Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers

Template for Articles on (Classical) Symphonies

DavidRF has recently cleaned up a spate of Haydn symphonies using a very simple standardised format that I developed for the half dozen or so articles on the Haydn symphonies that I have gotten around to writing so far. This excellent effort reminds me that this template could probably be felicitously applied to our other articles on symphonies so we have a standard structure across the body of articles on individual symphonies (easily extendable, of course, to other pieces). My template consists of:

1. Overview of the work
2. Date of Composition & Scoring (includes history & first performance information)
3. Nickname (where applicable)
4. Movements

I think templates have been proposed in the past (as with naming conventions), but I am not sure of their fate. Any thoughts? Eusebeus 13:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That template seems to cover all essential information. I'll use it myself...when ever I find myself first editing the article of an individual work. Chris 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the movements should be moved up higher on the page. I always have to scroll down on the Beethoven Symphonies for the movements, whereas in his sonatas, the movements are at the top. It would seem that the movements of a piece are the most basic information about it as they are what little objective information about the piece that the composer actually supplies. At any rate, I think that pages of the same type such as symphonies should be uniform across all composers, not just by each composer. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Gregorian vs. Julian Dates

I'd be interested in hearing project members' perspectives on a matter of style - the use of Gregorian vs. Julian dates. I'll present as a case study the particular item that I'm interested in, but I bring the discussion here to the project page to obtain a wider response as to whether we'd have general guidelines when such things are in question. Here's the specific instance that I'm considering: Italian early Baroque composer Giulio Caccini published a collection of madrigals and songs called Le nuove musiche. The publication date is 1601 or 1602 depending on the reference source. The print sources that I have available at this moment (15th edition Britannica, New Oxford History of Music, and Grout's History of Western Music) all give 1602 as the publication date. The Caccini article, and some web pages which I located by Google search on "Giulio Caccini" and "Le nuove musiche" give 1601 as the publication date. I do not have access to a copy of Grove at the time of this writing. The Here of a Sunday Morning web article on Caccini [1] was helpful in explaining the apparent discrepancy - it gives the date of Le nuove musiche as 1602 (1601 old style) (i.e. Julian). So, given the different usage in reference sources, which do we use in Wikipedia? Apparently there has been some discussion of this topic in WikiProject Years, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Julian, Gregorian and other calendars. If we go by which calendar was in usage in the applicable country, "most of" Italy was using the Gregorian calendar from 1582 on, per Gregorian calendar#Adoption of the Gregorian calendar, which would probably mean we use 1602 for publication of "Le nuove musiche".

Thanks in advance for your consideration on this question. This topic is of particular interest to me because I've been adding musical publications to the Year in music pages, want to add them to the appropriate year, and would like some more guidance other than just my own opinion. Cheers, Lini 12:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Composer's interpreters

I believe every composer page should have his/her most important interpreters shown in some standard way. I think this can be NPOV (you don't have to say they're the best, only that they are remarkable).

I don't see why we should mention Bach in Glenn Gould's article and not Glenn Gould in Bach's, as that's what I'd be searching for if I didn't know the composer and wanted to listen to his works.

Please, I want to know your thougts on this idea. Sdistefano 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use with permission

I have removed the guidelines on "fair use with permission" from the project page. While it is nice that the copyright holders do not object to their works being used on Wikipedia, and indeed, we would like them not to object to our use, it grants the use of the work no special status on Wikipedia unless it is released under a free content license, and should be treated as any other "fair use" media. This composers project, much as I like its subject matter, may not set special guidelines for this use that differ from the global project guidelines. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Kat's right. Wikipedia is not just about Free as in beer, which these fair use things sort of are, but free as in free content, which can be used in other ways, including commercially, or in a non-educational context. Mak (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And as an aside, there is nothing about our educational use that gives us a free pass on copyright. I wish there were.. I pay a lot of taxes to support the local school district buying books. :) As you can see, our use of such recordings is bound to leave us in ugly legal positions even were it permitted by our policy. --Gmaxwell 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

List of compositions by (composer)

