that came up early on but these were forgotten: (edit conflict - the message I was posting) A number of the previous discussions have focussed on issues outside of the "ownership" and "primary editors" etc issues above. The most important of these looked at either technical issues such as how bots respond to pages without infoboxes (if I understand these debates correctly)—here and here, for example—or the creation/deletion of more specific infoboxes for composers and other classical musicians—here and here, for example. These issues need to be given due weight also. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 21:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC) The closing admin's comments at the previous TfD are worthy of review: here. That admin points to this comment which also needs serious consideration. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 22:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC) A fresh look Since you dont see a problem in deleting other editors hard work and there choice of style... How about we look at it this way...i will use Robert Nathaniel Dett as an example for all bellow. On this article 3 wikiprojects are watching over this article with many no project editors. they are Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canadian music, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers. So witch one gets to pick the style (even though i believe the creator gets to pick layout /style). Well lets look at the "Hierarchy" of all this ... First: so we have Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography..( Hes a person Bio is first in the pecking order) This would be the parent project..They have not come to a conclusion if infoboxs should be there..so they let them stand! Secondly: there's Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canadian music..( Hes Canadian before hes a composer you agree?) (PS..This were i come from)..We have never had the question come up of infoboxs..so in-general we have them in most high profile bios of musicians. Because we follow the normal rules I mean-->(guidelines on this)..In fact WikiProject Canadian music is a decedent of both Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canada and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject music. Both of this projects have allowed there editors to use (i mean chose) if they want infoboxs. Thirdly we have Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers (I would assume you agree hes a person then a Canadian then a composer right!).. WikiProject Composers along with its sister projects like opera etc..You guys have chosen not to use infoboxs. I agree 100% your project does not want them and no one is forcing you to do so!. So my question to you is just on this one article who should chose the format? Keeping in mind as the hierarchy descends there a few and fewer members in each group. I think its like this below...again this is not a rule but what i believe.. Creator of box- The person that took the time to makes the infoboxs,,Its at this point that a an editor has made the decision if theres an infox (as he does have the right to add one if he /her wishes). Does not matter what WikiProject is involved the editor has this right as dictated by Template:Infobox musical artist. WikiProject Biography - allows infoboxs as per the norm ..So it stays in the article as the creator of the box intended..however it must be accurate in its content. So if you see one simple mistake ..it should simply be corrected and not fully removed. WikiProject Canadian music - allows infoboxs as per the norm...The article in question is link with a photo from Music of Canada#20th century and he is listed in all related Canadian categories..So i would say WikiProject Canada is the main WikiProject involved here, regardless of were the later editors come from. WikiProject Composers - does not " wish" to use infoboxs (We all get that and understand) ...So y do you think your small group should gets the right to deleted the infobox? If all the projects above this group have respected the right of the creator to add the box...what gives your group the right to remove it?? There is only a few of you here compared to the rest of the groups. The only augment i can see here is that hes famous for being a Composers, but i still would not see how WikiProject Composers would have the rights to this article...I say rights because you seem to believe that this is possible..Even though Misplaced Pages makes it clear there is no ownership of articles. So really all this in null and void since no group or person can claim rights of style on any article.Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC) That's not a fresh look, that's a rehash. The Infobox at Robert Nathaniel Dett is the very definition of a Disinfobox. There's no information in that box that is not in the first sentence of the article. Then listen to your plan of action here. Your solution seems to be that if you add more tags to an article that you could dilute the jurisdiction of this project. All composers are people. So add a WP:Biography tag. All composer were born somewhere, so add a nationality tag. Add enough tags and then you can ignore the overwhelming consensus that's been reached at WP:Composers... And you claim that *you* are frustrated with us? Come on. Editors in this project overwhelmingly don't want infoboxes. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Focus on adding real content to these articles rather than getting into a drawn out debate over a format dispute.DavidRF (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Ok did you not read above !! I agree you dont want boxes, My question is what gives you the right to delete them, Please read before you comment!..getting into a drawn out debate over a format dispute your editors are causing the debate.Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, your failure to read our extensive archives has caused this—along with my rather bulldozed attempts above to pacify you and others above, I admit, for which I again profusely apologise to all other editors here. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC) (ec)To correct one point: IIRC (it's there somewhere but I forget exactly where), the creator defines the style initially and other editors should intially follow that style until there have been substantial contributions beyond the creation and minor tidying up. Once the article is established further consensus is sought on the articles talk page and the consistency guidelines are applied. I think we need to move on from the "ownership" question: you are correct that no one owns articles. He is of course first a Canadian person, obviously, but his notability is as a composer: it is that fact that gives him an article on WP. Composers are probably the project most interested in him and all composers for that matter (though Sibelius has a special place in the history of Finland so the Finnish project might well be particulary interested in him). --Jubilee♫clipman 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC) My point is this--->So really all this in null and void since no group or person can claim rights of style on any article.Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC) (ec)No: it isn't null and void since the consensus here is overwhelmingly to avoid and indeed to remove infoboxes. Hence your RfC, IIRC. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I have asked for admin assistance here..I like the rest of you would like to solve this ones and for all..Because you must admit its not solved if it keeps coming up right ..this would be the tenth time. I seem to have failed to get my point across and must only assume i am just wrong in my understanding of Misplaced Pages..So lets end this with admins help see if its ok for you guys to own the articles. If yes i apologizes ...and you will never see me again..I just see mass sanctioned vandalism (i use this word loosely as the edits are all done in good faith), just wrongly executed i believe.Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Not this again. I've just removed the infobox from Claude Debussy claiming he had "associated acts". Was he a circus performer? Lili and Nadia Boulanger are likewise "associated" as if they were the Andrews Sisters. Vincent d'Indy's claim to fame was as an "educator" apparently...So on the one hand we have arguments about encyclopaedic accuracy and appropriateness and on the other we have accusations of "ownership". Again. --Folantin (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Again sorry about that i reverted the removal of the box...I will go through my edits and removed that kind of info (i did not add the info just resorted the box). But might be better to fix the box then just delete no?? Anywas i will fix what i have done.Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Just leave it until this whole debate is settled, please. That would be better. --Folantin (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC) I have stop ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Requested help from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council This is going to go round in circles otherwise. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Just a further thought before an admin and/or a council member comes to our aid: I think the real issue here is consistency. Groups of related articles are meant to be consistent with each other, as far as I am aware, with regard to their formatting, style, etc. This is what these various projects are attempting to do. The removal of infoboxes is part of that process of creating and maintaning consistency: it has nothing to do with ownership. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC) OOOO Well this has gone on long enough for me you guys tired me out LOL. Many notice boards have this up, they will comment if they like. I guess i am wrong about what is going on, just wish there was someway to let editors know this no infoboxs rule for this kind of bio. We must be able to add the info to the main guidelines no? I have reverted many infoboxs deletions, sorry about that. I will move on and apologizes for bring this up again. I wish you all the best and can only hope you wont delete my work. I will forward all inquires about y boxes were deleted to you guys and hopefully out of that you guys will get some new members to your project.....PS you guys dont have a portal..would you like one its gets members? Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Graceful withdrawl? Highly commendable! Just so you know: according to this the Biography project appears to accept our rejection of infoboxes. We are part of the wider CM-portal and mentioned there, BTW --Jubilee♫clipman 00:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Comments by uninvolved editors What's the question again? Does a small group of editors, by virtue of self-identifying as a WikiProject, get magical powers that let them tell the non-members how to write and format articles within their self-identified scope? No, of course not, and especially not on the basis of a non-authoritative page that begins by disdaining one-size-fits-all rules, advocating for individual editors to use their best judgement, and encouraging bold editing. (BTW, the process for attempting to turn the project's advice into a real guideline is at WP:POLICY#Proposals: unless and until the whole community approves it, it's no more authoritative than an essay in your userspace.) What's the other question? Are infoboxes so obviously valuable that every addition of an infobox must be cherished? No, of course not. There are people (e.g., people whose English skills are limited) who find them (extremely) valuable. There are people that find them (extremely) annoying. Neither group is "right" and neither group is "wrong", and neither group should be imposing its preference on all articles en masse. What should you be doing? You should be developing an actual consensus at each and every one of the individual articles in dispute, instead of trying to impose your preferred version of the article on the flimsy and erroneous claim of project-based authority. Try a little (or a lot) more WP:BRD, with the emphasis on the Discuss: if you don't like infoboxes, and someone adds one, then your removal needs to be accompanied by a discussion about why this infobox does not best serve this article's needs, without any irrelevant handwaving about what this or that project recommends: Try explaining yourself, with phrases like, "I don't think this infobox adds anything to this particular article, and it makes it uglier and harder to edit." Conversely, if you know that there is opposition to adding an infobox to a specific article, then start a discussion when (or before!) you add one, explaining the benefit that you think it adds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC) My position is: less emphasis on the "jurisdiction" of wikiprojects, more emphasis on the freedom of genuine article editors and creators. If somebody with a genuine interest in classical music creates or significantly expands an article about a composer, and wants to also put an infobox in, he should of course be free to do that, no matter what the majority of the wikiproject says. If, however, an article has been created and maintained by people who share a consensus that they don't want an infobox, and an outside editor with little or no prior involvement in the area then goes round and slaps infoboxes on just for the sake of it, as Buzzzsherman seems to have been doing, that is disrespectful against the work of the article creators. The decision about superficial details like infoboxes should be left to those who are responsible for contributing the actual content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Note would just like to point out i have not added any infoboxs myself ..I only reverted the deleting of the boxs that contained pictures with some info in the boxs..I simply restored former editors work...Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC) This issue has peeved me for some time: I often see articles about our composers which lack infoboxes and I really wish to add them but I'm stopped by this project's guidelines. I avoid sponsoring content-related projects for issues such as this. This shouldn't be decided at the level of an individual wikiproject. Rather, the community at large should decide when and where infoboxes are placed and what sorts of articles are granted exceptions from this standardized, easy-to-use, and helpful feature. Since I believe that this project has no authority to decide this issue, I would support any action taken to encourage the reintroduction of infoboxes on our composers, whether this project supports it or not because I believe that there is a greater community consensus that they should be on biographical articles irrespective of which WikiProject "owns" them. We need our MOS to be universally comprehensive, not under the whim of every different WikiProject under the sky. ThemFromSpace 09:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) I think you miss the point. To state that our objections are whimsy and persiflage ignores the reality that many members of this project are seasoned editors and well aware that consensus is global not local. As it is, most of us would probably not object to an infobox that contains the name and dates of birth and death (where known) of the subject. It is the additional information which is jarring to the standards of accuracy that we seek to assert. Since that basic information is provided in the lede and the mere presence of an infobox encourages people to try to add information (nationality, occupation, etc...) that simply doesn't fit with the vast majority of composers, we have determined they are better left off. Folantin's examples above provide clear and amusing instances of such perils. If you can demonstrate that an infobox limited to such elementary information is salutary to the corpus of articles we maintain, then you will no doubt find enthusiasm for their implementation. But without addressing the substance of the concerns that have been raised, this adds little to the state of the question. Eusebeus (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Surely a properly-constructed {{Infobox Composer}} would negate that argument by not supporting the parameters that are not appropriate for the subject matter? Happy‑melon 14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) That would be too obvious, wouldn't it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC) The trouble is it's difficult to devise an infobox that would stop somebody coming along and filling in the inappropriate parameters. I'm not against anyone trying to devise such a box as an experiment. (You would need "Famous as" rather than "Occupation"; "Born", with an alternative for "Baptised"; "Died"; and "Floruit" as an alternative for "Born/Died". Everything else is likely to be problematic). --Folantin (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) And if we turned off the 'edit this page' button, then nobody would ever make the same kind of mistake in article text, either. "Somebody might make an honest mistake" isn't a good excuse for a sweeping ban on a method of presenting information. The rule is the same for infoboxes and for image descriptions and for article text and for everything: All errors, whether 'flatly wrong' or 'misleading oversimplification' or somewhere in between, should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC) I agree with WhatAmIDoing above to the extent that is is very destructive to paint this issue as black or white, "infoboxes" or "no infoboxes". Every genre of article on Misplaced Pages is different, and every article within a genre is unique. While it might be very easy to impose blanket rules, in either direction, that neither cuts to the heart of the problem, nor creates the best articles for Misplaced Pages, which is why such approaches are not supported by policy. Each infobox template should be tailored to its subject matter, and each article deserves to be considered on its own merits. To dogmatically assert that the 'ideal' infobox for composers is no infobox at all, in every case and with no exception, is easy to enforce but not constructive to Misplaced Pages. Equally, trying to hammer the square peg of limited objective data into the round hole of an over-detailed infobox would be just as problematic. It is saddening that my closing comment in the fourth TfD, now almost two years old, seems to have been ignored, and that there seems to be a continued reluctance to address this issue transparently. To quote myself, "The use of shaky precedent and ancient consensus to supress discussion on this issue must stop". Your discussion archives dating back over three years do not represent an acceptable consensus. They are self-supporting, circular, and poorly-attended. The arguments underlying the project's position are legitimate and can stand on their own merits. To reiterate what I said in May 2008: "If I had the authority to do so, I would instruct WikiProject Composers to conduct a fresh, open and widely-publicised discussion over the merits and demerits of encapsulating pertinent and useful information in a bespoke infobox, customised to their requirements. As it is, I can only strongly recommend that they do so... in a discussion which considers the views of the wider community and the encyclopedia's readership as well as the WikiProject's own editors." Please close this festering wound by moving forward with such a discussion. Happy‑melon 14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) The way forward Now that we have comments from four uninvolved editors, two of whom are long standing sysops, I think this group of projects now needs to have time to digest exactly what has been said and to decide the best way forward. Each of those editors has essentially reinforced the other in stating that we have no right imposing our style of editing on other editors, though we do have the right to request strongly that certain stylistic issues are considered in each individual article. So the questions: Do we go to WP:POLICY#Proposals and request a WP-wide change in policy for our specific articles? Do we allow infoboxes for those articles we have neither created nor been much involved in maintaining while removing them from those we have created and/or heavily edited? What about the grey areas? Do we seek consensus every time on article talk pages? Or do we actually bite the bullet and create and maintain acceptable infoboxes for classical composers, singers, etc? Any other reasonable possiblities? --Jubilee♫clipman 15:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) As I've said above, a minimal, reasonably "foolproof" infobox would contain the following parameters: "Famous as" rather than "Occupation"; "Born", with an alternative (and I mean alternative) for "Baptised"; "Died"; and "Floruit" as an alternative (and I mean alternative) for "Born/Died". Everything else is likely to be problematic. (Oh, and if projects don't get to impose their stylistic preferences, then they don't get to impose infoboxes either. It cuts both ways). --Folantin (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Your last point is absolutely correct. Indeed, reading between the lines, all of the uninvolved editors above made that very point. How about I draft a composer box in my userspace? I'll have a look at the various rejects for ideas if they are still available in other editor's userspace (they are not available in mainspace for sure). --Jubilee♫clipman 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC) OK, sure. --Folantin (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Will do. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Two things - 1) If we proceed like that, we need to address (to bring up the line from Life of Brian) the "what's the point" question since it will merely repeat information that is literally in the first line of every article. Second, before you commit any time to to that, I suggest you wait to hear (or solicit the view) from some other stalwarts of our project: KZ, of course, but Antandrus, Opus, Tony, and Jashiin, for instance. Outside views - mostly consisting of sitewide policy platitudes that do nothing to address the substance of the long debate (and which I am sure we all agree with in principle) - hardly constitute a basis for action that will affect a change over 100s of articles. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Well, I agree that any "foolproof" infobox would also be redundant. It would be pointless but (possibly) harmless. This is just "damage limitation". Also, per the discussion above, no infobox can be obligatory. I too would like to see what Antandrus et al. have to say. And, yes, the "wider community" usually means the handful of "metapedian" editors who enjoy hanging round on noticeboards such as "Village pump". I don't think there is a "Misplaced Pages community", only communities. --Folantin (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC) (I'd also like to know what User:Disinfoboxman has to say but it looks like he's been silenced). --Folantin (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Yes "damage limitation". I've started anyway: User:Jubileeclipman/Infobox classical musician. Those other members should of course voice their opinions, ASAP, However, I am not sure we can so easily write off the comments from longstanding wikipedians like User:Happy-melon, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and User:WhatamIdoing, nor indeed those of slightly newer editors such as User:Themfromspace; nor can we ignore the opinions of project members such as User:Melodia and User:Cricket02. To those names should be added User:A Knight Who Says Ni, User:Thumperward (who was equivocal on the issue, IIRC) and of course User:Buzzzsherman. That's a fair list of plaintifs: too many for my liking. This was inevitable, eventually: I have no doubt about that whatsoever. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC) My first choice is still no infobox. My second choice is an absolutely minimal, "foolproof" and non-compulsory infobox. I just don't have that much time to devote to Wiki-debates any more so I'm not sure how much of a part I'll play in this one. I will, of course, continue to remove any infobox which violates core policies such as WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (including undue weight). --Folantin (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC) I agree entirely with your priorities: 1. Remove policy-violating infoboxes 2. No infobox at all on any composer—or indeed on any classical musician—article; 3. Non-obligatory info-box if we really have to. I'll create one and we can start bashing it about later! I'll continue to monitor this RfC; others can come and go as they see fit. I still feel this RfC discussion shoud be moved to a subpage of the talkpage, though: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox RfC 2010 would do. The bot would catch up, I guess? --Jubilee♫clipman 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC) BTW, Antandrus is on a wikibreak. He'll wander in sooner or later no doubt. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC) I have asked the biography project to comment. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Asking them to comment and pointing them to a section that begins with the phrase "please review this 5MB of prior discussion" is not the point. Currently this discussion is no different to the 9 before it; it is equally hamstringed by the iron ball of past discussion; the hundred pages of text that says absolutely nothing except how determined people have been to suppress this issue for four years. One new discussion. Widely advertised. With no reference to past 'consensus' or discussions. Set out the advantages and disadvantages of infoboxes fresh and clean, and discuss their merits with a wide and balanced audience. See what arguments stand in today's Misplaced Pages, and which are relics of years long past. And build from that discussion a new consensus that you can base future actions on. Happy‑melon 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC) How many time have we heard this before? Another discussion? Without reference to previous ones? Removed as far as possible from the specifics of classical music? And one again the editors — of one of finest projects on Misplaced Pages (with high quality articles, written assessments to B-class level, stable category tree etc etc.) — are asked to stop working on the encyclopedia, and repeat again the same arguments, marched up and down the hill like the troops of the The Grand Old Duke of York. The Grand Old Duke of York, He had ten thousand men; He marched them up to the top of the hill, And he marched them down again./ And when they were up, they were up, And when they were down, they were down, And when they were only half-way up, They were neither up nor down. – Ha! No consensus!' --Kleinzach 03:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Well... that's exactly why Buzz started this RfC: to review old discussions, solicit new opinions, see if consensus has changed, and move forward with a clear idea of the consensus on this in the wider community. Hence the wide advertising. Have I missed something here? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC) "Currently this discussion is no different to the 9 before it". Jubileeclipman has offered a compromise. I've offered a compromise. Happy Melon has just ignored this. --Folantin (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I just gave up creating the box: 1. I can't figure out how it all works since half the code is hidden somewhere. (Infobox Musical artist has "alias" becoming "Also known as", various backgroud colours and "Notable instruments" transcluding as a box with the text below, all for no obvious reason... How on earth am I supposed to create a box if none of the stuff is clearly defined in the template?) 2. I don't actually want a box: this was just in case anyone did (which no one here does). 3. If someonr in the future actually wants one of these blessed things let them create it! I'll speedy the subpage as is my right. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, the onus of creating an acceptable infobox should be on those people who actually want one. --Folantin (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC) It's no different to the 9 before it because it will not prevent an eleventh, or twelfth, or innumerable more cycles of this circus which everyone is, quite legitimately, sick and tired of. You complain, Kleinzach, that I'm asking you to present these points one more time. I'm asking solely so that you do not have to repeat them again, and again, and again. I don't care whether composer articles have infoboxes or not. I really don't. I do care about the way this has been enforced for entirely the wrong reasons, by editors asserting, explicitly or subconsciously, ownership of articles and aggressively dismantling other editors' work. And yes, I do care about the way this debate is needlessly distracting some fantastic content editors from more productive activities. I'm glad to see that the editors here are generally willing to compromise, but it's sad to see that interpreted as a 'defeat'. All you need to do is present the arguments clean and fresh, as Jubilee has done below, and get widespread comments on them from outside this tiny group of editors. Resist the temptation to spit back at any comment with "we've discussed this 123988 times before", and instead say what you argued all those times. And after a couple of weeks, see where you stand. Or don't, don't have one clear re-evaluation, keep referring people to mountains of prior running discussion, and become progressively more and more jaded as you respond to the same issue again, and again, and again. Until you get hauled to RfC, ANI or ArbCom kicking and screaming, because you defended your years-old 'consensus' in a fashion that's against the letter of Misplaced Pages policy as well as the spirit. Lead a horse to water, and all that. Happy‑melon 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC) So you don't even bother responding to my assessment below... Fine: we really can't win. I give up. Go your way, we'll go ours. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC) ← Ignore that: sorry --Jubilee♫clipman 16:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC) My response below, which I've been writing for the past ten minutes, just edit-conflicted with yours. Which is a great shame, because I'm now going to have to rewrite it in response to your abrupt change of heart. So it will take at least another few minutes. Happy‑melon 16:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Apologies: I was somewhat exasprated! I haven't changed my mind, I was just rather bothered 1. by Eusebeus' comments below and 2. that you sought to respond to Kleinzach first. I should have waited half an hour... Sorry about that! --Jubilee♫clipman 16:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A new perspective

