Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 7

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 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →

Contents

Infoboxes for composers (continued)

Infobox: Attempted summary by Makemi

In hopes of visualising consensus, perhaps useful only to myself, I will try to summarise the positions of people in this debate. (Note that I'm using big-umbrella classical in this summary)

  • User:Makemi (active in writing on (early music) classical composers) started it, doesn't want infoboxes for a variety of reasons, mainly having to do with accuracy and flexibility.
  • Kat Walsh (sometimes active in writing on classical composers) agrees that infoboxes for people are generally a problem, would be willing to look at an improved infobox.
  • User:M A Mason (active in writing on classical composers) agrees that infoboxes for people are problematic. Adds points about anachronism of flags in infoboxes.
  • User:Gmaxwell (not particularly active in writing on composers that I can tell) agrees that infoboxes for people are problematic, people don't fit in little boxes, not flexible enough.
  • User:Cricket02 (active in mostly contemporary classical composers) briefly disagrees, thinks infoboxes are valuable and informative, add "respectability" to articles.
  • User:Antandrus (active in early-music classical composers) agrees that infoboxes are redundant and tend towards being amateurish, particularly because of inflexibility in the fields.
  • User:Kleinzach (ringleader of Opera project, writer on various composers) agrees that "potted biographies" are "grotesque".
  • User:Alton (active in writing on classical composers, largely Romantics) agrees that while infoboxes can be useful in some areas, they are not good for biographies because they are not sufficiently flexible to deal with all the variations which people present.
  • User:Folantin (active in writing on classical composers (baroque?)) agrees that infoboxes are not useful for composers, and look unprofessional (Top Trumps:).
  • User:Logologist (active on Chopin, doesn't look like many other composers, although other Polish old bios) doesnt' like infoboxes for people, per others.
  • User:Moreschi (active on composer articles, mostly on the early side) thinks infoboxes for biographies are pretty rotten, and lets us know in no uncertain terms.
  • User:LiniShu (light editing on early composer articles), previously had (a few times) added "Needs infobox=Yes" parameter to WPBio template for composers articles (has never actually added an infobox to composer articles); would agree to respect consensus re not doing so. Asks that the debate be kept civil, and that interaction with WP:WPBIO be kept active/positive. Thinks creation of an improved Composers infobox provides a viable alternative solution, in addition to refraining from using them on articles where there is consensus not to use, but is not particularly "for" infoboxes. Content here "tweaked" --Lini 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • User:GuillaumeTell (active in composer bios) thinks infoboxes for composers are a waste of space.
  • Andy Mabbett (not active with composers, seemingly active in WP:WPBIO) worries that not having infoboxes will cause problems for bots and future meta-data gathering. Would prefer that infoboxes be improved rather than abolished.
    • Counter that Wikipedia:Persondata should be used for metadata instead of infoboxes, and that infoboxes actually encourage entering incorrect/misleading data, which will not be helpful as metadata.
  • User:Cgilbert76 (somewhat active on contemporary composers, seems to be mainly active in adding and adjusting infoboxes and WPBIO templates) strongly disagrees that infoboxes are detrimental, gives examples of how they can be adjusted, and mentions their utility in quickly informing the uninitiated.
  • User:Carcharoth (not active with composers(?) but with other older bios, and with Persondata) mentions that Google is experimenting with parsing infoboxes, but mentions that really persondata should be used for this. Opposes badly-done infoboxes, but thinks they can be improved.
  • User:Turangalila (active in composers) makes an impassioned plea for infoboxes. Mentions that perhaps they grate on the knowledgeable, but are very helpful for the uninitiated. Notes that while they may in some way be redundant to the lede, they serve a different purpose. (Note, User:Danny made a similar good point on IRC (zomg, cabal) that infoboxes can be useful for people who have a different learning style). Also notes (rightly, I think) that some ledes are also pretty bad and confusing. In the end run, this editor seems to believe that they could live without composer infoboxes, but the best solution is to create a new and better composer infobox.
  • User:Emerson7 (active in WP:WPBIO template adding, some acitivity with contemporary classical musicians) erm... accuses everyone of elitism? I don't see another argument here, but feel free to correct me.
  • User:Pizza1512 (seemingly active AWB'er, don't see real activity on composers except template cleanup) wants infoboxes on seemingly aesthetic grounds, thinks they make articles look more "professional", wants there to be uniformity with other biography articles.
  • Myke Cuthbert (active in composer biographies) thinks they should not be used in composer articles.