Greetings,

There has been some discussion of list of compositions formatting, but I would like to address an more fundamental issue: the placement of such lists. Should they be in a separate article, or incorporated within the article itself? See Category:Compositions by composer for a list of all such lists. I would prefer to standardize this across all composers' articles. For example, Jeanne Demessieux suffers from a double list of compositions, and a user has questioned the separation of Leo Sowerby's works list. To contrast these, I like the approach taken by Johann Pachelbel and List of compositions by Johann Pachelbel. I personally am in support of separate articles for works lists, but I am open to the other approach as well; it's just that I think we need to set a standard for this. Thanks, —Sesquialtera II (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I just recalled a previous discussion regarding a specific instance of this matter: Talk:George Frideric Handel#List of Pieces by Handel. This may prove helpful in this discussion. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that any list more than a reletively small amount should get its own article -- it's needless whitespace for the main article space otherwise. Importent pieces should get mentioned in the text somewhere, idealy, anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see this is not exactly a hot-button issue, so I'm going to edit the project page to make a recommendation to create a separate compositions list article whenever the composer has written more than, say, 12-15 pieces, unless there is a sufficient objection soon. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sudden deletion of fair-use sound images without discussion: major implications for music-related articles

Dear fellow contributors

User:Gmaxwell, a player at Wikipedia talk:Fair use, conducted a rampage two days ago through Johann Sebastian Bach that has led to the destruction of all of the fair-use audio excerpts. These excerpts were prepared in accordance with the WP policy on the fair use of commercial recordings (< 30 secs, educational value, no impingement on commercial market, etc) and include two whole-track excerpts for which written permission was given by the copyright owner to include in the article.

The action, by Maxwell and someone else who, strangely, doesn't appear in the edit history pages of the files in question, has been sudden, unilateral, and without so much as a mention on the talk page of the article. This has started a controversy at Wikipedia:Fair use#taking things way too far.

Our ability to illustrate music-related articles with the short, justified, fair use of excerpts from commercial recordings is now seriously threatened. I believe that these people are acting on their own particular interpreation of WP's fair-use policy. I urge you to voice your opinion in this debate.

Tony 02:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your characterization of this as a "rampage" is unproductive and unhelpful. The use was not in accordance with policy; please see Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach to see what I have said in the specific case that has prompted this discussion. I do support using fair use where the use is truly fair—for example, for modern composers where there can be no free recording—but fair use is more limited under our policies than has often been observed. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd, User:Danny says that he's the one who did it. Interesting. Kim Bruning 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell originally placed tags on the sound files. Danny then deleted them. Then Gmaxwell removed the redlinks from the article. Tony's conclusion does not fit the facts as given in the deletion log. See first, second, third, fourth, fifth, all deleted by Danny. Mak (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to recover that information at the time from the info pages; I have no idea why. Spillage, I'd rather have no recordings at all than poor ones. Show me a good one and we're flying, but I see none on the Commons. Quite the reverse: they're generally appallingly bad. I don't agree that the usage was not in accordance with policy. The deletion was clearly a breach of policy, and prevented debate on the former issue. Modern composers where there can be no free recordings? Hello? Tony 12:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated earlier: Danny is policy, he cannot breach it. (This would be a bad time to explain how this also applies to other people, due the mechanics of how wikipedia policy really works. Just keep in mind that there's more to it, and that it can be fun and useful to know:-)

What you *can* do is try to explain why it's a bad idea to delete these recordings. Maybe people will simply agree. One admin offered you the opportunity to undelete the files, should you have provided a good rationale. It's unfortunate that you didn't take that opportunity at the time, but I think the offer still stands. At worst, he would give you several new ideas as to how to approach the problem.

Alternately, you could try to get the recordings under GFDL or CC(-BY)(-SA).

As yet another means, there are several musicians and technicians on wikipedia who might even be able to help record very specific parts for us (yet another solution). Unfortunately, you've already done your best to alienate at least one such person, but much can still be recovered even there.

Commons has already been mentioned. I hear that they didn't have anything yet? Mores the pity. Maybe we can remedy that situation somehow.

In short, there are many ways to go about getting a decent recording for the article. The trick is not to stand on policy, but rather to just ask for help. You will get it. :-)

Kim Bruning 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A Composer's works

Is there a policy or guide line concerning how a composer's works should be listed in an article? For instance on the John Coolidge Adams page the works are listed by form and then by date of composition with the date first. However on the Steve Reich page they are listed only by date but with the date at the end of the entry. If there is no guide line about this could one be made to help standardize things? S.dedalus 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ups, just noticed this was already discussed above, sorry about that. S.dedalus 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dominick Argento on peer review

I have submitted numerous articles for peer review and never get more than a bot's suggestions. I am determined to get an actual peer review for this article, so I figured I would post it here. If anyone wants to contribute, feel free! --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A picture of the guy would be nice. Also a more complete works listing. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Igor Stravinsky

This article has been selected for Feature Article Review. Please see the talk page and discussion at FAR for improvements you can make to retain its FA status. Jeffpw 10:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D

Would Tenacious D come under the umbrella of this WikiProject. I know they compose their own stuff but I am not sure if they should be here.

