Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 13

Contents

Biographical infoboxes: Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven etc.

I recently added infoboxes to some composer articles (Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven) and was promptly reverted and directed to this discussion. I have read the archived discussions above, and agree with some of the concerns (mainly that erroneous information was being included, and that nuanced items -- like Beethoven's date of birth -- were not given proper treatment). With the current use of footnotes within infoboxes, however, these shouldn't really be an issue anymore. In addition, any editor who spots misinformation is free to make a correction. In my opinion, I see no reason why composers should not have an infobox. Moreover, after reading the discussion, I was unable to spot at which point consensus was reached on this issue. As a classical music connoisseur / wikipedia editor, I see no good reason at this point to exclude infoboxes from composer articles --TrustTruth (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend reading the archives very thoroughly. All the points you make have been raised before and have been answered before. You will see that there is strong opposition to biographical infoboxes - not navboxes etc - in all the classical music projects. If you want to contribute these boxes then I'd suggest switching your interest to popular music where the Biography Project boxes are welcomed (and indeed much work needs to be done to improve article quality). Thank you for your cooperation. Best regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
...you can't seriously have meant what it looks like you meant. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I have read the archived discussions of this subject and noted that my points have already been raised. I also noted that there was no clear consensus, despite what has been stated on the project page. Even after reading the archives, I still frankly don't understand the rationale behind denying infobox usage for classical music articles, while allowing them for pop music. A person is a person, regardless of genre. Please help me understand. --TrustTruth (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand after reading the archives, nothing I can say here is going to make much difference. I don't have a lot of time to restate what was already been said many times already, however (assuming good faith and ignoring what looks like a transparent gambit) please note that that many editors think that biographies cannot be reduced to labels and numbers in the same way as quantitative data (geographical data etc.) Great composers such as Mozart are unique. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I must say that my opinion on this issue has changed these past weeks, mainly for three reasons:
  1. Every other area of Wikipedia seems to be slowly introducing infoboxes, heck some even outwardly encourage them. The fact that Joseph Szigeti, a Featured Article on under the scope of WP:CM has an infobox suggests to me that infobox are considered correct on WP (let's not forget the vicious MOS criteria for Featured Articles).
  2. I can see infoboxes being of great use for classical compositions - basically every new article I'm starting has the same information: date of composition, dedication, opus number, key, movements, instrumentation. This can be all encapsulated in an infobox and frankly if someone designed one, it would make my life a whole lot easier and the page far easier to read at a glance. Having written for the Military History WikiProject, I've grown to see the incredible value an infobox can have - you can gather a lot of information that would be very clumsy to write out in full (for example one very short section is an article titled instrumentation could be just listed in an infobox). Frankly when you have so many articles with the same article structure, doesn't it seem natural to gather information into a template?
  3. Kleinzach - no offence but I don't like your attitude to anyone that tries to even work on the issue, eg. I don't understand why we had to TfD Template:Classical composer so rapidly without even considering what was flawed with the template and how we would improve it. I was always under the impression that we would use infoboxes if they were specifically designed for classical musicians (this was to avoid stuff like 'associated acts'. But how can this happen, or indeed any progress be made if we nip everything in the bud so quickly? You must understand outside our little world there is HUGE consensus for infoboxes and I'm afraid we will have to tow the line eventually otherwise we will end up with our own little world where we alienate any outside editors. This is not good for everyone concerned. You see this strong anti-biographical infoboxes that has developed has meant no one was ever willing to discuss the possibility of infoboxes for classical compositions (see the WP:CM archives for the stunted discussion) and I really don't like the idea that infoboxes will never be on the table. I remember a time when the whole classical music community was determined never to rate articles and frowned on BioBot coming along and tagging an article 'Start'. Now of course we are slowly beginning to change - maybe its time we gave a little leeway and this infobox issue. Centy – reply• contribs – 06:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
