Talk:Mass in C major (Beethoven): Difference between revisions

Mass
Mass
by Ludwig van Beethoven
	Beethoven around 1805, detail of a portrait by Joseph Willibrord Mähler
Key	C major
Catalogue	Op. 86
Text	Order of Mass
Language	Latin
Dedication	Prince Kimsky
Performed	13 September 1807: Eisenstadt
Published	1812: Leipzig by Breitkopf & Härtel
Scoring	soloists; choir; orchestra;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:48, 22 June 2015

Classical music: Compositions

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

DYK nom Template:Did you know nominations/Mass in C major (Beethoven)

Suggest infobox

I suggest an infobox, showing at a glance time and location of the topic, - and that it is not the Prince, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to edit-war, Gerda, but I really think it's hurting the article. It is completely redundant and makes the article look like it was written by teenagers. Opus33 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please not talk about age ;) - Regarding infoboxes, the arbitrators give the principal editor(s) the privilege of style. (See? - I keep being surprised by the ruling but if applied it should be applied fairly.) - On top of that, even if you don't see it, the infobox offers things that the lead doesn't, for example a date that is fit for comparison and translation to other languages and date formats. I will not edit war but listen to more voices. They were heard for the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courteous reply, Gerda. Do you have some sense of who is the principal editor? Opus33 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said "editor(s)" for a reason. In the DYK nomination I list you and me. - In the case of William Burges, where the editors also disagreed, community consensus was applied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's hurting the article Infoboxes Considered Harmful. :-) Alakzi (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Gerda that an infobox would be appropriate and a benefit to the article. I disagree Opus33...for far too long, various people, especially on classical music articles, have used those tired arguments to thwart useful infoboxes. The claims of redundancy and aesthetics smack of a subjective WP:IDONTLIKEIT resistence. Don't know how concisely stating essential information can be in any way hurtful...not like the article has screamed out "ouch". JackTheVicar (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed. The portrait of Esterházy that leads the article absent the infobox makes it look like he wrote it. Very amateurish layout. That said, are we stuck with infobox Mass? As far as who the editor is, if each editor has roughly equal contributions, I do have a concern about this going into another round of "infobox/no infobox" debate. Is there some middle ground we can reach here? The formatting could be made more elegant, perhaps using a slightly different infobox template to lose the blue stripe on the top of the infobox or something? ) Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:33, 22 June 2015 edit JackTheVicar (talk \| contribs) 5,206 edits →‎Suggest infobox ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:48, 22 June 2015 edit undo Montanabw (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 105,298 edits →‎Suggest infobox: would tweaking layout help? Next edit →
Line 31:		Line 31:

	* I would agree with Gerda that an infobox would be appropriate and a benefit to the article. I disagree Opus33...for far too long, various people, especially on classical music articles, have used those tired arguments to thwart useful infoboxes. The claims of redundancy and aesthetics smack of a subjective [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] resistence. Don't know how concisely stating essential information can be in any way hurtful...not like the article has screamed out "ouch". [[User:JackTheVicar\|JackTheVicar]] ([[User talk:JackTheVicar\|talk]]) 21:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)		* I would agree with Gerda that an infobox would be appropriate and a benefit to the article. I disagree Opus33...for far too long, various people, especially on classical music articles, have used those tired arguments to thwart useful infoboxes. The claims of redundancy and aesthetics smack of a subjective [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] resistence. Don't know how concisely stating essential information can be in any way hurtful...not like the article has screamed out "ouch". [[User:JackTheVicar\|JackTheVicar]] ([[User talk:JackTheVicar\|talk]]) 21:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

			**Agreed. The portrait of Esterházy that leads the article absent the infobox makes it look like he wrote it. Very amateurish layout. That said, are we stuck with infobox Mass? As far as who the editor is, if each editor has roughly equal contributions, I do have a concern about this going into another round of "infobox/no infobox" debate. Is there some middle ground we can reach here? The formatting could be made more elegant, perhaps using a slightly different infobox template to lose the blue stripe on the top of the infobox or something? ) [[User:Montanabw\|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw\|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 22:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)