Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers

Userbox?

Just for fun I thought I'd mess around with making a userbox for the project. It looks like there were a couple proposed last year (scroll down), but they don't seem to have caught on, so I thought I'd try & make one that looked a bit less like the other music-related boxes...

Basically I just copied the box from the classical music project, & changed the color and clef (being a fan of the old clefs, and of violists, I chose alto). The current version is at this subpage on my userspace, and it looks like this:

This user is a member of WikiProject Composers.

As currently coded it would place the user in Category:WikiProject Composers participants, which doesn't seem much used at the moment, but that's easy enough to remove... If anyone actually wants to adopt this, it should probably be moved to the Template space or maybe a subpage here; if not, not. Suggestions or edits are welcome if anyone cares -- particularly on color, since I'm slightly colorblind. Thx, —Turangalila talk 04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems that the composers box should have a picture of a composer (although choosing which one would be a fight). It don't like the bust idea from last year, a portrait would be better. Maybe Bach (Beethoven or Mozart would be my first instincts, as they are the easiest to recognize, but I don't want to be clichéd). Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 05:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the userbox and applaud just going for it. But I was thinking it might be nice to have an icon which says composer more than music in general. It's only because I'm involved in so many music things that it'd be nice to have something specific to this project. On the other hand, it's nice to see alto clef get its due. --Myke Cuthbert 05:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I played around a bit more w/ the pic per suggestions (see above). Bach would be best IMO since almost everybody studied him, but it's tough to find a portrait of anybody that looks decent that small... The Mozart was the best I could find so far. Feel free to go to my sandbox & tinker with it yerselves if you care to... —Turangalila talk 14:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I like that one a lot better. For now, I'm not using userboxes, but if I do, this will definitely be one to grab. (And yes, I assume, if you hate Mozart, you can substitute someone else for your own box. We don't need a sitewide consensus from WP:Userboxes to do so!). Thanks for your work, Turangalila --Myke Cuthbert 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Bach (did you know there are two versions of the same Bach image on Wikipedia, one and the other ) would look good if you cropped it to just the head. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As a graphic I liked Turangalila's alto clef. Maybe too obscure? Perhaps a hand on a music manuscript if we can get one? --Kleinzach 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

on Asmeurer's idea, that sounds cool, but I haven't the slightest idea how to do it (cropping the photo)...I guess someone would have to download it into photoshop & upload a new version to WP? If you're technically able have at it; and anybody w/ design or whatever ideas please feel free to treat my sandbox as your own... —Turangalila talk 05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need only to have 1 userbox. You could give members a parameter to choose of which composer or picture to have in their userbox, eg {{User WPComposers|Bach}}, {{User WPComposers|Beethoven}} or {{User WPComposers|Mozart}}. Centy 15:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes again

User:Pigsonthewing is continuing what seems to be a WP:POINT edit war at Steve Reich and Philip Glass over infoboxes. His position seems to be that the consensus established above needs to be reinstated on each individual article's talk page to justify disincluding infoboxes. Fireplace 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted his edit on Philip Glass. This needs to find resolution somehow, however. Eusebeus 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Talk:Steve_Reich#Infobox. Fireplace 02:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO we have already found as much resolution on this as we are ever going to. We spent days discussing it (above) and Makemi summed it all up in a remarkably thorough-going way. --Kleinzach 13:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