CenturionZ_1: As I, and others, have repeatedly explained and assured you, no one (AFAIK) is against infoboxes for classical compositions or indeed any kind of non-biographical infobox or navigation box. No one, to my knowledge, has acted to discourage you from developing them. Can we also try to avoid personalizing this issue? Many, many other editors have taken part in forming a view on this issue. --Kleinzach (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm against the infoboxes for compositions, instrument ranges -- but I know there's no consensus there. However, there is still a consensus against their use for classical composers, and there's a strong consensus that those of us editing in the field are tired of discussing it for now. Can we have the discussion again in, say, December? Right now, it feels a bit like one of those AfDs where people keep relisting until they get a decision they like. As CenturionZ notes, the consensus can change, but it was strongly enough against just a short time ago that I think we're going to push people away from enjoying editing if it comes up again so soon.-- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong consensus against discussion? Really - I contribute quite a bit in the field of classical music and I seriously want to discuss it. You do realise that as every other part of Wikipedia embraces these infoboxes, we are never going to avoid this. As the number editors who approach a composer from a biographical article background increases we are always going to have to defend ourselves against an ever growing consensus of people who DO want infoboxes. (I note the consensus that keeps being mentioned is mainly of editors who are part of this WikiProject and does not ever consider the wider bank of editors out there). Nevertheless I will once again rest this issue, just like last time the same thing happened (I was told to avoid causing trouble because Pigsonthewing-gate had just happened). I'll agree we can't have everything perfect. But look at Napoleonic Wars, an article I spent quite some time working on the infobox. I realised summarizing the sides of this war was difficult so I left footnotes - you don't have to read them and yes there's still some information you may call misleading (eg the 1803 is a tenuous year). But all in all I feel the article is much diminished if we remove it. That I feel is what an infobox can do for an article on a piece of classical music. For someone who writes program notes, I never come here (even to my own articles) as a primary source because frankly its a waste of time. Say I want to get the date of composition, movement names and approximate length of three pieces happening in a concert tonight. This is completely trivial with some other sites that put these little useful bits of informating straight into a box on the page, or at the start of an article before going into further detail over the piece. On Wikipedia, firstly its pretty random whether the information exists and secondly there's no systematic way of displaying this information. Frankly that's not Wikipedia's fault - it's ours. Other articles (eg films) I get whole heaps on information straight off when I view the article - running time, original release date, language, budget, distributor, major cast and crew. Why can't we do something like that? Centy – reply• contribs – 11:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Centy: Once again you are off topic. This is the Composers Project not Classical Music, and we are discussing biographical infoboxes not general ones. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I do think though that we can be more welcoming of new people wanting to create articles on composers regardless of their views on boxes.
(Also: footnotes in infoboxes seem particularly ugly to me. An infobox is supposed to be trusted information at a glance; if we're making one-word judgment calls that need footnotes to sort them out, it's going against the use of the box. Frankly, I find they are often just toys for people to increase edit counts without writing articles). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes down to a simple NPOV issue. Kleinzach states that "Great composers such as Mozart are unique" and cannot be condensed into a box. Personally I agree that he was a great composer and also that he was unique. However, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. From a pure worldwide view of the subject, Mozart is a man who lived in Europe in the 18th Century and is notable to those with an understanding of European culture. He has a birth date, death date, country of origin and occupation. Those salient facts are indisputable and, presented in an infobox, would help a non-European (or an individual not familiar with European culture) access the basics about him. Is Mozart a greater and more-unique person than, say, Gandhi? Surely Gandhi is too complicated to box in as well, yet his article uses one. From an unbiased, worldwide perspective, Mozart (or any other composer) is not too special for an infobox. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