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Biographies Media, the arts, and architecture Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Infoboxes are a contentious issue for many WikiProjects for the articles that lie under their banner: some projects strongly reject their use while others strongly encourage their use. To what extent can WikiProjects expect non-members to follow the former's preference regarding these? Can Infoboxes be removed/added en bloc by WikiProjects from/to articles that come under their banner? The debate pertains particularly to the removal of infoboxes from articles on classical musicians but has far wider implications. Hence the need to fully resolve this issue once and for all. Thanks 20:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have thought long and hard about this now and have attempted to be as fair as possible to both sides of the debate. As requested by Happy-Melon, I will now present a case without reference to past discussion setting out the pros and cons of placing infoboxes on biographies of classical musicians.

The pros:

• Infoboxes can be useful graphics that quickly summarise the basic biographical information found in an article.
• Infoboxes can aid less literate people with their personal research.
• Infoboxes are standardised and thus can be an aid to consistency among groups of articles.

The cons:

• Infoboxes tend to state no more than the information found in a properly written lead and thus become redundant.
• Infoboxes are difficult to customise sensibly or create informatively for classical musicians.
• Infoboxes tend to be misunderstood and open to the addition of vague or misleading information; more so than the body of text itself because of the leading questions implied by the fields.
• Infoboxes can encourage the upload of images that may be neither in the public domain nor comply with fair use policy due to the “Image/Img’’ field.

Other factors to consider:

• Misplaced Pages’s articles are not owned by editors or groups of editors.
• Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project: all editing needs to be done according to consensus.
• Misplaced Pages has policies: anything that violates these policies should either be refactored or removed immediately.
• Misplaced Pages has general guidelines: editing should conform to these general principles.
• Misplaced Pages has specific advice agreed upon by consensus, most often at Wiki-Projects: editing should also normally conform to this advice. This advice often becomes implemented as a Misplaced Pages-wide guideline.
• Misplaced Pages has Wiki-Projects devoted to specific groups of articles: the editors involved in these projects often come to consensus among themselves regarding the best approach to the articles under their care; such consensus should be given due weight.
• Infoboxes are neither obligatory nor forbidden: the addition as well as the removal of such items needs consensus; often such consensus has been reached with regard to entire groups of articles to which any one particular article may belong.
• No other encyclopaedia in the world—unless designed specifically for children and the less literate—insists upon Infoboxes for each and every article; rather a small selection of articles are given Infoboxes if the addition proves to be useful.
• The entire Infobox issue has split editors into opposing camps and has even seemed to alienate well-respected editors so much that they have left the project.