...And his behavior continues at Michael Nyman. After repeated edit warring, incivility, ignoring consensus, wp:point abuses, and an inappropriate ANI listing, I'd be happy to write/contribute to an ANI or RFC listing for disruptive editing if there's support for taking it there. Fireplace 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting beyond a joke. I warned him about a particularly ludicrous WP:POINT violation days ago [1] but he's still at it. He appears to know little or nothing about classical music (certainly not opera) so I have no idea why he's so obsessed with composer bioboxes. But check his extensive block log [2] where one admin says: "This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributers; not to write an encyclopedia". Sounds about right. --Folantin 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You have never warned me about a "a particularly ludicrous WP:POINT violation", because there has been no such violation. It's worrying that you choose to threaten in this manner, and make unfounded allegations; doubly so when I have offered suggestions for compromise, which you (collectively) appear to have rejected out-of-hand. Andy Mabbett 20:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is getting hard, though I will say that most of those blocks were over a year ago.(ah, Fireplace's point taken) However, Andy, we're here, talk about Infoboxes with us if you want. I need to get back to writing a journal article on minimalism, not trying to make the same argument against infoboxes at John Coolidge Adams ("is associate with postminimalism"? great info! worth reverting), Steve Reich, Philip Glass, and Michael Nyman. --Myke Cuthbert 21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the log, most of the blocks were over a year old because he was blocked for a year. Fireplace 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Infoboxes. Mak (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"we're here, talk about Infoboxes with us if you want" I have been trying to do so for some time. As I said above, I (and, indeed, others) have offered suggestions for compromise, which you (collectively) appear to have rejected out-of-hand. Once again (and I'm getting equally sick of having to repeat this) if there are errors or misleading information in infoboxes; correct it - do not simply remove the whole box. That's baby/bathwater. Andy Mabbett 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy, some of us find that infoboxes lead to the condensation of information into bite-sized chunks whether or not the information works best that way. When all the misleading information is removed, what is often left is either information repeated immediately in the lede (birth date) in the first paragraph (birth location) is trivially obvious (occupation: "composer"...um, yes, that's why there's an article) or is pure trivia (daughters' names). At that point, I think they are best removed, and I believe the consensus of people who edit classical music pages is with me. (The only piece of useful information I've frequently found in composer infoboxes not immediately easy to find in the articles is death location, though these are often confused with burial location). --Myke Cuthbert 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I would suggest (as I think I did some time ago) that you take the matter to the Biography and/ or Infobox Projects, and try to obtain consensus for your view on a WP-wide basis (or an understanding of why the contrary view has consensus), rather than trying to apply it on a project-by-project bass, which not only involves policy-breaching ownership, but is doomed to failure where two projects with opposing views coincide. Andy Mabbett 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus already exists -- "WP-wide" consensus is neither necessary nor appropriate for localized issues like this one. Further, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Infoboxes makes it clear that infoboxes on certain classes of articles should be approved individually before being added, and WP:Infobox "is not intended to be a place for infobox standardisation, rather a place for designers to help each other." Fireplace 22:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you appear to be unwilling to cooperate or compromise, outside of the narrow focus of these two sister projects. Andy Mabbett 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Biography infobox page, Fireplace, which now also reflects consensus here. It's getting hard to find a place where there isn't consensus (not unanimity) against composer infoboxes. Andy, where does your base of support come from for infoboxes on the minimalist composers' pages? I know that Badagnani has supported your view on Michael Nyman, are there others? I'm just trying to figure out where this other consensus we're supposed to be respecting is. --Myke Cuthbert 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another point: Pigsonthewing writes . . . if there are errors or misleading information in infoboxes; correct it - do not simply remove the whole box. This is unreasonable because (1) no editor should put unchecked information up on a page and then tell other editors to fix it, and (2) if an editor finds wrong information added to an article, that editor has to decide whether to retain some of the information, or delete it all. If there is no viable substance remaining after correction then it all has to go. The editor who created the false information should not come along and say, "you can take out this, but you can't take out that". --Kleinzach 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don’t want to get caught up in a war about this. However I am quite opposed to the idea of removing the infoboxes from composer’s pages. If the consensus is uniformly against me, we should at least work with other projects to come up with a unified solution. Here are some reasons I support the inclusion of infoboxes on composer pages:

1. WP:BIOGRAPHY still includes infoboxes in its pages. It would be ludicrous to be working against other projects in this regard.
2. Infoboxes have been criticized for offering only a snapshot of information. Indeed that is their purpose. They allow the reader to see the basics of the article without having to first read several thousand words. This can help the casual viewer decide wither or not to read the entirety of the article.
3. Infoboxes helps categories all the articles on a topic.
4. Infoboxes adds some color to many otherwise drab pages.
5. Whether we like it or not Wikipedia’s main viewers are not collage grads. Wikipedia is primarily used by students I believe. Now how long is the average teenager’s attention span? No offence to teens, but most teenagers (and many adults) have the attention span of a TV commercial. At least the infoboxes tells them SOMETHING about the subject.
6. If the content of an infobox is wrong don’t blame the infobox. Be bold and fix it, or, leave that section of the box blank.
7. Infoboxes often include some important information that would require a lengthy search through the text to find (examples: label, years active, notable instruments)