TrustTruth writes " . . . a birth date, death date, country of origin and occupation. Those salient facts are indisputable . ." On the contrary these are exactly 'the facts' that are frequently (and very tediously) disputed. Whereas text can be nuanced and anomalies explained, these boxes boldly and invariably put forward misleading information. Creators of these boxes seem to believe that all composers kept their birth certificates in order, applied for passports, were married in church and filed income tax returns. Hmm. Far from being a NPOV issue it's a WOT (waste of time) issue. We are building an encylopedia and we don't want to be sidetracked by issues with sub-standard ancillary information. Thank you. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Add a footnote if a birth date is questionable. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention, wouldn't that apply to any one? You keep seeming to elevate composers above other people as if they are someone how more special than anyone else. I'm sure there are plenty of poets, scientists, royalty, etc etc that have just as ambiguous dates. So if there's issues, report what is the most common. It's a total straw man argument, there's nothing misleading any more than ANYTHING could be in ANY part of the article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Melodia " You keep seeming to elevate composers above other people . . ." . Of course not. This project is about composers. That's why we are discussing them here. As for your second point - including the obligatory 'straw man' cliché - please read the archives. I think you will find examples of how, why and when summarizing information can be misleading. Any other comments? --Kleinzach (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what Melodia and I are both trying to say is we want to know why composers deserve special treatment on this infobox issue as opposed to every other part of Wikipedia. Authors, poets, painters all seem to be ubiquitously tagged with a summary of their life in an infobox. Why are composers so vulnerable to misleading information? This sort of 'holier than thou' attitude of classical music editors doesn't help our image to the non-classical music listeners that we're elitist and somehow above you guys. Centy – reply• contribs – 11:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
As I think you will remember the Biography Project Infobox page gives this advice: "Word of caution! Certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. With the current work groups, it is generally safe, but, for instance, scientist articles can have some heated debates on these. So, if you are intending to apply one of the templates to an article about a scientist, academic, or classical composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page." So it's not just the classical music projects that object to bio-infoboxes - let's shoot down that canard right now! --Kleinzach (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You can also add a number of architecture-related articles here as well, though not, puzzlingly, the Architecture Project. However, I am happy to see that so far, those who are asking for an infobox here have not received the level of disparagement at the hands of some people held in high regard by key people in the community (see WT:CHES#Little Moreton Hall where the mere asking of a question "why no infobox?" resulted in a comment about us having "the attention span of gnats" and miscellaneous other comments that seemed to violate WP:NPA and so on, but which were allowed to stand for some strange reason.) As it happens, in that particular case and in the case of various classical composers, I think having no infobox unless a case can be made on a case-by-case basis works well, but it does need to have good reasoned arguments presented both in favour and against using them rather than fallacious arguments and/or veiled or not so veiled personal attacks.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In that spirit, then, I propose that an infobox be added to the Joseph Haydn article. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The infobox that TrustTruth earlier put up at Joseph Haydn (see [1]) is worth examining as a case study in connection with this debate. It contains the following three errors:

  • Wrong years active; Haydn certainly was not "active" in the years following 1802, as he was too sick to compose by then.
  • Wrong instruments: It's grossly misleading to list the harpsichord and not the piano, given that Haydn switched to the piano in mid-career and wrote some of his most important compositions for it.
  • Wrong name: Haydn never used the Franz, and musicologists writing about him don't either.

For details concerning these matters, please consult the article text and the sources it cites.

I don't mean to make an ad hominem argument here (though I admit, I do feel pretty indignant at TrustTruth's level of carelessness). Rather, I bring it up because I think this example is only the tip of the iceberg. Composer infoboxes quite generally attract inaccurate editing, and that the mistakes are very hard to fix within the rigid format of the infoboxes. This is a good reason, I think, not to have them. Opus33 (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose then that the years active and instruments be corrected, and that the Franz be dropped. What would remain would be an accurate infobox. Thoughts? --TrustTruth (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for not taking my criticism personally, and see below for what I've done. Opus33 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong years active - at least it was obviously wrong. If someone had changed that in the article it would still be misleading but not obvious. Heck, if it were never mentioned in the article (and it's only mentioned twice - one implicitly and very unclear (under Final years in Vienna - e.g. was the illness just a temporary halt to his work?) and one definitive mention under the highly un-misleading section of Evolution of Haydn's style. (Because that's blatantly where I'm going to look). So what if 1809 is put incorrectly into an infobox - a trivial change.
Thanks for pointing this out this unclarity, Centurion; I've now tried to make clear in the article text that Haydn's career was indeed finished for good as of this time. Opus33 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong instruments - probably shouldn't have this heading in an infobox for composers unless like Chopin and Paganini one instrument dominates, no problem infoboxes are designed to handle that - again a trivial change.
I agree, and have taken it out. Opus33 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong name - Really? Then the first three words of the entire article is misleading - so misleading in fact that it made TrustTruth incorrectly copy it into an infobox. If anything having the wrong name as the first words in bold of an article is way more misleading then their use in an infobox.
Thanks for pointing this out, Centurion; I've now fixed it. Opus33 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the three errors that have been noted are picky errors that are easily fixed and frankly to say that an infobox produces misleading information because of these trivial errors is rubbish. Devious vandalism produces far worse misleading information especially when it occurs in the mass of a 80k long article. An error in an infobox is easily corrected. Centy – reply• contribs – 19:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention, that STILL doesn't say why "composer infoboxes quite generally attract inaccurate editing" -- why composers, specifically? Yes, this is the composers project, but that doesn't matter. They are NOT anything special outside of being a group of people notable for writing music. Statements like that just don't make any sense in the context of the fact we're not on Composerpedia, or ClassicalAndOperaPedia (or whatever), we're on Wikipedia. Local consensus is fine an all, but I keep seeing again and again (especially from Kleinzach, as I've even had to note on ANI at one point) violations of WP:OWN. It's very very annoying. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Some people here are making a strenuous attempt to avoid ad hominem attacks - but that is a blatant one and I ssk you to retract it. In any case I don't know what you are talking about re ANI. The debates that decided the guidelines here involved more than 20 editors. Again please check the archives. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Kleinzach: Please stay on topic and let's not descend into accusations of personal attacks. All we are trying to say is that your line of please check the archives is flawed. Old consensus is not current consensus - look at how my opinion's changed since a year ago. Centy – reply• contribs – 01:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course 'consensus' changes, but the change must be proportionate. Three or four people can't overturn a consensus established by 30 or 40. Of course you have the option of starting a new centralized discussion (against the advice already given here), but you would need to inform the previous participants. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If you consider me accusing you of repeatedly violating WP:OWN an attack, then yes, I'm guilty. It may have been somewhere else, but I did bring up your name somewhere outside one of the music projects because of it. And to keep on topic, what CenturionZ_1 is saying is that Consensus can change. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Objection. WP:OWN is irrelevant here. The tactic of shifting attention way from the views of 20+ editors onto one is an unpleasant one. As everyone knows, the composers articles have a long history and I have not, repeat not, taken a leading role in developing them. Please check the edit histories. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

With trepidation I've put in an infobox for Joseph Haydn which I believe does not include anything inaccurate or excessively detailed/trivial. I would like to be able to add a line that would look like this:

In brief: leading composer of the classical era

but unfortunately these templates don't let you change the headings. If anyone knows where I could learn how to do this I would appreciate knowing.

Following Centurion's advice, I left out the instruments as trivial (Haydn was known to be a merely competent performer, and was famous only as a composer), the "occupation" as too obvious to include, and the genre as inappropriate to Haydn's day (the whole idea of "classical" music didn't really exist until a few decades later). I also find it very odd that the template specifies place of birth but not place of death (who makes up these templates anyway?), so I made that symmetrical by using the text fields. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks decent. I did take the liberty of adding the sub-template that calculates age at death. As far as place of death, Template:Infobox Musical artist shows the example of putting a line break after the birth date, then adding place of birth; same story for death date / place. But what you did works too. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you guys thought about resurrecting Template:Classical composer with an infobox specifically designed for composers? Centy – reply• contribs – 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see this, particularly if it had two properties:
  • all fields optional
  • a "free" field whose heading was something like In brief
If we did this, then infobox content could be decided by editors, rather than the template designers. I think it was this property of infoboxes that led to the trouble in the first place. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to mention User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer as a great starting point for an infobox. However I would like something slightly more subtle - nevertheless the completely optional fields seem excellent and notice how the infobox is geared to a composer. Centy – reply• contribs – 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