I hope the above is a fair assessment of the situation that other editors can now build further arguments around. I have probably missed a few items that others can supply. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 12:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary discussions

The collapsed section immeadiately above was originally part of these discussions. Now that the issues therein are dealt with, it is felt that they should be collapsed to aid accessibility. Two further comments have been completely removed by their respective authors. They suggested archiving the entire discussion above (including Previous extended discussion on infoboxes, now also collapsed) and forgetting the whole thing. The second of these comments was made by me Finally, a humourous tangent has been hidden by wikimarkup after consent from all the participants in that tangent. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This change of heart is a great shame, because what you've written above is the clearest and most constructive summary of the position for the past two years at least. This is what you should seek comments on, not years of past discussion. I've moved the RfC tag down; I'll go update the links you posted to WT:BIOG (did you post anywhere else?). Any comments here reflect the current situation, not that of years gone by. Happy‑melon 16:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to check back but I think that only RfC (by bot obviously) WPBio and ANI were informed. The last isn't that relevent, I suspect. Plenty other people to involve though, I guess. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WT:COUNCIL: I forgot about that. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's move on... Any fresh responses to the above? Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Naw, like you said, we should just archive it, so no one else can add their input and not even let people see this happened should they come late. Also, any mention of this again who be dealt with with a ban for daring to even think about bringing this issue up. After all, composer articles are owned by the people who contribute here and they have the only say. Anything else is a horrible crime that must be dealt with. 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Any more constructive comments on the above? Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this is now in the pro-infoboxers' court. If they can come up with an acceptable, minimal, "foolproof", non-compulsory box which can be applied to (some) composer bios, all well and good. In the mean time I will continue to remove any infobox on any article which violates policy or is plain absurd. This doesn't just apply to composer bios. --Folantin (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely the correct thing to do. WP:Disinfoboxes and policy-violating boxes are to be removed post-haste, IMO. Where ever they are to be found. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, what's the real problem here - apart from the fact that some people seem to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man over non-important issues all the time? Infoboxes can be useful or just clutter upp an article. It's a matter of taste. They're not mandatory. How about someone desgning a template with a button you can press to make the infobox visible if you want it? -Duribald (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

An off switch would be great actually! --Jubilee♫clipman 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Humourous comments hidden to help discussion flow

My suggestion was quite serious - an off/on button would be great. -Duribald (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry: yes, that would be good. Basically, we get the "hide" feature implemented as standard. I like it: very practical and eminently doable. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hidden content" exasperates just as many people as infoboxes do. The main objections are on grounds of accessibility, and having another completely-subjective thing to argue about (whether the default state should be hidden or unhidden), and pagelayout (should images and such be ordered such that the page layout is optimal with the infobox hidden or unhidden). Footer navboxes are good to have hidden (when in groups of 3 or more), but sidebars should not be hidden. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm... I see your point... --Jubilee♫clipman 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that it's too late to seek truce. Once upon a time a small group turned what seemed a formatting issue into a crusade against the rest of the world. Good, you can have it your way, if you prefer to be untouchables - so be it. No truce, no trust, seal the border, man your stations. Just don't step out of your closely guarded den. NVO (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Above collapsed to help editors focus on the Request for Comment itself. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to help navigation

Further comments on the arguments set forth above at the head of this RfC are welcomed. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 04:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Having just read the closing statement from the last TfD of {{Infobox classical composer}}, I heartily agree with the recommendation therein, to re-evaluate the potential for a custom infobox, something that everyone can live with, something to contain the concise list of keywords that infoboxes represent. I think one of the best tangential efforts to this discussion, would be the creation of a modern {{Infobox classical composer/draft}}, that people could discuss the potential-specifics of. I'll participate in any efforts to do so tomorrow :)

The only alternative seems to be a future of cyclical-argument, and the use of very-imperfect infoboxes such as at Robert Nathaniel Dett and Terry Riley. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Quiddity. Are you, then, able to create boxes? I tried but got frustrated with all the weird transclutions that seem to be caused by hidden code somewhere in {{Infobox Musical artist}}. I tried modifying an older attempt but that wasn't that great, either, and very hard to get my head around. You can seen the result of that on my talk page. (The user page was speedied when I got sick of doing it!) And yes those boxes on Dett and Riley are not ideal... Nor is the one on Enrique Granados placed in 2008, removed by Kleinzach recently but later replaced by Buzz. There have actually been several edit wars recently between Kleinzach (talk · contribs) and Buzzzsherman (talk · contribs) which is how this whole thing, in fact, started. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to offer two thoughts about infoboxes:

• First, the question we should be considering is not whether we, the editors, like infoboxes, but whether our readers like them. If a lot of readers find them useful, we should certainly include them; on the other hand, if readers simply skip over them, the arguments for them are much less compelling.

I searched the web for survey information on infoboxes and found nothing. There is a lot of research about the presentation of structured information and learning, but I don't think it's terribly germaine to the question at hand.

We editors tend to be very editor-centric about the Misplaced Pages, and not nearly enough reader-centric.

• Second, there is a lot of research being done to develop query engines to extract structured information from infoboxes, and, in parallel, to create natural language queries that automatically populate infoboxes. I know there is a lot of effort to include metatags in articles, but there are lots and lots of articles with infoboxes already, and very few with metatags. Here are some sites that are doing research on automatic extraction of information for or from infoboxes:
  • http://drupal.org/project/createfromweb
  • http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/01/27/extracting-wikipedia-infoboxes-values-from-text/ (create infoboxes through text analysis)
  • http://blog.werdn.us/2009/06/semantic-data-in-wikipedia/
  • http://semantic-mediawiki.org/Semantic_MediaWiki

The inclusion of infoboxes would make it possible to ask queries like: show me all the articles on artists (composers, poets, painters) who lived in Leipzig between the years 1820 and 1840.