So, let's be annoying and vote-y. 15 think either there should not be infoboxes, or if there must be it should be a different format. Of those 2 are not active in editing composer bios. 5 think they should probably be used. Of those five, 3 are not active in editing composer bios. (So, 13-2) To me, this is pretty clear consensus not to use infoboxes on classical composer articles. I not that those people who think that infoboxes should be used are more active either on non-composer articles, or articles on contemporary classical musicians. I think this may be part of the disconnect, because it is much more difficult to box people about whom we don't know as much with certianty, and where there may be more than one "right answer". Mak (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Afterthoughts, congratulations, and recriminations

I suggest you read WP:Consensus; and that you stop raising red herrings. Anyone may comment, regardless of which articles they do or do not edit. Persondata is not available to parsers other than those accessing raw wikicode, from database dumps so you suggestion is unhelpful. Andy Mabbett 18:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what articles people edit is very relevant to this discussion. This is trying to find consensus for one specific content area of Wikipedia. I have tried to gain consensus on individual articles, where all the vested contributors seem to agree with not having an infobox, only to have a mass-tagger come through, throw a wrench in the works, and claim that there must be a higher-order consensus on the WikiProject level. Now, when those who are actually involved in editing the articles concerned agree that for this specific content area infoboxes are inappropriate, or at least infoboxes in their current form are inappropriate, I think that should be respected. Otherwise what's the point of having a WikiProject consensus and specific area working groups? I don't pretend to know what the best style is for Science articles, and so I don't try to dictate their style to them, and I don't go off telling them not to use infoboxes where they find them useful. I think the same respect for knowing what is useful in a particular area and what is not should be afforded this WikiProject. Mak (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Your edit summary was "consensus for WikiProject composers should be determined by those with and interest in (shock) composers": if you wish to re-write fundamental WP policies to enshrine that view, then this isn't the place to do it. When you've achieved consensus for that change, do please let us know here. Meanwhile, please also read WP:OWN and don't presume to talk about what interests you imagine that I or any other editor do or do not have. Andy Mabbett 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Makemi, thank you for taking the time to do this; I think you characterized the positions well. I agree with you that it represents consensus, among project members--people who write articles on composers. The encyclopedia will be better without these infoboxes, boxes which, as currently employed, actually present misinfo. Antandrus (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If somebody reads Wikipedia and reads nothing but the infoboxes, well, then I think it's better that he or she at least has read something about the person. That would still be rather funny, however. And there really is no way a box with the composer's name, portrait, birth date and other information that can be proven to be factual such as nationalities, could be harmful. Rather it serves as a good summary. Factual errors should be removed, of course, but still, there's a limit to which we can edit articles and make them factually accurate. I believe there are many cases in Wikipedia where a less detailed description is preferred instead of a more complex and correct one.--Wormsie 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Um...Wikipedia's entire reputation rests on its accuracy. If we abandon that in favour of brevity, we can forget about Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. Most of these infoboxes are either ill-suited or inaccurate - Shostakovitch a Romantic just like Weber? Because that's what one implied! Moreschi Talk 16:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Makemi for taking the time to go through this long discussion and summarizing the debate with such equanimity. I hope that all of us will respect the position we have finally arrived at - and now get back to the job of building WP. Best regards to all. --Kleinzach 01:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We haven't finally arrived at anything. Discussion is ongoing. Please stop pretending otherwise, Andy Mabbett 05:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
So when is this discussion over? Nobody supporting infoboxes has dealt with the essential problem that they violate the basic WP policy: factual accuracy. All we've had are attempts to dismiss accuracy concerns as some kind of elitism or snobbery (apparently it doesn't matter about the quality of the information, what matters is that it's in a box; or so we're told by editors with a hotline to the Hypothetical General Reader). I'm sorry, but trying to change another policy in your favour [1] won't resolve this fundamental flaw. --Folantin 07:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Kindly refrain from making false accusations. Andy Mabbett 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and keep it civil. Cheers. --Folantin 07:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You may be acting in good faith; that doesn't make your accusations any less false, and pointing out their falsehood is not uncivil. Making false accusaitions is uncivil. Andy Mabbett 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't made any false accusations so this is a red herring. Please let's drop this and stick to the point. --Folantin 10:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You have falsely alleged that I am "trying to change another policy in [my] favour". Andy Mabbett 10:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't quite certain what you were referring to. I don't think it was an entirely unreasonable remark to make in the circumstances, but fair enough. I will gladly withdraw it in the interests of civility. --Folantin 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested procedure for finding a workable policy on infoboxes