New Template

OK Template:Classical composer is up and running. I have included it tenuously in two articles, Haydn and Beethoven. Please tell me what you think. Centy – reply• contribs – 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This template was deleted by an admin on 2 May. It should not have been recreated. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm the admin who deleted it. This box is substantially different than the one that was proposed before. So I'm a bit stuck on how to handle this. I read the discussion above but I can't tell what the consensus is or if it's changed from the previous consensus. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The deletion is here: Template:Classical composer. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Kleinzach has moved it (unsurprisingly) to the talk page. I still would wish to get other people's opinions on the infobox - forget the content at the moment, just feedback on whether all the fields are OK and whether the infobox could work. As I've said before, minor errors are trivially easy to change. I see Kleinzach is annoyed at the use of freelance in the infobox for Beethoven. No problem I delete it and list various noble patrons as his employer. If that is still objectionable, I remove the row altogether. Centy – reply• contribs – 10:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


Section break

This discussion has become a little fragmented, so I'm going to recombine threads here. I am going to refute the arguments presented by currently the only editor who is refusing to budge one inch on this issue and even consider developing an infobox.

1. Why the infobox template should not be deleted

Let's review the reasons why the templates were deleted in the three nominations.

Reasons for deletion - 3rd Third Deletion:

  • Unused infobox
Not until its deliberately removed from all articles
  • Same arguments as 2 previous discussions here† and here‡.
See below
  • There's currently a consensus against using any such template.
Not any more'

†Reasons for deletion - 2nd Deletion (2 votes incl. nominator):

  • Unused template created in December.
Not until its deliberately removed from all articles
See below

‡Reasons for deletion - 1st Deletion (1 vote by nominator):

  • This template is no longer in use.
Not until its deliberately removed from all articles
Not any more

Kleinzach - The argument for deletion is incredibly shaky if you actually look at it (in my book its non-existent - it hinges on consensus against it which has gone, its lack of use which only stems from editors removing it personally from articles and previous deletions all of which no longer apply). Just because some has been deleted doesn't mean in shouldn't be recreated - especially if on the evidence above it was deleted for all the wrong reasons (as I see from the chain of logic above). By the way, have moved infobox to Template:Infobox classical composer to be more in line with other infobox namings. Centy – reply• contribs – 10:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

2. The past consensus v current consensus

Kleinzach claims there is a consensus against infoboxes established by 30 or 40 editors.

That's a out and out lie, Kleinzach. First you claim 20+ editors, now its 30 or 40? Re-read the discussion yourself, there were less than 40 editors in the discussion and quite a fair number were quite for the infobox until Andy Mabbett single handedly alienated all the pro-infobox people (I note a lot of pro support was thrown out by comments such as canvassing or not a regular editor). Besides in this new debate, you have yet to find 1 single editor who has you staunch view of anti-infobox at whatever cost, no matter what. That's not 20+ editor consensus. That's a bogus past consensus. Centy – reply• contribs – 11:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Composers not a special case of being anti-infobox
“ As I think you will remember the Biography Project Infobox page gives this advice: "Word of caution! Certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. With the current work groups, it is generally safe, but, for instance, scientist articles can have some heated debates on these. So, if you are intending to apply one of the templates to an article about a scientist, academic, or classical composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page." So it's not just the classical music projects that object to bio-infoboxes - let's shoot down that canard right now! ”

—Kleinzach

Erm, have you checked any scientist article lately (like Einstein, Newton, Euler, Heisenberg, Feynmann). They all have infoboxes. The line about scientists and academics is ancient and now totally incorrect. In fact the only biographical articles across all of WP:BIO that are anti-infoboxes are composers and classical musicians. Classical musician infoboxes are blocked under the same "consensus" being discussed right now. So in fact we have just demonstrated that yes composers are the special case in some way. Why? Centy – reply• contribs – 11:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)