Tenacious D Fans (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: backup requested

I could use some help, potentially, here: User_talk:Antandrus#Unwarranted_deletions. Composer Lera Auerbach's husband has written her article (probably) and is inserting her name into many, many articles, in an aggressively promotional manner. Any help/suggestions appreciated. I think she's notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, but should she be in short lists with Bach and Britten? She's neither in the New Grove nor in the New Grove Dictionary of Women Composers, which is quite exhaustive. If anyone's watching this, feel free to drop me a line. Antandrus (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links to Sheet Music

It has just occured to me that linking to sheetmusicarchive [2] as an external link is inappropriate since only two downloads per day are allowed, when the alternative IMSLP [3] is available giving unlimited public domain files. It is much more comprehensive and the content from SMA seems to be entirely available there. I'm not saying we should replace every link to SMA in every composer's article, but I think we should bear it in mind when working on the pages. Any thoughts? M A Mason 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially as the IMSLP seems to be similar in spirit to WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already replaced SMA links with IMSLP links on some occasions, when all content of SMA was available on IMSLP, too. For the links, one can use the template {{IMSLP}}. --Leonard Vertighel 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes for composers

I am seeking a consensus for [classical] composer articles about Infoboxes. I had hoped that the soft consensus of those who edit the articles about classical composers would be respected, but apparently you must have a WikiProject behind you now in order to make suggestions on articles. I would put forward that Infoboxes are a net negative for Classical composers. They are redundant to a good lede paragraph, and they lead to stating things about composers in very black and white terms. In addition, they tend to take up the first editing screen and confuse new editors who might want to edit the beginning of articles, and might be scared off by the template format. In addition, they are difficult for the inexperienced to modify to special circumstances, and are easily broken.

I think infoboxes can be good for things for which taxonomy is important, such as plants and animals. I don't think they're good for things which require more subtlety, like people. Some specific examples of why infoboxes are, in practicality, bad, although I wouldn't be surprised if the technically savvy could fix some of them: In Ludwig van Beethoven the infobox says "born blah blah blah" when dozens of contributors have worked constantly to clarify that his birth date is not known, only his Baptismal date. Apparently, for some reason, the instruments he owned are particularly important. Wait, that doesn't make any sense. Moving on to Frederic Chopin, or whatever his name is, the last infobox included in the article gave his birth name as Frederic Chopin, the least likely of his name to be given as a birth name. Add to that the national flags added to all of them, even when at the time cities may have been parts of different countries, the mistakes which are introduced when people do mass-additions of infoboxes, and their lack of flexibility, I think in the long run it's much better not to have infoboxes on composer articles. Thanks, Mak (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I think it is possible to do a decent composer infobox, I pretty much agree with this. I've never really liked infoboxes for people because of the reasons Mak points out. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I have to agree, and I think that the key point is that we are dealing with human beings. There are far too many subtleties for the infobox, definitely. The national flag has become an issue on the Liszt page, where we currently have the Austro-Hungarian flag, when it really isn't necessary to have a flag at all. I think if anything we should encourage users not to place infoboxes necessarilly, and to include them only if they're deemed necessary for a specific article. Not because of wikiproject beaurocracy, but because it's almost as if there is a certain pressure to conform and thus include an infobox, where in many cases they're neither necessary nor desirable. M A Mason 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah, it's awful on Beethoven. In general, generic infoboxes are not good on people. People don't fit into nice little boxes. ;) I suppose it would be okay to code a fully custom infobox on each composer, but that would dramatically reduce the small value that infoboxes provide. I'm glad to see people trying to build consistency standards on Wikipedia, but it would be nice if they were working on ones like sourcing ... rather than on one likes this which are sometimes harmful (as demonstrated in your example). --Gmaxwell 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully diagree. I think the infoboxes on all people are highly valuable and informative and gives a certain overall respectable appearance to the articles. Cricket02 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But to the extent they are informative, they are redundant to the lede. I don't see how they add to the respectability of articles when they are sometimes blatantly wrong, or not nuanced enough to really be called right. Do we really need more pastel boxes? (Plus, sometimes the colors are really ugly). Just because textbooks tend to have lots of ugly reductionist pastel boxes doesn't mean we need them. Mak (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Mak, though I have long suspected I had a minority view. Infoboxes on composers, especially as you get to times before the modern age, are misleading at best. The most basic of facts need a nuanced view which is impossible in a box, but which is already available in the lead paragraph. Frankly I think we risk looking like amateurs when we have a box for a composer that baldly gives a birthdate (ambiguous), nationality (meaningless without an explanation), and genre (the worst of all--I've seen the word "classical" used in the sense it is in record stores, i.e. to differentiate the music of that composer from hip-hop, country, et al.) No, I cannot support adding infoboxes to composer articles. Antandrus (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that infoboxes are often badly implemented, I am in favour of using them when they make navigation between articles easier. We have a number of infoboxes for opera composers that list their works and I think these are useful. Infoboxes also serve the purpose of breaking up text and making articles more accessible. - Kleinzach 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kleinzach, I'm not opposed to all "boxes with information" in articles, I think those used for navigation and listing all of a composers operas, etc., can be very useful. I am talking specifically about {{Infobox Biography}} and related infoboxes, which are used to give basic information such as birthday, birthplace, cup size, instrument, etc. For examples see Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Liszt, it's the big box on the right. Mak (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking about potted biography infoboxes then I agree with you entirely. The Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Liszt boxes (listing their occupations!) are grotesque. - Kleinzach 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, those are what I'm talking about. Mak (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You know that Beethoven box is awful! Same as the Liszt one, that flag was NOT the Austrian flag in 1827. It's shocking and simplistic. They really should go. M A Mason 23:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the one on Josquin des Prez, which just appeared this morning. It even has a flag of France and one of (!) Austria. At the risk of being repetitive, I really think the composer infoboxes need to go. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I support removal of infoboxes, using Beethoven as a case study (some points were already covered by Mak):