I see this problem as being essentially as follows :

1. People who work within the Wikipedia composers project are against the use of infoboxes

2. People who are outside of the Wikipedia composers project are for infoboxes

3. The Wikipedia composers project is part of Wikipedia.

Therefore, the solution appears to be finding a solution for the problem which is acceptable for Wikipedia, not just for the Wikipedia composers project.

It would seem to me that discussions here are not going to create a solution. Where does one go to create a discussion which would a sitewide convention for infoboxes?

You can certainly claim consensus here. However, I rather doubt that you're going to be able enforce it on a site-wide basis. Better to find a compromise on a larger scale which is acceptable here. Gretab 20:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about enforcing anything on a site-wide basis. You're scenario doesn't connect with reality. It's a logical fallacy. This is about removing inaccurate information from a relatively small set of articles - nothing to do with site-wide affairs! No larger consensus is needed. Moreschi Talk 10:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So then, would you say that the project-wide decision to abolish spoiler warnings at both WP:Opera (which many here are a part of) and the Final Fantasy Wikiproject -- which is much more "pop culture" and recent -- should be abolished as well? How about the various naming conventions some projects have taken to? The whole very reason for projects is to help create a general focus on articles. If you say "there needs to be a sitewide consensus" for everything, NOTHING would ever get done. As long as policy isn't broken -- and there's no policy on infoboxes -- then a projectwide consensus is fine, and isn't in any way a violation of WP:OWN than it is on each individual article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think those of us who are against infoboxes for composers have made it quite clear we aren't necessarily against every single infobox ever designed. Some of them are potentially useful (e.g. biological taxonomy), others are ridiculous and harmful (the Project:Novels one is particularly bad). I see no reason to decide these matters on a site-wide basis. Leave it to those who know whether the boxes work for a particular subject. There's no need for homogeneity. We've established that these composer infoboxes violate fundamental WP principles and damage factual accuracy. That should be enough. --Folantin 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedia does have homgeneity in terms of how subjects are presented. Regardless of what policy this small project decides, it will be impossible to enforce on a sitewide basis and will be challenged at some point by people outside of the project. Better to solve the problem before it happens. How could infoboxes become acceptable for composers? What would be in an acceptable infobox? That's the question which needs to be answered, since infoboxes appear to be the site's way of treating these kinds of articles. Gretab 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't have a universal infobox. We have no policy saying we must have infoboxes. Even their defenders admit they are redundant. We do however have universal policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV which these composer boxes have violated. These policies amount to a general, site-wide consensus. The primary aim of an encyclopaedia is accuracy, not homogeneity. Human beings don't fit into neat little packages so neither do their biographies. --Folantin 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are still conflating two issues; doing so is unproductive. Kindly desist. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What two issues? Policy on accuracy isn't something you can ignore. As far as I can see, you haven't made the slightest attempt to address this fundamental problem. You seem more concerned with how convenient it is to package and process the data rather than whether it is false or true if this is anything to judge by [2] --Folantin 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"What two issues?": The issue of whether infoboxes are useful; and the issue of the factual inaccuracy apparently brought about by the misapplication of a previous template. Your insinuations about my input and interests are bogus, though I'm flattered by your apparent interest in researching my previous comments. Andy Mabbett 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought those two issues were intimately linked. How can a factually inaccurate infobox be useful in any way? I didn't need to do much research to find those statements of yours; they are linked by another user further up the page. The link shows you declaring your interest in putting infoboxes on all biographical articles simply to make data-processing easier for you. I can't see any other reason why you are pressing the issue so strongly here, because you've shown no previous interest in composer articles. --Folantin 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"I thought those two issues were intimately linked": Then perhaps that mistake is the root of the problem.
"How can a factually inaccurate infobox be useful in any way?" Nobody is asking for the inclusion of "factually inaccurate" infoboxes. You're still conflating two separate issues; and it's still unhelpful for you to do so. Andy Mabbett 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Your unfounded assumptions, false assertions and lack of knowledge about my interests and motives constitute an unacceptable breach of WP:AGF. Kindly desist. Andy Mabbett 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Here I'm not so certain that I've misinterpreted you. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be), but your only arguments on this page appear to be related to technical data-processing issues and your points have been answered by Antandrus. I don't think it's unacceptable to link to your comments on this issue elsewhere (and I'm not the first on this page to do so). I'll leave other readers to judge their relevance to this debate, but I found they cast an interesting light on matters here. --Folantin 11:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be)". You are. Andy Mabbett 11:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, then please point out your other arguments clearly then we can have a debate about them below. Thanks. --Folantin 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"Where does one go to create a discussion which would a sitewide convention for infoboxes?": WP:VP and/ or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Andy Mabbett 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