Anyway, those are some of the reasons I feel that all the major composer’s pages should include an infobox. (Or at least all articles for which an infobox would offer significant information.) S.dedalus 06:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't write/contribute/edit for 'college grads' or 'students'. I write etc. for the general public. --Kleinzach 07:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What Kleinzach said (BTW we also have a "Simple English Wikipedia" [3] which might be of use). Sorry, there are no new arguments here. The composer bioboxes are redundant at best, sometimes downright silly (what does knowing the names of Michael Nyman's wife and children tell you about his music) and factually inaccurate in all too many cases. --Folantin 08:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Andy Mabbett has been blocked from making any infobox related edits for a month, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Log_of_blocks_and_bans and on a related note the "infobox needed" template has come up for consideration at the TfD page: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_13#Template:Infoboxneeded. Eusebeus 10:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a responsibility on Wikipedia to make information as accessible as possible. Infoboxes help do this. There is no need to stop using them. Though occasionally redundant, that is far outweighed by their clarity. Has consensus already been reached on this issue here or on other Wikiprojects? S.dedalus 04:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We also have a responsibility to make information as accurate as possible. "Clarity" has no value if what is made clear is inaccurate. While I see where you are coming from, I cannot agree that adding infoboxes in any way improves a composer article, for the numerous reasons cited above. There are too many issues regarding composers that require a nuanced approach, which brute-force presentation in an infobox ruins. Respectfully, Antandrus (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer S.dedalus's second question: consensus has been reached on both the Composers Project and the Opera Project not to use BIO-infoboxes (as noted above by Fireplace). I believe that science projects have also declared against using them, presumably for similar reasons. I also note that a majority are voting for the deletion of the Infobox Needed Template, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_13#Template:Infoboxneeded -- Kleinzach 05:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Has consensus already been reached on this issue here..? " No, consensus has not been reached here. Editors speaking aginst the supopsed consenus include S.dedalus, Lin, Cricket02, Antandrus, Turangalila, emerson7, pizza1512, cgilbert, Wormsie, Gretab, ickbigd and me, Andy Mabbett 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's patent distortion. Plenty of those in your little list have spoken against the boxes. Moreschi ^Talk 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

They may have spoken against some boxes in some context or other; but they have also all spoken against a blanket ban such as you seem to desire; ergo there was no distortion in my post; and there is no consensus. Andy Mabbett 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, one thing's for sure, Mr. Mabbett, you won't be adding any infoboxes for the next month. How about using the intervening time profitably by designing a composer biobox that doesn't actually violate WP policy on factual accuracy and is flexible enough to describe someone like Paderewski (without producing the dog's dinner currently showing on the page), for example? Then you can come back and get consensus to use it. You might have to do a shedload of reading first to avoid another embarrassing incident like the Comic opera fiasco, but I'm sure your evident passion for opera and classical music will see you through. --Folantin 10:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it that Paderewski page (back-up link here [4]) is the perfect illustration of the inherent ridiculousness of the "biobox". I'm not criticising the user who added it; it's the very concept of the box which leads to absurdities like this. And I predicted this would happen to that very page on the ANI noticeboard two weeks ago [5]- but I didn't need to be Nostradamus to see that one coming. --Folantin 10:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have only just become aware of this debate via a post at WP Infoboxes, and have gone over it with some interest. My work with infoboxes has mainly been with ones of a geographical or historical nature, and I appreciate the problems with biographical infoboxes (the above Ignacy Jan Paderewski problem is a good example), although have had nothing to do with the development of the bioboxes.
First, to clarify what WP Infoboxes is: WP:INFOWATCH is not exactly a project, but a centralised location for designers to help each other with design and usage issues, and to be something of a help desk. It does not intend to create and enforce site-wide rules. Sure, we have no authority, but the people involved have a rather lengthy experience of what works and what doesn't. The group is definitely not biased towards the use of infoboxes everywhere - but it is heavily biased against their incorrect usage. Infoboxes have become a part of Wikipedia, like it or not - all we can do is make sure that they are used properly.
Now for my 2 cents. I largely agree with a lot that Turangalila has said, particularly regarding the supplementary and summarising role of an infobox. From this debate, there are a few points that I would like to address:

1. Help with metadata: they can also help with categorisation
2. Not everything deserves an infobox: I agree. If a suitable infobox does not exist, then I would rather not use one until the right one becomes available.
3. No baptism field: this is clearly a fault in the template and should probably be added somehow - not just here, but probably in other biogboxes.
4. Flags in biog-infoboxes: I don't really like them. I also don't like how the modern country is usually given and linked to when the country didn't exist during the life of the person in question. From my work on former countries, this is a big problem. That said, this same mistake is made even more often within the body text. So for this problem (the country problem, not the flag problem), the infobox is not at fault any more than the article itself.
5. Infoboxes violate factual accuracy: This is a big claim, and a false one. How an infobox on its own can do this is beyond me. They are only inaccurate if the wrong information is given. This also applies for the rest of the article. So this claim is similar to saying that having an article at all violates factual accuracy. Because anyobody can edit, there is always the risk of the wrong information being given anywhere in the article: accidentally or deliberately