Please consider the reason why an infobox is presented on a page like this. An infobox puts vital information in a concise, easy table for cursory readers to glean. In this case, an infobox is not ideal because the birth date, first of all, is contested, and it does not provide sufficient information about the peculiarities of his actual birth. Moreover, the rest of the information is misleading and confusing to those who are not musicians — Beethoven uniquely straddles both Classical and Romantic eras in music, and putting both there means nothing to those who don't understand his chronological ambiguity. The "Occupations" row is misleading, apparently stating Beethoven's work was part of some job or career. The "Notable Instruments" section still confuses me; is it a list of instruments he owned? Why is that info pertinent in summarizing his life into a small box?

(above is my comment) ALTON .ıl 05:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the damn things. What's the point of having an "infobox" when the box itself is distorting the accuracy of the info it contains? The flags are being used in a hopelessly anachronistic way and complicated matters such as ambiguous birth dates and nationalities are being misleadingly simplified by this Procrustean monstrosity. It makes us look as if we're playing Top Trumps with composers. --Folantin 07:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I too oppose the biographical infoboxes, for the same reasons that keep recurring above. logologist|Talk 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<rant, you might want to look away>One thing that perpetually gets my back up is that every time I write an article for flaming DYK, along comes someone from the Biography Project, adding a whole series of annoying templates to the talk: one of these, is invariably, "This article needs an infobox"! Well, no, this article doesn't need an infobox. For starters such articles are pretty short and an infobox would take up as much space as the actual content, and secondly the birth dates of fairly obscure 18th-century singers are invariably never known: usually we don't even know their birthplace, all that's survived is the date of their first musical appearance - and their last, because usually we don't know when they died, viz Anna Maria Strada: no birthdate or death-date. These ones for composers are particularly monstrous. Whack'em.</rant over> Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! I've been following this discussion and wondering whether and how to respond. I would be one editor who is "guilty" of adding templates to talk pages, including "needs infobox". As a result of a very civil discussion with Antandrus , on Talk:Claudio Monteverdi, I learned the reasons why those who edit the articles about classical composers prefer not to have infoboxes, and have therefore ceased the practice of using the "needs infobox" parameter on Composers articles.

Moreschi, your reference to "Mr. Cretin" above (in my case it would be "Ms. Cretin"), is not very pleasant. Part of the process of Wikipedia is that one does things that one thinks is beneficial, and then one's behavior is refined by interactions with others, where people explain why they have opinions or preferences about doing things different ways. In the case of my adding the "needs infobox parameter" to the Claudio Monteverdi article, the next editor's response was merely to change the parameter to "No", with no attempt to "educate" me as to why - this could have been done via a note on my talk page; a note on the talk page of the article; even a comment in the edit summary. After seeing that change, I tried looking for documentation of a "soft consensus" in a centralized location, and couldn't find one, and therefore needed to solicit an explanation, in order to understand why my edit was changed. So, I'm glad that this discussion has been started here. But, I'd ask you to consider that any discussion on Wikipedia has a "public audience" and to be respectful of those coming from a different angle.

Many of you have been stating very strongly the reasons why you don't like infoboxes on articles about Composers. I would suggest, now, changing the direction of the discussion to focus on positive actions, rather than rants that may offend those who have (however mistakenly) recommended infoboxes in the past. How might you interact positively with WikiProject Biography to accomplish what you'd like to happen? Thanks in advance for your willingness to talk things over in a positive way, Lini 12:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lini, I suspect that was me, and I apologise that you felt you needed an explanation and didn't get one. I assumed that you were going through tagging scores of articles, and wouldn't notice or care if the parameters on one were changed. Whenever I have tried to explain why a biography box was detrimental for a specific composer article, people have insisted that I should get higher level consensus. Say, on the Composers Wikiproject. I don't think we should need a consensus of all of WikiProject Biography in order to keep infoboxes off of composer articles, although if we get consensus (and it looks like we will as long as those involved in the discussion are those who edit composer biographies) we should probably let them know. Although I think infoboxes for people are generally detrimental, there are probably groups who strongly disagree with me, and whose subject areas work better within the confines of infoboxes. Mak (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for being a complete jackass: that wasn't polite or civil, and I apologise. In fact, it was very, very stupid. I wasn't really so annoyed with the composer ones, which are borderline cases as I was in cases where an infobox would take up more room and go on for longer in the viewing window than the actual article does. I'll talk to WP:BIOGRAPHY over this - politely. Again, I apologise for being a dick. Sorry. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 13:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of side-notes:

• While pottering around adding things like Template:Verdi operas to opera articles, I've occasionally run into infoboxes on composer pages that aren't the ones under discussion here, for example Template:italianmusic, which appears, for example, in the articles on Domenico Cimarosa, Francesco Cilea and Franco Donatoni. And I see that someone has completely unnecessarily added the Verdi operas template to the Giuseppe Verdi article, notwithstanding that this more-or-less duplicates the list of operas in the article, and the image at the top of the infobox duplicates the one already in the article. It looks as if some sort of territorial agreement (or summit conference) among projects might be useful - specifically, I suppose, where the activities of the Biography people overlap other projects. I dunno where the Music of Italy one comes from.
• If anyone wants to look at discussion similar to the above, try the Shakespeare talk page where a discussion about "influences" in the infobox includes discussion of their general utility.

Add my vote to the biography-infoboxes-for-composers-are-a-waste-of-space camp. --GuillaumeTell 13:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(General comment) Please bear in mind that some infoboxes are being used to contain structured meta data, to assist parsing by 'bots, and this kind of use is likely to increase the future, not least with the addition of microformats such as hCard. If the current infobox(es) are not notable, then I think we'd do better to replace or improve, rather then avoid, them. Andy Mabbett 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not notable? Huh? I think if you want editors to use infoboxes as metadata catch-alls, you should make them a lot more flexible. We need to find a much more robust way to gather metadata, this is clearly not working for composers. Mak (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

s/notable/suitable - my typo. Where does this "you" come from? I thought this was supposed to be a collaboration? Andy Mabbett 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started on bots...We're an encylopaedia; our primary aim should be to provide accurate information; anything that hinders that (such as these boxes) should go. --Folantin 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have misread or not read, my comment - if they "hinder" that aim then they should be improved until they do not. Good infoboxes help that aim. Andy Mabbett 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not use the "persondata" template to collect metadata? That's what it's for. The infoboxes on composers do more harm than good, as discussed above, and you can collect good metadata using something like "persondata" which is invisible. Antandrus (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of midi examples

I thought it might be a nice idea to include the occasional midi clip to illustrate musical points, and I uploaded a couple of midi files: and . For an example of their use see Pentatonic_scale. This kind of works, but as you will see it is a bit clunky and unattractive on the page - I think the problems arise because the upload facility is really designed for images. I would really like it if there was a way to do this which would : a) Look nice on the page - a notehead gif link for instance in place of the filename. b) If at all possible, have the file play directly when it's clicked on, rather than having to go to an image page and then click on the file.

Does anyone have any ideas how this might be done in a more elegant way? Many thanks.

--Stephen Burnett 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)