How would people feel about having the consensus here validated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes? Wouldn't that give this decision more weight and make it easier to enforce? Gretab 07:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't need the consensus validated by the Infobox Project. They have no authority over anyone else. Their project has precisely eleven members, far fewer than the participants in this project and fewer even than the participants in this discussion. They also have an obvious bias towards infoboxes so contacting them to take place in this debate would be in violation of WP:CANVASS. We don't need to shift the goalposts any further. --Folantin 08:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, then perhaps a request for comment would be in order, in order to gauge a more general consensus? Gretab 09:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Why? If information is misleading, it's removed. What's wrong with that? We don't need an RFC to decide that. Many of these infoboxes have been misleading. Nobody's trying to impose this on anyone else: it's just that for composers infoboxes are redundant and useless, and misleading. Moreschi Talk 09:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea that we must have a site-wide consensus for a stylistic choice on a small number of articles which most Wikipedians don't give a flying fuck about seems ridiculous to me. I wanted to remove the infoboxes from one or two articles I was actively working on... people protested that there wasn't a larger consensus for composers not to have infoboxes, so I couldn't make an editorial choice on a /single/ article. Now there is clear consensus from people interested in composer articles to make a STYLISTIC CHOICE which helps us in following core Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view and accuracy, and outside people are trying to block it? This is just ridiculous. Just ridiculous. I shouldn't need to get consensus from all of Wikipedia to make a few articles better. This is not dictating anything to the rest of the encyclopedia, and I don't understand why it seems that people are so threatened at the thought of not having infoboxes. I will be removing infoboxes on composer articles where they seem detrimental. I encourage others to do the same. This is not WP:OWNing or any other annoying TLA, it's making editorial stylistic choices, just like every other editor or group of editors does. Mak (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but could you please tone down your language a bit. I do see your point, but perhaps the profanity is not necessary? Gretab 07:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Gretab, the discussion is over. You are a guest here. We have assumed good faith and sincerity on your part. We were grateful for your ideas. We believed you were not a troll who had come here intent on stirring up discord. Makemi expressed herself as clearly as she could, so that you would understand her point of view. If her language was too colourful for you, then perhaps the big, emotional world of serious music is not the right place for you. It's sad because I see it was Makemi who first welcomed you to Wikipedia, offering to be your friend on WP. One other thing, changing section headers to try to give the impression that your so-called "Suggested procedure" has some measure of support is disingenuous. Please leave section headings to us. --Kleinzach 10:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me. I was simply trying to add an outside view to try to resolve this conflect. It appears that you feel that you have resolved this, so I will stop making suggestions. Gretab 10:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Discussion is not over; you have no right to declare it so. Your suggestion that another editor is "a guest here" is outrageous; as is your "us" comment. Please read WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett 10:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Meaningful discussion probably is. Where the boxes are useless, they will be removed. Moreschi Talk 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, that comment by Kleinzach is going a bit far, but this business of infoboxes does not require more suggestions that just don't help. Moreschi Talk 10:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Andy, you are the only person here who seems to think the discussion is not over, except some poor kid who's trying to mediate and getting caught in the middle. I can't but think that the only reason you insist that the discussion is not over is that it has failed to go your way. I refuse to let one stubborn editor stand in the way of consensus. Consensus does /not/ mean 100% agreement. For flailing so much about how the discussion is still ongoing, I see very little productive discussion going on here, including by you, Andy. Looking at the discussion on the persondata field, it looks like you disapprove of persondata because it isn't as easy to use as infoboxes, or isn't as easy to use yet as infoboxes. People note that some editors don't like infoboxes, which makes them a bad solution, and also they are often wrong since people fill in the fields wrong. I personally don't think metadata should be so easily messed with as infoboxes are. There's little reason that once a knowledgeable person has entered metadata that others should need to edit it. Basically, I have said for a very long time both on and off-wiki, infoboxes are a bad solution to article metadata. But, you see, that shouldn't be the issue here. If it is, I propose that you take that axe somewhere else to grind it. Maybe once I start library school in the fall I'll join the fray of a better metadata format. Infoboxes should not be mandatory because one editor thinks they are the solution to metadata issues. And consensus on editorial practices in one specific area should not be blocked by one vocal opponent. Mak (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comment is a litany of misapprehensions, misrepresentations of my views, straw men and red herrings, so I'll not bother to deal with it point by point. But thanks for acknowledging that discussion continues. Andy Mabbett 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Makemi said that either. Discussion here is finished apart from you continuing to...do what? What exactly are you trying to accomplish? If you told us that, perhaps we could work towards some kind of compromise. I mean, look at this. His Associated Act was the Pittsburg Symphony? What the hell? Since when was that meaningful terminology for a composer? Yet that's the sort of confusion, mayhem, and disorderly mistakes that these copy-and-paste boxes have caused. Moreschi Talk 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This has now been raised at ANI. [3]

