Template talk:Composition schools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What's the point? [edit]
Why the heck does this template exist? I can't imagine someone looking at Rimsky-Korsakov would particularly need to navigate to Peter-Maxwell Davis just because the later happens to be in a completely unrelated 'group'. Making individual nav templates for each group, yes a very good idea, but this large one is completely worthless. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think that User:Hyacinth is actually the right person to answer this question, since I believe he was the creator. However, as you will have noticed that I have become an enthusiastic expander of the template, perhaps my view counts for something as well. It seems to me that the function of this navbox is not to make connections between seemingly unrelated composers, but rather to allow a reader who happens upon, for example, the article Les Six to discover other, similar composer groups. Further, upon discovering that Darius Milhaud belonged to a group of composers called "Les Six", a reader may think, "how quaint" but, upon investigating further, discover that in fact there have been many other composer associations, with similar goals. Just my 2¢ worth.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Then it should be turned into something like List of composer groups, and add it to the see also section, or maybe even in the running prose in the article where it describes the group they are in. Nav boxes aren't really supposed to be used for such loosely related associations, they are supposed to be for things that someone looking at an article would be expected to want to go to. A navbox for Les Six itself? Yes, very sensible, an I'm actually quite surprised there wasn't one already for at least The Five and Les Six. But I ask again, why would someone reading a page about Darius Milhaud have any need to care that Carl Ruggles was also in a completely unrelated composer group? There's not even an article on the concept and looking through some of the groups don't even have an article of their own, just a passing mention in bigger ones (not necessarily an issue, just further compounding the point). But look at it another way. We don't have navboxes for French composers, or composers of symphonies, or composers who used Opus numbers, or French composers who used opus numbers in film music (as an extremely silly example)....so why one for this? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- As I have already said, I cannot speak for the creator of this navbox (who, by the way, has been very busy over the past week or two creating a variety of navboxes). Perhaps he will soon weigh in with his reasoning concerning this particular one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Then it should be turned into something like List of composer groups, and add it to the see also section, or maybe even in the running prose in the article where it describes the group they are in. Nav boxes aren't really supposed to be used for such loosely related associations, they are supposed to be for things that someone looking at an article would be expected to want to go to. A navbox for Les Six itself? Yes, very sensible, an I'm actually quite surprised there wasn't one already for at least The Five and Les Six. But I ask again, why would someone reading a page about Darius Milhaud have any need to care that Carl Ruggles was also in a completely unrelated composer group? There's not even an article on the concept and looking through some of the groups don't even have an article of their own, just a passing mention in bigger ones (not necessarily an issue, just further compounding the point). But look at it another way. We don't have navboxes for French composers, or composers of symphonies, or composers who used Opus numbers, or French composers who used opus numbers in film music (as an extremely silly example)....so why one for this? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Completely worthless" is more than seemingly inaccurate. It is overblown rhetoric, bordering on insulting. "Relatively little value" would have been far more accurate, and far more convincing.
- At the very least, this template caused someone (you) to propose that it be broken into smaller templates, whose existence you not only think would be of value but would be "a very good idea" which you're surprised didn't already happen.
- Note that this template began, two days ago, was a much smaller template: [1]. See: Wikipedia:Splitting. Hyacinth (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