--Ravpapa (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is the best point yet: we need to think of the readers not the editors! --Jubilee♫clipman 06:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, the hypothetical "general reader" is always of the same opinion as the commenter. He's no more than a "Maxi-me", good for a bit of rhetorical boosting. Getting back to the RfC, it's been quite obvious for days that the only way this debate is likely to progress is if someone comes up with an experimental, "compromise" infobox. Those vociferously in favour of a box have been strangely reluctant to create one. This may be because it's technically impossible for the average mortal. "Misplaced Pages: the encyclopaedia anyone can edit...if they have a degree in Computer Science". --Folantin (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Suppose we did have an infobox. What would be put in it? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, 'As I've said above, a minimal, reasonably "foolproof" infobox would contain the following parameters: "Famous as" rather than "Occupation"; "Born", with an alternative (and I mean alternative) for "Baptised"; "Died"; and "Floruit" as an alternative (and I mean alternative) for "Born/Died". Everything else is likely to be problematic'.--Folantin (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My talk page contains an attempt worked on by me and Buzzzsherman. It is a little (!) over the top and needs serious pruning back. However the essential idea is there: It is specifically for classical musicians ("composer" can be replaced by "instrumentalist", "conductor", "singer" etc. The design hails from 2007 and the original attempt can be found at User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer.) We now have two editors willing to help out design a sensible Infobox we can all live with. BTW, I just don't care any more: if there is a box on an article, there is a box on the article; if there is no box on an article, there is no box on the article. I will neither add nor remove (unless the box is blatantly ridiculous or violates policy) from now on: each time I remove any box, I will make my reasons clear on the article's talk page as per normal practice all over en:WP. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think having two editors in three years interested in customizing an infobox. As you've seen this topic comes up with some regularity. I guess people come to expect a box around the photo in the upper left of an article and want to do something about it. I've gone on formatting/style kicks myself with regards to categories and navigation templates. But, as you've seen, by the time a "sensible infobox we can all live with" is created there isn't much left other than birth/baptism-date and deathdate. Most of the rest of the information does not warrant itself to bulletization. That means the box doesn't add much except for the actual border-box itself. Then, the project loses steam until the discussions are archived and it comes up again.DavidRF (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If all it does is sit there doing very little at all, then by definition it is entirely harmless and ignorable. I don't see a problem with that. The discussion will never, ever come up again if this RfC is conducted in a seemly manner and the conclusions drawn up at the end are per the consensus from the whole of Misplaced Pages (as they are very much beginning to be, now). That's the whole point: that is precisely why this is happening. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So, create an Infobox Composer template, put *nothing* in it except the box and the name-header and then add it to hundreds of articles? That's a bit on the absurd side. What's your motivation for continuing this discussion? I'm worried most of the regulars have tuned this discussion out already. I understand you are looking to compromise, but its hard to compromise a yes/no question.DavidRF (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No: create a sensible template, put whatever is needed into it, and place it where ever it seems to fit (which actually might be nowhere at all, note). The present {{Infobox Musical artist}} is clearly of no use at all to us—indeed the lead now precludes its usage on classical musician articles. In fact, it appears that two editors are actually looking into the possibilities as we speak: see above and User talk:Happy-melon#infobox usercopy. My motivations for continuing this are to conclude it once and for all so it doesn't come back over and over and over and over and over and over again (as the title of this whole sorry affair obviously declares, to the whole of Misplaced Pages (if they care to look), has indeed happened). If the others have turned their backs on this, they will lose. Full stop. They need to get involved now and voice their opinions once and for all and nevermore again. Note that practically all the editors that have actually commented above on the RfC (rather than on side issues) are in favour of some compromise involving a bespoke infobox. We don't have to use it but these things are optional anyway. I think that point needs to be voiced rather more loudly, actually. Some people seem to be forcing the things down our throats: that, too, should be investigated. What right have they to do that. (Unless, of course, they have clear guidelines published on their project pages that were drawn up following consensus among their group of editors, perhaps... but no that would be absurd wouldn't it?) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I dislike "boxing" of creative art in general (s. Toshio Hosokawa boxed "Neo-Impressionism") and dislike redundancy as a cause of likely mistakes, so would vote on both reasons against required info-boxes - but don't oppose voluntary ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are actually neither obligatory nor forbidden by WP guidelines and policies (those that have actually been taken up by the whole community, that is). I think that should be made far clearer. I might suggest that the guidelines are clarified on this point over at the relevent talkpages etc later in the week. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A /person/ is not 'creative art'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That is also true: we need to encourage the use of an appropriate box if people insist on using them. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I need to take a short wikibreak: I have some real life stuff to attend to and this RfC has started to take its toll... I'll be back in a few days but will still watch this "from afar". --Jubilee♫clipman 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty fatigued with infobox discussions and indeed I wish that infoboxes had never been invented. To review, the two big problems are: (a) they induce poor article organization, since they result in trivia being placed in a visually very prominent location. By the same token, they divert attention from the lead paragraph, which ideally has been carefully written to tell the reader exactly what is important about the topic. (b) Infoboxes attract drive-by edits from editors who don't know the field (haven't read any reference sources), and thus greatly increase the probability that the encyclopedia will include inaccurate or misleading statements. I wish infoboxes could be removed wholesale from WP and regret that this is only done in areas (science, classical music) where the editors are unusually well-informed about their topic. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"I wish that infoboxes had never been invented". I agree wholeheartedly. They also create never-ending disputes on talk pages for articles on anything remotely controversial because people keep trying to drive round pegs into square holes (see Talk:World War II archives for pages and pages of this nonsense: "Canada should be in there", "But Canada sucks!", "No, the USA sucks!", "France sucks!", "China sucks!" - and the arguments are still continuing right now : "this has been a continuous matter of quarrel between users for many months"). I've got over a thousand pages on my watchlist and the articles that take the most maintenance are the ones with infoboxes because drive-by editors keep adding the same rubbish to them (naturally, anything involving nationality or ethnic origin is a nightmare). --Folantin (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this insight, Folantin. I would add that to the extent that infoboxes force knowledgeable editors to spend their WP time dealing with drive-by edits and talk page controversies, they are taking away time that could be spent on improving article quality. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not mandatory, nor should they be deleted without good cause. In my opinion a concise lead covering all of the noteworthy infobox parameters probably constitutes good cause. A stub with no information other than what would be in the infobox probably constitutes good cause. Where in doubt, the first significant contributor should generally get their way. Regardless, edit warring over them should lead to a block. WFCforLife (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are my answers to the two questions that were asked:

1. WikiProjects cannot require non-members to follow their preferences regarding infoboxes, or anything else, especially when that preference is markedly different from the general community consensus. WikiProjects (groups of editors) have exactly the same authority as non-members (co-equal editors).
2. Mindlessness is evil: Infoboxes should not be removed -- or spammed -- automatically or en masse by anyone. Decisions should be made individually, based on the needs and benefits of the specific template at the specific article.