Eusebeus 14:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good morning (I'm on a different timezone here). I have written to Gretab directly to say that my comment (above) about her being a "guest" was clearly inappropriate and I've withdrawn it. I had intended to avoid involvement in the end of the discussion. I should have. I see Gretab has just contributed a fine article about an Offenbach work and I am looking forward to reading her future contributions. I wish her well. --Kleinzach 00:37, 1 May 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: Image:PentMajor.mid and Image:PentMinor.mid. 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)

Ah, you probably want {{Listen}} or {{Audio}}, which is better for inline examples. Or you could use {{multi-listen start}} etc. The Listen template gives an in-browser link, which is nice for people who don't want to install new software, etc. Mak (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I do indeed - many thanks for that. --Stephen Burnett 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. the {{listen}} page says it's only for .ogg samples; & actually says .mid files can't be uploaded, but Stephen obviously uploaded his just the other day...I can't even play .ogg's due to my old software not being supported (poverty sucks). The {{audio}} .mid samples at Pentatonic scale work fine for me, but they open in a new page. In-browser / same window play would be better, esp. where the sample accompanies a visual musical example. Is that possible w/ .mid's? I think I've seen it done off-wiki somewhere. (so far I've just made external links to sites w/ audio samles, but for future reference...) —Turangalila talk 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I uploaded a midi file and it worked - but why it worked is a mystery to me. I agree - playing in the same window would be better. What seems to happen is that clicking on the midi file opens up whatever app you have registered to play midi files; in my case it's QuickTime, which seems to require a window to itself. It will need someone with a better understanding of how the Wiki/browser combination handles such things than I have to resolve it.--Stephen Burnett 08:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's something that needs to be worked on by someone with programming experience, like User:Gmaxwell. For a long time we had no in-browser support for .ogg, so I think we're doing pretty well! I think Greg (gmaxwell) is working on same-screen video and audio support, he just had me testing some examples. He's been working on getting the .ogg video working lately, so I think maybe we should cut him a little slack that it's not yet totally optimal :) But I would encourage you to go to his talk page and let him know what would be useful to you (nicely, of course). Cheers, Mak (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)