I'm sure there are more points that I wanted to bring up, but i can't think of them all right now. 52 Pickup 11:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes have become a part of Wikipedia, like it or not - all we can do is make sure that they are used properly. Er no, there is no policy saying we need infoboxes and their use is best considered on a project by project basis by those who know the subject under consideration. They are also redundant in composer articles. Infoboxes violate factual accuracy: This is a big claim, and a false one. How an infobox on its own can do this is beyond me. Well, this one has managed just fine; it's forced editors to add ridiculous bits of information (Gluck was a leading pianist?), if not downright false "facts". Articles don't force anyone to violate factual accuracy and they're immensely flexible. Plain old text can cope with the multiplicitous career of Jan Ignacy Paderewski succinctly and elegantly, whereas the bioboxes are just a disaster. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopaedia anyone can edit (anyone who knows what they are talking about, that is); you can't change the bioboxes without a good deal of specialist computer knowledge (plus the templates are often edit-protected). Again, you only need minimal technical knowledge to add simple text here. I'm sure infoboxes are useful on geographical matters; I know very little subject and I wouldn't dream of interfering with its editors. But these composer bioboxes are just ludicrous as the Paderewski page sadly proves. --Folantin 12:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Er no, there is no policy saying we need infoboxes... - Hang on. I didn't say that there was a policy calling for them, I'm simply stating the fact that they are here. ...and their use is best considered on a project by project basis by those who know the subject under consideration. - I agree. Projects that I am involved in do the same, but it is always necessary that even projects do not assume total ownership (whether or not the Composer project is assuming ownership of these articles is none of my business). As I said, if the right infobox isn't available, then either 1) the right one should either be developed, or 2) don't use one. - 52 Pickup 12:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, glad you understand. Option 2 is the obvious choice here. Total ownership isn't a goal, especially bearing the Paderewski article in mind, since he's the responsibility of several projects. But that page just shows the problems of having several project infoboxes when they clash. If in doubt, do without....--Folantin 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Option 2 is the obvious choice here." It's far from obvious that that would be the right choice.

"Total ownership isn't a goal - perhaps not; but its the apparent outcome of current behaviour.

Andy Mabbett 13:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've suggested, off you pop and use your encyclopaedic knowledge of classical music to design a new infobox with none of the flaws of the present one. Then you can come back here and see if you can get consensus to use it. Why are you waiting? --Folantin 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[6]. Andy Mabbett 13:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's my ideal solution. No infobox, no problem. But you are quite welcome to try and prove me wrong and there's nothing stopping you from going ahead and making the attempt if you're so enthusiastic about these boxes. --Folantin 13:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not an ideal solution, just an out-of-hand rejection. Andy Mabbett 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a considered rejection based on the same knowledge of the subject that led me to predict the Paderewski disaster. But if your new infobox can address the problems I raised there, maybe you'll win me and other people over. --Folantin 14:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Folantin and I spelled out quite thoroughly why that suggested box was not going to work. Moreschi ^Talk 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Discussion: It's over.

It's over. Composer project editors don't want infoboxes, the consensus is clear. Let's archive the (overly long) talk page and put this to rest. Eusebeus 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Composer project editors don't own pages about composers; there is no consensus; it's not over; and saying it is doesn't make it so. Andy Mabbett 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but it does appear to me that there is a clear consensus here. As per WP:CON no one person can declare consensus. Perhaps it is time to seek comment on WP:RFC? S.dedalus 00:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done some archiving. It's time we all went back to working on the encylopedia. Enough of these disruptions! This is not a chat room for people to show off their TLAs. This is a project for writing articles about composers, maybe even to encourage people to listen to their music. -- Kleinzach 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, at present it does not seem that I can help further in this matter because people are unwilling to come to a compromise. So, I will agree to disagree about the handling of infoboxes and of this discussion for the time being. In the meantime I will attempt to consolidate some broader Wikipedia guideline on this issue. However, if we are going to stop advocating infoboxes on composer pages won’t this bring us into conflict with the WP:WPBIO people? Respectfully, S.dedalus 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict with WikiProject Biographies -- see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Infoboxes. Fireplace 08:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's over. For what it's worth, I suspect this had less to do with Wikiproject Biography and more to do with this project or - to be more accurate - one of its four members and his ambition to put microformats (whatever the hell they are) on every other page of this encyclopaedia [7]. This seems to be the source of a great deal of the recent conflict I've noticed on ANI involving other projects too. --Folantin 08:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not "over"; and your suspicions are mis-founded. Again. Andy Mabbett 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another reversion by Andy Mabbett

After Eusebeus suggested "Let's archive the (overly long) talk page and put this to rest", I archived most of the accumulated discussions. Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett then immediately reverted the section Infoboxes again (above). Consistency is a virtue in editors, but in this case? -- Kleinzach 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You omit to mention that I replied to Eusebeus by pointing out that his claim that the discussion was over was false. Do you really think it acceptable to archive an on-going discussion? That appears to be an attempt to stifle debate. Andy Mabbett 09:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)