Additionally, here's my answer to the question that wasn't asked:

The anti-infobox editors need to revise their published advice and their uncollegial behavioral practices to present a non-authoritarian (but still strong) argument for their general advice against (dis)infoboxes and to show respect for the non-members' and member-dissenters' views. I suggest, as one step in the right direction, changing their advice page from what some members seem to interpret as "We hereby forbid infoboxes" to a logical explanation, perhaps with a suitably revised version of the pros and cons as listed above by Jubilee. Additionally, whenever a (dis)infobox is added to an article, we are ultimately all best served by using the talk page rather than the undo button: in addition to being a less WP:OWNer-y, less WP:BITEy, more cooperative behavior, an educational conversation with an 'infobox spammer' could ultimately benefit the entire encyclopedia by helping more editors learn about the advantages and disadvantages of these templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Since, effectively, I am only taking a "semi-wikibreak" (as it were), I feel I ought to respond that.

1. I can revise the published advice myself, since I am a member of this WikiProject. It does actually need to be done post haste, given that, at present, it clearly contravenes the overarching policies and guidelines accepted by Misplaced Pages and implemented by consent, through the proper channels, as general WP policies and guidelines.
2. Talking rather than deleting/reverting/deleting/adding/reverting/adding/reverting/adding/etc (3RR?) is obviously the correct proceedure.

I will take a hard look at all the evidence presented above and consider how best to rewrite the guidelines. I will then propose the rewrite to the WikiProject and, with their consent, implement the changes. The RfC should perhaps run for a while longer, though, to allow a few other editors to comment (both CM-related-project members and non-members). I might note that, now that Kleinzach has left, the major editors at WP:CTM take an open-minded view on infoboxes. I can write CTM's guidelines any time: "CTM takes no stand on whether an infobox is included in or excluded from any biographical article. All we ask is that an appropriate box is chosen and that no Misplaced Pages Policies are violated. On rare occasions it my be necessary to remove a biographical infobox: if our members do this they will explain why on the article's talk page, full discussion on individual articles being key."

--Jubilee♫clipman 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See my replies to WFCforLife, above below, for a suggested way out of this man-trap. I could actually add a proposal to rewrite the published advice, now. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Note - The following comments were originally made in response to WFCforLife. I moved them here because they effectively state the precise objections of this WikiProject to infoboxes when taken together. The comments highlighted here could easily serve as a starting point for redrafting the project's published advice.

Comment - ...a concise lead covering all of the noteworthy infobox parameters probably constitutes good cause. A stub with no information other than what would be in the infobox probably constitutes good cause. Where in doubt, the first significant contributor should generally get their way. Regardless, edit warring over them should lead to a block.

A paraphrase of those words should be in the new advice published by this and similar WikiProjects. They explain concisely and effectively—and quite magnificently—the precise position of these projects, as far as I can tell from the comments posted above. Thank you WFCforLife

Addendum - Add to that Opus33's comment, (a) they induce poor article organization, since they result in trivia being placed in a visually very prominent location. By the same token, they divert attention from the lead paragraph, which ideally has been carefully written to tell the reader exactly what is important about the topic. (b) Infoboxes attract drive-by edits from editors who don't know the field (haven't read any reference sources), and thus greatly increase the probability that the encyclopedia will include inaccurate or misleading statements, and we are practically there. Why, oh, why didn't the projects simply explain it all clearly in the first place? (Instead of saying "look at these hundreds of Terabytes of discussion", I mean.)

Further to that - They also create never-ending disputes on talk pages for articles on anything remotely controversial because people keep trying to drive round pegs into square holes - Folantin's insightful comment should be added to the list also.

--Jubilee♫clipman 01:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We're still arguing about something which doesn't exist. There is no Composer Infobox. As for projects laying down the law about infoboxes, these rules look pretty extensive to me. Is that allowable? (Although they don't seem to stop continuing problems . But, hey, that's infoboxes for you). --Folantin (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a member of WikiProject Opera (but not this one or the Classical Music project, although the subject areas overlap) and have been watching this discussion for quite a while {{{{SIGH}}}}.

I'm inclined to agree with WhatamIdoing's comment that much of the problem stems from the way the guidance about infoboxes is worded on projects like this one where the majority of members find them counterproductive. This leads to cyclic disputes (usually arising from edit-warring on a particular article) which eventually descend into generalized name-calling and accusations of "ownership". This ultimately obscures the fact that many editors with expertise in the field and extensive experience in actually creating the content of these articles have good reasons for their views which may not be obvious to someone from outside the field.

This has nothing to do with "elitism" or "snobbery", although these terms often get thrown around when things get heated. It has to do with familiarity with the literature on the subject, its specialised vocabulary, and the general style used by key reference works. I have no idea what is appropriate or problematic for infoboxes on military commanders, baseball players, or philosophers and would trust the judgement of the editors working in those areas.

I would suggest rewriting the guidelines to briefly but clearly spell out the reasons why this project discourages the use of infoboxes and to offer a suggested version if there is a consenus (or strong feeling) for the addition of one to a particular article. Having said that, I feel rather strongly that:

1. The various permutations of {{Infobox musical artist}} are completely inappropriate for use with classical singers, composers, and instrumentalists, particularly historical ones. They were designed for pop genres and in my opinion not very well for those either. I won't belabour my reasons but have outlined them in this discussion about the template's documentation
2. If infoboxes are used in some classical music articles, they should be simplified versions of the plain person infoboxes with no possibility for fields which are anachronistic, unsuitable for the genre, subjective, or foster misleading over-simplifcation. Incidentally, you'll find similar views expressed by editors from the Children's Literature Project (the comments from User:Awadewit, an active Featured article contributor and reviewer, are particularly cogent) and the Visual Arts Project. See also the Visual Arts project guidelines.

