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)

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 [1]. 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)

Andy - is it possible to preserve the (pleasing) appearance of the page Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and also introduce microformats to your satisfaction? -- roundhouse 10:41, 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- before your archiving - 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)

Andy can have that debate all on his own, since no-one is interested in discussing this with him. AND he has been happily banned from making disruptive edits, so we don't even to worry about reverting his petty, point-plagued edits. Now let's clear this infobox rubbish from the talk page. If Andy keeps reverting it, take him back to ANI and we can ask for a ban from editing this page. Eusebeus 10:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mr. Mabbett seems unable or unwilling to fix the myriad problems involved with bioboxes, which were so spectacularly demonstrated on the Paderewski page yesterday. So there is nothing left to discuss. Archive it. --Folantin 10:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is now re-archived. -- Kleinzach 10:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your - collective - refusal to discuss compromise or attempt to reach consensus is disappointing. Andy Mabbett 10:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Mr Mabbett, you are being disruptive for no good reason whatsoever. Knock it off or you'll be blocked. Moreschi ^Talk 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, there is no policy of blocking people for pointing out lack od consensus, where none exists; or for pointing out that an on-going discussion has not ended. Andy Mabbett 11:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)