OK, so a non-problematic infobox may seem like a glorified image caption, but at least it presents basic facts and won't mislead the reader or detract from the article. And if it can forestall these recurring, time-wasting and often ill-tempered debates, so be it. You can see some possibilities here. Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I completely see the pros for an infobox for 'classical' composers, and also many of the cons. User:Deskford says it very well here. Speaking as a reader and not as an editor, I find infoboxes extremely helpful since I am a chronic "skimmer" - and many times I go to an article just to get pertinent facts and getting this information from the infobox helps greatly. I like the idea of coming up with at least a simplified version such as what Voceditenore has created. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Frankly, in none of the cases shown in User:Voceditenore/Sandbox#Monkeying around... am I convinced I could take in the relevant information better by looking at the infobox than by simply reading a well-written lead sentence. The whole idea that infoboxes are "useful" seems quite dubious to me, and without objective proof I'm simply not going to believe it. When I want to tell somebody that I'd like them to pass me the salt, I say "could you pass me the salt please". I don't say: "request type: passing. requested object: salt. subject: you. target: me". We humans are genetically programmed to communicate with language. Syntactically coherent sentences. Not tabulated fragments of language. In the same way, if I want to communicate that "Marcello Guagliardo was born on 25 January 1963 and has been active as an opera tenor since 1986", then I won't say: "name: Marcello Guagliardo. born: 25 January 1963. Years active: 1986 – present. Occupation: Opera singer (tenor)". If our Lord had wanted us to communicate in tabulated data sheets, he wouldn't have given us an inborn capability of communicating through syntax. We humans speak in proper sentences because they are actually easier and faster to understand than anything else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I couldn't agree with you more! :-) But it could be useful to have something that's does "least harm" as a back-up if persuasion fails. I did the Giordani box to show an editor whose box I had removed. I explained why and pointed him/her a more suitable alternative, although in the end they decided not to add it. The others I had done during a discussion of this issue at the Classical Music project, but in the end nothing came of it. Another point I'd like to make is about the much vaunted "consistency" and "professional finish" these boxes are supposed to bring to Misplaced Pages. Infoboxes give only the illusion of consistency and "a professional finish" to what is more often than not a quite amateurish article. Real consistency and professionalism on Misplaced Pages is ensuring that every biographical article has a well-written lead paragraph which gives all the main information required, clearly and concisely. But frankly, a lot of editors find that too much work, especially if they don't know much about the subject, hence the lure of the bullet point. Voceditenore (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I also completely agree with Future perfect. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First, if we had a bespoke infobox for classical musicians and opera personnel, would it resolve the immediate issue of the misuse of certain other boxes such as Infobox Musical artist? Several editors are looking into that custom box as we speak, I understand.

Second, can we now move to a proposal for redrafting this project's guidelines? Several editors have made suggestions above, which I have listed, and other editors have added further insights recently.

Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I get confused reading this thread. Most people appear to be against infoboxes yet there is this persistent push for redrafting guidelines. How many people here are actually pro-InfoBox? (as opposed to simply being open to creating a dummy info-box in hopes of making the issue go away). My feeling from reading this thread is that there is just a couple of strong-willed pro-Infobox editors trying to impose their will against a consensus by outlasting everyone else. If that's what is happening, then can we at least be honest about it?DavidRF (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my position: I have no preference at all. They are either there or they aren't there, but they should be relevent and add to the quality of an article if they are included.

The percieved problem is the apparant dogmaticism in the composers project's guidelines: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Composers#Guidelines. The link leads to a huge list of previous debates that people appear to be expected to wade through. A clear, concise, and frank explanation in the guidelines themselves would help curious/angry/bemused/etc editors to understand the project's position quickly and effectively. BTW, this might be the time to remind editors of the actual wording of the Policy on Consensus: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. Thus, just because a WikiProject says "no" or "yes" to something, it doesn't mean that everyone else should follow suit: all other editors are free to do as they will until wider consensus is reached that that WikiProject's advice is to accepted as a WP:Guideline. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Just clarifying things. I guess all the wiki-politics-ese is making me paranoid. I've disagreed with consensus before and lived with it and find its not a big deal. I just find it odd that that we seem to be caving to something that no one actually wants. The rules appear dogmatic in part because its a yes/no question, but also because there's been a give-an-inch-take-a-yard mentality with regards to some of the superficial stuff over the years. Maybe this is just a case of spelling out in more detail why so many people here don't want infoboxes in the project guidelines? Otherwise, it just feels like a smooth debater is twisting peoples arms into agreeing to things that he claims he has no preference about. That's the source of my paranoia. Now that I've voiced it, I'm fine.  :-)DavidRF (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I joined the discussion because of a request for input, somewhere or other. I generally favour the use of appropriate infoboxes, though fully recognise that the available fields aren't always perfect, and that some people dislike infoboxes' over-simplicity of information and strong visual presence; and that conversely, some people (or people in certain circumstances) appreciate the simplicity. (For example, I may want to know what pieces Vivaldi is famous for, and how they would be grouped/described. Having to read/skim through the entire article looking for that information would be inefficient for my purposes. But if there were a link to his in an infobox, and a keyword-reminder for his style/school (baroque), that would be the most helpful for me, in that circumstance.)

At User:Quiddity/composers, I've put together a sample infobox, and all the related links I could find. Feel free to edit/move/discuss that however might be useful. As people have said above, there needs to be some kind of infobox that is suitable for articles where there is agreement or precedent to use one (e.g. Robert Nathaniel Dett and Terry Riley).

I strongly agree with Jubileeclipman's (et al) proposed revisions of the project guidelines. I don't desire to force infoboxes to be used anywhere inappropriate, nor to irritate any editors needlessly. (Happy and productive editors are one of our most valuable, and fragile, resources...)

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Perhaps a straw poll would be useful at this point to get a clearer view of where we stand, free of all the extensive discussion. I'll suggest headings here, and since I've been silent so far I'll add my name in the appropriate spot to get things started. A couple of notes. First, to compare views of those most closely involved in the subject matter at hand and those in the wider community at large, I think it is useful to break down results by who does and does not edit classical music articles. Second, noting that a dedicated "classical" box template neither exists nor seems likely to come into being (all efforts to create one to date seemingly having foundered), I'm focusing on inclusion of the currently available box form(s) in articles about classical musicians. That also seems fair, given that inclusion of the present boxes gave rise to this perpetual debate in the first place. Drhoehl (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RELATIVE TO ARTICLES ABOUT CLASSICAL COMPOSERS AND PERFORMERS:

Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and support inclusion of current infoboxes as the rule, omission as the exception

Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and support inclusion of current infoboxes as the rule, omission as the exception

• Cricket02 (as an editor who contributes to composer articles, not always classical)

Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and support omission of current infoboxes as the rule, inclusion as the exception

Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and support omission of current infoboxes as the rule, inclusion as the exception

Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and oppose inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

• Drhoehl (talk)

Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and oppose inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and would require inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and would require inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and have no strong preference either way

• Jubilee♫clipman
• Deskford (talk)

Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and have no strong preference either way

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment