Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

A new perspective[edit]

Infoboxes are a contentious issue for many WikiProjects for the articles that lie under their banner: some projects strongly reject their use while others strongly encourage their use. To what extent can WikiProjects expect non-members to follow the former's preference regarding these? Can Infoboxes be removed/added en bloc by WikiProjects from/to articles that come under their banner? The debate pertains particularly to the removal of infoboxes from articles on classical musicians but has far wider implications. Hence the need to fully resolve this issue once and for all. Thanks 20:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have thought long and hard about this now and have attempted to be as fair as possible to both sides of the debate. As requested by Happy-Melon, I will now present a case without reference to past discussion setting out the pros and cons of placing infoboxes on biographies of classical musicians.

The pros:

  • Infoboxes can be useful graphics that quickly summarise the basic biographical information found in an article.
  • Infoboxes can aid less literate people with their personal research.
  • Infoboxes are standardised and thus can be an aid to consistency among groups of articles.

The cons:

  • Infoboxes tend to state no more than the information found in a properly written lead and thus become redundant.
  • Infoboxes are difficult to customise sensibly or create informatively for classical musicians.
  • Infoboxes tend to be misunderstood and open to the addition of vague or misleading information; more so than the body of text itself because of the leading questions implied by the fields.
  • Infoboxes can encourage the upload of images that may be neither in the public domain nor comply with fair use policy due to the “Image/Img’’ field.

Other factors to consider:

  • Wikipedia’s articles are not owned by editors or groups of editors.
  • Wikipedia is a collaborative project: all editing needs to be done according to consensus.
  • Wikipedia has policies: anything that violates these policies should either be refactored or removed immediately.
  • Wikipedia has general guidelines: editing should conform to these general principles.
  • Wikipedia has specific advice agreed upon by consensus, most often at Wiki-Projects: editing should also normally conform to this advice. This advice often becomes implemented as a Wikipedia-wide guideline.
  • Wikipedia has Wiki-Projects devoted to specific groups of articles: the editors involved in these projects often come to consensus among themselves regarding the best approach to the articles under their care; such consensus should be given due weight.
  • Infoboxes are neither obligatory nor forbidden: the addition as well as the removal of such items needs consensus; often such consensus has been reached with regard to entire groups of articles to which any one particular article may belong.
  • No other encyclopaedia in the world—unless designed specifically for children and the less literate—insists upon Infoboxes for each and every article; rather a small selection of articles are given Infoboxes if the addition proves to be useful.
  • The entire Infobox issue has split editors into opposing camps and has even seemed to alienate well-respected editors so much that they have left the project.

I hope the above is a fair assessment of the situation that other editors can now build further arguments around. I have probably missed a few items that others can supply. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 12:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of changes to proposed statement

I have factored out this statement: It is suspected—though not proven—that the Science projects (who also strongly objected to the use of Infoboxes) have fallen apart for this very reason. It was the last sentence of the last bulleted point. I have recently been made aware of this possibility but have been unable to verify it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes certainly states that the scientific community on WP have objected to biographical infoboxes; however, all the scientist articles I have checked to verify this contain infoboxes and none of the talk pages—nor even the various project talk pages—suggest any obvious objection to their inclusion. Any clarification of the biography project's statement on its subpage would be appreciated. (The statement about scientists was added in 2006 and musicians were added to it later.) Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tweaking (two instances of) one word in the description because of WikiJargon: the (often excellent) advice produced by individuals and groups of editors (WikiProjects) is not a WP:Guideline unless and until adopted by the whole community (at which point it quits being "their advice" and starts being "our guideline"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweeked it further to reflect your further observations. Perhaps you could have asked me (as nom, essentially) to reword? I agree with the changes though and see the subtle distinction that needs to be made. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that 'often' is entirely accurate, because I'm not sure that WikiProjects very often bother to propose them. But I think that's fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... that is a good point actually! I'll leave as is though, unless others object. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've got a good summary of the arguments for, against, and otherwise; now we need a question. What exactly do we want editors to help us decide?
Ideally, the question will be concise and neutral. If you put the question at the top (immediately after the Rfctag template) and a ~~~~~ (five tilde) timestamp at the end of it, then the bot won't transfer the entire long list of arguments to the RfC pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I forgot about that: will do. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I should probably stand back now: agreed? I have a ton of other stuff I should be doing any way. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary discussions[edit]

The collapsed section immeadiately above was originally part of these discussions. Now that the issues therein are dealt with, it is felt that they should be collapsed to aid accessibility. Two further comments have been completely removed by their respective authors. They suggested archiving the entire discussion above (including Previous extended discussion on infoboxes, now also collapsed) and forgetting the whole thing. The second of these comments was made by me Finally, a humourous tangent has been hidden by wikimarkup after consent from all the participants in that tangent. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This change of heart is a great shame, because what you've written above is the clearest and most constructive summary of the position for the past two years at least. This is what you should seek comments on, not years of past discussion. I've moved the RfC tag down; I'll go update the links you posted to WT:BIOG (did you post anywhere else?). Any comments here reflect the current situation, not that of years gone by. Happy‑melon 16:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to check back but I think that only RfC (by bot obviously) WPBio and ANI were informed. The last isn't that relevent, I suspect. Plenty other people to involve though, I guess. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WT:COUNCIL: I forgot about that. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's move on... Any fresh responses to the above? Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, like you said, we should just archive it, so no one else can add their input and not even let people see this happened should they come late. Also, any mention of this again who be dealt with with a ban for daring to even think about bringing this issue up. After all, composer articles are owned by the people who contribute here and they have the only say. Anything else is a horrible crime that must be dealt with. 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Any more constructive comments on the above? Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, this is now in the pro-infoboxers' court. If they can come up with an acceptable, minimal, "foolproof", non-compulsory box which can be applied to (some) composer bios, all well and good. In the mean time I will continue to remove any infobox on any article which violates policy or is plain absurd. This doesn't just apply to composer bios. --Folantin (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely the correct thing to do. WP:Disinfoboxes and policy-violating boxes are to be removed post-haste, IMO. Where ever they are to be found. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's the real problem here - apart from the fact that some people seem to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man over non-important issues all the time? Infoboxes can be useful or just clutter upp an article. It's a matter of taste. They're not mandatory. How about someone desgning a template with a button you can press to make the infobox visible if you want it? -Duribald (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An off switch would be great actually! --Jubilee♫clipman 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Humourous comments hidden to help discussion flow
My suggestion was quite serious - an off/on button would be great. -Duribald (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry: yes, that would be good. Basically, we get the "hide" feature implemented as standard. I like it: very practical and eminently doable. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Hidden content" exasperates just as many people as infoboxes do. The main objections are on grounds of accessibility, and having another completely-subjective thing to argue about (whether the default state should be hidden or unhidden), and pagelayout (should images and such be ordered such that the page layout is optimal with the infobox hidden or unhidden). Footer navboxes are good to have hidden (when in groups of 3 or more), but sidebars should not be hidden. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... I see your point... --Jubilee♫clipman 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that it's too late to seek truce. Once upon a time a small group turned what seemed a formatting issue into a crusade against the rest of the world. Good, you can have it your way, if you prefer to be untouchables - so be it. No truce, no trust, seal the border, man your stations. Just don't step out of your closely guarded den. NVO (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged selective canvassing of this discussion

Groups of editors closely associated with infoboxes (and obviously in favour of them) have been selectively canvassed by Happy-melon and others, as follows:

The only neutral body notified (as far as I can tell) has been the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, see here (User: Jubileeclipman). No anti-infobox groups (such as Opera etc.) have been contacted.

To make this matter absolutely clear, let me quote:

Wikipedia:Canvassing 1. Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive. . . .2. Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion . . . and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. 3. Inappropriate canvassing is generally considered to be disruptive. . . .

This is clearly applicable here. IMO it's impossible to hold a good faith discussion under these conditions. --Kleinzach 03:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Kleinzach: most of the editors over at Opera and CM are perfectly aware of this discussion as most of them either frequent here or frequently converse with you. I expected you to inform them all actually... I informed the Biography project simply because they have a right to know and a right to comment. (Last I looked all of our composers and musicians are non-fictional human beings and are therefore bannered by the Biography project.) I will inform WP:Chemistry if you like? They had a brief distain for these boxes. Not sure they'd care much either way however in the case of classical musicians... My actions are perfectly open and above board beyond those discussion I have had with Buzz and, indeed, you via email. I can post all of those discussion in userspace if you wish? Please refrain from assuming bad faith and let the community decide. I might remind you that I am the coordinator of WP:CTM and I did inform them. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Also note that I do not canvass myself either. --Kleinzach 05:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? I mean, it's fine to inform the other classical music projects, but not the infobox ones? You really think that? Especially since the messages were completely neutral, and thus emphatically NOT canvassing. I'm sorry, but I will never, ever assume good faith from you again, Kleinzach. You have consistently shown to think that no matter what, you think only people who agree with you have any right to their opinions. I cannot fathom how someone can be so full of himself as you are, but this...I'm sorry. I just can't even get the words out. I don't care if this is seen as a personal attack but this is just...well...I hope at least a couple others see this the same. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could take Kleinzach's defamation of my character as a personal attack but will let it pass. Melodia is correct: all parties need to be involved. And all the messages were indeed entirely neutral (aside from that posted to Opera but we'll let Folantin off that one, I think, under the circumstances). The CM projects patently knew already as the most vocal of them have commented above already aside from Antandrus and Opus33. I would be interested to hear from Deskford, Peter cohen and Jerome Kohl among others but I would also like to hear from the members of the biography project (I have been a member of WP:BIOG almost from my first day on WP, BTW, though I haven't been much active in the discussions over there. Composers are people, however, so my work here counts as work there, too.) BTW, this is an RfC: it doesn't get much more open than that beyond... well I refrain from answering further. Kleinzach has shown his complete distain for this process: he has not even bothered answering the arguments presented above! That might have been a better start my friend... --Jubilee♫clipman 05:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kleinzach, if you really think that three editors independently notifying four pages of a relevant discussion is improper canvassing, then I encourage you to take your complaint to ANI so that you can learn more about how WP:CANVAS is interpreted. In the meantime, this sort of whinging about the 'wrong' editors hearing about a discussion is something that I only expect to hear from someone who was fully aware that his personal preference was at odds with a community-wide consensus. If you don't want to inadvertantly signal "I know that my view is anti-consensus" to every editor who sees this page, then perhaps you'd like to hide this thread, or at least move it out of the RfC thread. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never reply to ad hominem attacks. --Kleinzach 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, WhatamIdoing and I should not have answered you... perhaps we should add the {{collapse}} templates to this and move on? BTW, why did you make this point elsewhere? This is the place to discuss this RfC not the Request comments and guidence on an RfC section posted in a completely different place. --Jubilee♫clipman 06:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Infobox by definition has a certain way of looking at this matter. You could contact some of Wikipedia's most distinguished editors who have expressed a strong dislike for infoboxes such as Wetman, Giacomo Returned (AKA Giano), Geogre (although he's not around any more) et al. - plus I think the architecture project has never been wild about the boxen - but I think everybody's bored to tears with the issue by now. --Folantin (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who oppose (dis)infobox creep can be reasonably expected to keep an eye on the page that is most likely to be misused to promote them. If WP:Disinfoboxes describes your view, then it would be silly to allow, through your own negligence in not watching the page, some inexperienced or underinformed editor to change WP:Infoboxes to require them for all articles. Contacting individual editors because you know their opinion matches yours, however, probably would be an example of improper WP:CANVASsing.
Jubilee, I strongly support collapsing the previous discussion, and support collapsing this discussion: it will not be useful to any outside editors, and a long tangent might make them give up without leaving a comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above collapsed to help editors focus on the Request for Comment itself. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the discussion[edit]

Further comments on the arguments set forth above at the head of this RfC are welcomed. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 04:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the closing statement from the last TfD of {{Infobox classical composer}}, I heartily agree with the recommendation therein, to re-evaluate the potential for a custom infobox, something that everyone can live with, something to contain the concise list of keywords that infoboxes represent. I think one of the best tangential efforts to this discussion, would be the creation of a modern {{Infobox classical composer/draft}}, that people could discuss the potential-specifics of. I'll participate in any efforts to do so tomorrow :)
The only alternative seems to be a future of cyclical-argument, and the use of very-imperfect infoboxes such as at Robert Nathaniel Dett and Terry Riley. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Quiddity. Are you, then, able to create boxes? I tried but got frustrated with all the weird transclutions that seem to be caused by hidden code somewhere in {{Infobox Musical artist}}. I tried modifying an older attempt but that wasn't that great, either, and very hard to get my head around. You can seen the result of that on my talk page. (The user page was speedied when I got sick of doing it!) And yes those boxes on Dett and Riley are not ideal... Nor is the one on Enrique Granados placed in 2008, removed by Kleinzach recently but later replaced by Buzz. There have actually been several edit wars recently between Kleinzach (talk · contribs) and Buzzzsherman (talk · contribs) which is how this whole thing, in fact, started. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer two thoughts about infoboxes:

  • First, the question we should be considering is not whether we, the editors, like infoboxes, but whether our readers like them. If a lot of readers find them useful, we should certainly include them; on the other hand, if readers simply skip over them, the arguments for them are much less compelling.
I searched the web for survey information on infoboxes and found nothing. There is a lot of research about the presentation of structured information and learning, but I don't think it's terribly germaine to the question at hand.
We editors tend to be very editor-centric about the Wikipedia, and not nearly enough reader-centric.

The inclusion of infoboxes would make it possible to ask queries like: show me all the articles on artists (composers, poets, painters) who lived in Leipzig between the years 1820 and 1840.

--Ravpapa (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is the best point yet: we need to think of the readers not the editors! --Jubilee♫clipman 06:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, the hypothetical "general reader" is always of the same opinion as the commenter. He's no more than a "Maxi-me", good for a bit of rhetorical boosting. Getting back to the RfC, it's been quite obvious for days that the only way this debate is likely to progress is if someone comes up with an experimental, "compromise" infobox. Those vociferously in favour of a box have been strangely reluctant to create one. This may be because it's technically impossible for the average mortal. "Wikipedia: the encyclopaedia anyone can edit...if they have a degree in Computer Science". --Folantin (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose we did have an infobox. What would be put in it? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, 'As I've said above, a minimal, reasonably "foolproof" infobox would contain the following parameters: "Famous as" rather than "Occupation"; "Born", with an alternative (and I mean alternative) for "Baptised"; "Died"; and "Floruit" as an alternative (and I mean alternative) for "Born/Died". Everything else is likely to be problematic'.--Folantin (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page contains an attempt worked on by me and Buzzzsherman. It is a little (!) over the top and needs serious pruning back. However the essential idea is there: It is specifically for classical musicians ("composer" can be replaced by "instrumentalist", "conductor", "singer" etc. The design hails from 2007 and the original attempt can be found at User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer.) We now have two editors willing to help out design a sensible Infobox we can all live with. BTW, I just don't care any more: if there is a box on an article, there is a box on the article; if there is no box on an article, there is no box on the article. I will neither add nor remove (unless the box is blatantly ridiculous or violates policy) from now on: each time I remove any box, I will make my reasons clear on the article's talk page as per normal practice all over en:WP. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having two editors in three years interested in customizing an infobox. As you've seen this topic comes up with some regularity. I guess people come to expect a box around the photo in the upper left of an article and want to do something about it. I've gone on formatting/style kicks myself with regards to categories and navigation templates. But, as you've seen, by the time a "sensible infobox we can all live with" is created there isn't much left other than birth/baptism-date and deathdate. Most of the rest of the information does not warrant itself to bulletization. That means the box doesn't add much except for the actual border-box itself. Then, the project loses steam until the discussions are archived and it comes up again.DavidRF (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If all it does is sit there doing very little at all, then by definition it is entirely harmless and ignorable. I don't see a problem with that. The discussion will never, ever come up again if this RfC is conducted in a seemly manner and the conclusions drawn up at the end are per the consensus from the whole of Wikipedia (as they are very much beginning to be, now). That's the whole point: that is precisely why this is happening. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, create an Infobox Composer template, put *nothing* in it except the box and the name-header and then add it to hundreds of articles? That's a bit on the absurd side. What's your motivation for continuing this discussion? I'm worried most of the regulars have tuned this discussion out already. I understand you are looking to compromise, but its hard to compromise a yes/no question.DavidRF (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No: create a sensible template, put whatever is needed into it, and place it where ever it seems to fit (which actually might be nowhere at all, note). The present {{Infobox Musical artist}} is clearly of no use at all to us—indeed the lead now precludes its usage on classical musician articles. In fact, it appears that two editors are actually looking into the possibilities as we speak: see above and User talk:Happy-melon#infobox usercopy. My motivations for continuing this are to conclude it once and for all so it doesn't come back over and over and over and over and over and over again (as the title of this whole sorry affair obviously declares, to the whole of Wikipedia (if they care to look), has indeed happened). If the others have turned their backs on this, they will lose. Full stop. They need to get involved now and voice their opinions once and for all and nevermore again. Note that practically all the editors that have actually commented above on the RfC (rather than on side issues) are in favour of some compromise involving a bespoke infobox. We don't have to use it but these things are optional anyway. I think that point needs to be voiced rather more loudly, actually. Some people seem to be forcing the things down our throats: that, too, should be investigated. What right have they to do that. (Unless, of course, they have clear guidelines published on their project pages that were drawn up following consensus among their group of editors, perhaps... but no that would be absurd wouldn't it?) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike "boxing" of creative art in general (s. Toshio Hosokawa boxed "Neo-Impressionism") and dislike redundancy as a cause of likely mistakes, so would vote on both reasons against required info-boxes - but don't oppose voluntary ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are actually neither obligatory nor forbidden by WP guidelines and policies (those that have actually been taken up by the whole community, that is). I think that should be made far clearer. I might suggest that the guidelines are clarified on this point over at the relevent talkpages etc later in the week. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A /person/ is not 'creative art'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is also true: we need to encourage the use of an appropriate box if people insist on using them. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I need to take a short wikibreak: I have some real life stuff to attend to and this RfC has started to take its toll... I'll be back in a few days but will still watch this "from afar". --Jubilee♫clipman 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty fatigued with infobox discussions and indeed I wish that infoboxes had never been invented. To review, the two big problems are: (a) they induce poor article organization, since they result in trivia being placed in a visually very prominent location. By the same token, they divert attention from the lead paragraph, which ideally has been carefully written to tell the reader exactly what is important about the topic. (b) Infoboxes attract drive-by edits from editors who don't know the field (haven't read any reference sources), and thus greatly increase the probability that the encyclopedia will include inaccurate or misleading statements. I wish infoboxes could be removed wholesale from WP and regret that this is only done in areas (science, classical music) where the editors are unusually well-informed about their topic. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I wish that infoboxes had never been invented". I agree wholeheartedly. They also create never-ending disputes on talk pages for articles on anything remotely controversial because people keep trying to drive round pegs into square holes (see Talk:World War II archives for pages and pages of this nonsense: "Canada should be in there", "But Canada sucks!", "No, the USA sucks!", "France sucks!", "China sucks!" - and the arguments are still continuing right now [1]: "this has been a continuous matter of quarrel between users for many months"). I've got over a thousand pages on my watchlist and the articles that take the most maintenance are the ones with infoboxes because drive-by editors keep adding the same rubbish to them (naturally, anything involving nationality or ethnic origin is a nightmare). --Folantin (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this insight, Folantin. I would add that to the extent that infoboxes force knowledgeable editors to spend their WP time dealing with drive-by edits and talk page controversies, they are taking away time that could be spent on improving article quality. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are not mandatory, nor should they be deleted without good cause. In my opinion a concise lead covering all of the noteworthy infobox parameters probably constitutes good cause. A stub with no information other than what would be in the infobox probably constitutes good cause. Where in doubt, the first significant contributor should generally get their way. Regardless, edit warring over them should lead to a block. WFCforLife (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further answers and suggestions[edit]

Here are my answers to the two questions that were asked:

  1. WikiProjects cannot require non-members to follow their preferences regarding infoboxes, or anything else, especially when that preference is markedly different from the general community consensus. WikiProjects (groups of editors) have exactly the same authority as non-members (co-equal editors).
  2. Mindlessness is evil: Infoboxes should not be removed -- or spammed -- automatically or en masse by anyone. Decisions should be made individually, based on the needs and benefits of the specific template at the specific article.

Additionally, here's my answer to the question that wasn't asked:

The anti-infobox editors need to revise their published advice and their uncollegial behavioral practices to present a non-authoritarian (but still strong) argument for their general advice against (dis)infoboxes and to show respect for the non-members' and member-dissenters' views. I suggest, as one step in the right direction, changing their advice page from what some members seem to interpret as "We hereby forbid infoboxes" to a logical explanation, perhaps with a suitably revised version of the pros and cons as listed above by Jubilee. Additionally, whenever a (dis)infobox is added to an article, we are ultimately all best served by using the talk page rather than the undo button: in addition to being a less WP:OWNer-y, less WP:BITEy, more cooperative behavior, an educational conversation with an 'infobox spammer' could ultimately benefit the entire encyclopedia by helping more editors learn about the advantages and disadvantages of these templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since, effectively, I am only taking a "semi-wikibreak" (as it were), I feel I ought to respond that.
  1. I can revise the published advice myself, since I am a member of this WikiProject. It does actually need to be done post haste, given that, at present, it clearly contravenes the overarching policies and guidelines accepted by Wikipedia and implemented by consent, through the proper channels, as general WP policies and guidelines.
  2. Talking rather than deleting/reverting/deleting/adding/reverting/adding/reverting/adding/etc (3RR?) is obviously the correct proceedure.
I will take a hard look at all the evidence presented above and consider how best to rewrite the guidelines. I will then propose the rewrite to the WikiProject and, with their consent, implement the changes. The RfC should perhaps run for a while longer, though, to allow a few other editors to comment (both CM-related-project members and non-members). I might note that, now that Kleinzach has left, the major editors at WP:CTM take an open-minded view on infoboxes. I can write CTM's guidelines any time: "CTM takes no stand on whether an infobox is included in or excluded from any biographical article. All we ask is that an appropriate box is chosen and that no Wikipedia Policies are violated. On rare occasions it my be necessary to remove a biographical infobox: if our members do this they will explain why on the article's talk page, full discussion on individual articles being key."
--Jubilee♫clipman 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my replies to WFCforLife, above below, for a suggested way out of this man-trap. I could actually add a proposal to rewrite the published advice, now. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The following comments were originally made in response to WFCforLife. I moved them here because they effectively state the precise objections of this WikiProject to infoboxes when taken together. The comments highlighted here could easily serve as a starting point for redrafting the project's published advice.
Comment - ...a concise lead covering all of the noteworthy infobox parameters probably constitutes good cause. A stub with no information other than what would be in the infobox probably constitutes good cause. Where in doubt, the first significant contributor should generally get their way. Regardless, edit warring over them should lead to a block.
A paraphrase of those words should be in the new advice published by this and similar WikiProjects. They explain concisely and effectively—and quite magnificently—the precise position of these projects, as far as I can tell from the comments posted above. Thank you WFCforLife
Addendum - Add to that Opus33's comment, (a) they induce poor article organization, since they result in trivia being placed in a visually very prominent location. By the same token, they divert attention from the lead paragraph, which ideally has been carefully written to tell the reader exactly what is important about the topic. (b) Infoboxes attract drive-by edits from editors who don't know the field (haven't read any reference sources), and thus greatly increase the probability that the encyclopedia will include inaccurate or misleading statements, and we are practically there. Why, oh, why didn't the projects simply explain it all clearly in the first place? (Instead of saying "look at these hundreds of Terabytes of discussion", I mean.)
Further to that - They also create never-ending disputes on talk pages for articles on anything remotely controversial because people keep trying to drive round pegs into square holes - Folantin's insightful comment should be added to the list also.
--Jubilee♫clipman 01:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're still arguing about something which doesn't exist. There is no Composer Infobox. As for projects laying down the law about infoboxes, these rules look pretty extensive to me. Is that allowable? (Although they don't seem to stop continuing problems [2]. But, hey, that's infoboxes for you). --Folantin (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a member of WikiProject Opera (but not this one or the Classical Music project, although the subject areas overlap) and have been watching this discussion for quite a while {{{{SIGH}}}}.
I'm inclined to agree with WhatamIdoing's comment that much of the problem stems from the way the guidance about infoboxes is worded on projects like this one where the majority of members find them counterproductive. This leads to cyclic disputes (usually arising from edit-warring on a particular article) which eventually descend into generalized name-calling and accusations of "ownership". This ultimately obscures the fact that many editors with expertise in the field and extensive experience in actually creating the content of these articles have good reasons for their views which may not be obvious to someone from outside the field.
This has nothing to do with "elitism" or "snobbery", although these terms often get thrown around when things get heated. It has to do with familiarity with the literature on the subject, its specialised vocabulary, and the general style used by key reference works. I have no idea what is appropriate or problematic for infoboxes on military commanders, baseball players, or philosophers and would trust the judgement of the editors working in those areas.
I would suggest rewriting the guidelines to briefly but clearly spell out the reasons why this project discourages the use of infoboxes and to offer a suggested version if there is a consenus (or strong feeling) for the addition of one to a particular article. Having said that, I feel rather strongly that:
  1. The various permutations of {{Infobox musical artist}} are completely inappropriate for use with classical singers, composers, and instrumentalists, particularly historical ones. They were designed for pop genres and in my opinion not very well for those either. I won't belabour my reasons but have outlined them in this discussion about the template's documentation
  2. If infoboxes are used in some classical music articles, they should be simplified versions of the plain person infoboxes with no possibility for fields which are anachronistic, unsuitable for the genre, subjective, or foster misleading over-simplifcation. Incidentally, you'll find similar views expressed by editors from the Children's Literature Project (the comments from User:Awadewit, an active Featured article contributor and reviewer, are particularly cogent) and the Visual Arts Project. See also the Visual Arts project guidelines.
OK, so a non-problematic infobox may seem like a glorified image caption, but at least it presents basic facts and won't mislead the reader or detract from the article. And if it can forestall these recurring, time-wasting and often ill-tempered debates, so be it. You can see some possibilities here. Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely see the pros for an infobox for 'classical' composers, and also many of the cons. User:Deskford says it very well here. Speaking as a reader and not as an editor, I find infoboxes extremely helpful since I am a chronic "skimmer" - and many times I go to an article just to get pertinent facts and getting this information from the infobox helps greatly. I like the idea of coming up with at least a simplified version such as what Voceditenore has created. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, in none of the cases shown in User:Voceditenore/Sandbox#Monkeying around... am I convinced I could take in the relevant information better by looking at the infobox than by simply reading a well-written lead sentence. The whole idea that infoboxes are "useful" seems quite dubious to me, and without objective proof I'm simply not going to believe it. When I want to tell somebody that I'd like them to pass me the salt, I say "could you pass me the salt please". I don't say: "request type: passing. requested object: salt. subject: you. target: me". We humans are genetically programmed to communicate with language. Syntactically coherent sentences. Not tabulated fragments of language. In the same way, if I want to communicate that "Marcello Guagliardo was born on 25 January 1963 and has been active as an opera tenor since 1986", then I won't say: "name: Marcello Guagliardo. born: 25 January 1963. Years active: 1986 – present. Occupation: Opera singer (tenor)". If our Lord had wanted us to communicate in tabulated data sheets, he wouldn't have given us an inborn capability of communicating through syntax. We humans speak in proper sentences because they are actually easier and faster to understand than anything else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't agree with you more! :-) But it could be useful to have something that's does "least harm" as a back-up if persuasion fails. I did the Giordani box to show an editor whose box I had removed. I explained why and pointed him/her a more suitable alternative, although in the end they decided not to add it. The others I had done during a discussion of this issue at the Classical Music project, but in the end nothing came of it. Another point I'd like to make is about the much vaunted "consistency" and "professional finish" these boxes are supposed to bring to Wikipedia. Infoboxes give only the illusion of consistency and "a professional finish" to what is more often than not a quite amateurish article. Real consistency and professionalism on Wikipedia is ensuring that every biographical article has a well-written lead paragraph which gives all the main information required, clearly and concisely. But frankly, a lot of editors find that too much work, especially if they don't know much about the subject, hence the lure of the bullet point. Voceditenore (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also completely agree with Future perfect. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, if we had a bespoke infobox for classical musicians and opera personnel, would it resolve the immediate issue of the misuse of certain other boxes such as Infobox Musical artist? Several editors are looking into that custom box as we speak, I understand.

Second, can we now move to a proposal for redrafting this project's guidelines? Several editors have made suggestions above, which I have listed, and other editors have added further insights recently.

Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get confused reading this thread. Most people appear to be against infoboxes yet there is this persistent push for redrafting guidelines. How many people here are actually pro-InfoBox? (as opposed to simply being open to creating a dummy info-box in hopes of making the issue go away). My feeling from reading this thread is that there is just a couple of strong-willed pro-Infobox editors trying to impose their will against a consensus by outlasting everyone else. If that's what is happening, then can we at least be honest about it?DavidRF (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my position: I have no preference at all. They are either there or they aren't there, but they should be relevent and add to the quality of an article if they are included.
The percieved problem is the apparant dogmaticism in the composers project's guidelines: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Guidelines. The link leads to a huge list of previous debates that people appear to be expected to wade through. A clear, concise, and frank explanation in the guidelines themselves would help curious/angry/bemused/etc editors to understand the project's position quickly and effectively. BTW, this might be the time to remind editors of the actual wording of the Policy on Consensus: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. Thus, just because a WikiProject says "no" or "yes" to something, it doesn't mean that everyone else should follow suit: all other editors are free to do as they will until wider consensus is reached that that WikiProject's advice is to accepted as a WP:Guideline. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Just clarifying things. I guess all the wiki-politics-ese is making me paranoid. I've disagreed with consensus before and lived with it and find its not a big deal. I just find it odd that that we seem to be caving to something that no one actually wants. The rules appear dogmatic in part because its a yes/no question, but also because there's been a give-an-inch-take-a-yard mentality with regards to some of the superficial stuff over the years. Maybe this is just a case of spelling out in more detail why so many people here don't want infoboxes in the project guidelines? Otherwise, it just feels like a smooth debater is twisting peoples arms into agreeing to things that he claims he has no preference about. That's the source of my paranoia. Now that I've voiced it, I'm fine.  :-)DavidRF (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I joined the discussion because of a request for input, somewhere or other. I generally favour the use of appropriate infoboxes, though fully recognise that the available fields aren't always perfect, and that some people dislike infoboxes' over-simplicity of information and strong visual presence; and that conversely, some people (or people in certain circumstances) appreciate the simplicity. (For example, I may want to know what pieces Vivaldi is famous for, and how they would be grouped/described. Having to read/skim through the entire article looking for that information would be inefficient for my purposes. But if there were a link to his [list of compositions] in an infobox, and a keyword-reminder for his style/school (baroque), that would be the most helpful for me, in that circumstance.)
At User:Quiddity/composers, I've put together a sample infobox, and all the related links I could find. Feel free to edit/move/discuss that however might be useful. As people have said above, there needs to be some kind of infobox that is suitable for articles where there is agreement or precedent to use one (e.g. Robert Nathaniel Dett and Terry Riley).
I strongly agree with Jubileeclipman's (et al) proposed revisions of the project guidelines. I don't desire to force infoboxes to be used anywhere inappropriate, nor to irritate any editors needlessly. (Happy and productive editors are one of our most valuable, and fragile, resources...)
HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing wrote: "WikiProjects cannot require non-members to follow their preferences regarding infoboxes, or anything else […]". I don't think that's correct. All projects have guidelines for the structure of their articles, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Article structure or Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats, and these are consulted and followed. As to violating Wikipedia-wide policies: there is no policy demanding or forbidding infoboxes. As to deleting other editors' contributions: this is a normal part of editing and improving articles, e.g. in the case of trivia, notice board-like entries, and other tangential text.
Regarding the matter under discussion: Folantin, Opus33, DavidRF, Voceditenore, Fut.Perf. and Eusebus explain why infoboxes don't work for the articles of this project. I have nothing to add, but as it has been mentioned that numbers may play a part in resolving this discussion, I'm registering my point of view. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of fact, "all projects" don't have guidelines (or even unapproved advice pages that might be improperly named or otherwise misinterpreted as being a WP:Guideline).
The question at hand is not whether advice pages are common, but whether a small group of editors can actually require other editors to follow the advice the first group wrote -- not, please note, by explaining why this infobox is inappropriate for this article, but merely by saying "We, the members of this WikiProject, say infoboxes are evil, and we WP:OWN this article, so you have to follow our rules" (which is what outside editors report the project members' behavior as indicating). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About "consensus"[edit]

(I'm starting a new sub-section here as the above has become very long. Feel free to re-structure if inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Jubileeclipman has twice quoted Wikipedia:Consensus:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.

In my view this is very misleading and not relevant here. Although the contents of infoboxes are subject to policy, e.g. verifiability, neutrality, respect for copyright laws, etc. there is no policy stating that infoboxes are required or forbidden or even desirable. Take a look at: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, Wikipedia:List of policies (content), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), and even Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. Also, the notion of a project "requiring" either its members or non-members to adhere to a guideline is a straw man. Even in the current wording, there is only a strong recommendation and no violation of any existing Wikipedia policy:

Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of currently-available biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on composer biographies. They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page.

There is no need for the entire "community" to approve that guideline, any more than there is for the guidelines and style recommendations of other projects, many of which are far more detailed and stringent than the ones here.

Take a look at the 9 Featured Articles under the scope of this project: Bradley Joseph, Joseph Szigeti, Josquin des Prez, Witold Lutosławski, Olivier Messiaen, Dmitri Shostakovich, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, and Bedřich Smetana. Of these only the first 2 have an infobox, and Bradley Joseph is an anomaly in that his work is only partially classical, most of it is in the jazz, adult contemporary and New Age genres. One could almost say that amongst the Featured Article editors and reviewers for classical music biographies there is a consensus not to use infoboxes.

I'm all in favour of re-phrasing the guidelines to make them more friendly and understandable to editors from outside the subject area. I'd also suggest that when members discuss the removal of an infobox on a talk page (or in an edit summary), care should be taken to word it diplomatically and to avoid phrasing which could be interpreted as aggressive or dismissive of the editor who added the infobox. Most editors are amenable to well-reasoned arguments and appreciate a patient and civil approach.

However, this also applies to editors who object when an infobox is removed. I deplore the "Who are you to tell me what do!" approach and the name-calling which often characterises their responses. It is not only profoundly unhelpful but rudely dismissive of the editors who actually create and maintain the content of these articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a very fair assessment of the situation and I urge all to read it and comment. (BTW, no need to restructure IMO: I have added more section breaks above to aid navigation; note that further comments are being made in those sections.) Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 01:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is obvious that many people feel that the musical artcist template is note appropriate. However, i don't see strong objections to a a composer template, perhaps based on User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In hand: see Quiddity's excellent attempt, User:Quiddity/composers --Jubilee♫clipman 02:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Quiddity's attempt is promising. I can see major problems deciding which "Notable works" should go into the infobox. I'd also get rid of "Associated acts" altogether because it's just too much of a temptation, although I suppose it might be an idea to create a separate "Contemporary composer" infobox. --Folantin (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. A "Contemporary composer" infobox, at the very least, might actually be necessary now I think on. I suspect it is the newly discovered composers that are most likely to get one of these boxes slapped on their articles upon creation or, at least, soon afterwards. Good thought! --Jubilee♫clipman 15:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'll start a thread at the bottom shortly, with further details.
Regarding Notable works, I've put these strong cautions in the documentation: In the short examples documentation, it advises to "Link to "List of works" subarticle here. Listing specific pieces is cautioned against.". In the longer example documentation it adds to that with "Link to "List of works" subarticle here, or if only renowned for 1 or 2 pieces, list those." Hopefully that will prevent many problems.
I think I see what you mean, but I'm not sure about associated acts, and hesitantly suggest that this be discussed below? (once I start the new thread)
Other infoboxes variations should be easy enough, if folks are amenable to it, and this one works out well. Perhaps leave that till next month. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll[edit]

Perhaps a straw poll would be useful at this point to get a clearer view of where we stand, free of all the extensive discussion. I'll suggest headings here, and since I've been silent so far I'll add my name in the appropriate spot to get things started. A couple of notes. First, to compare views of those most closely involved in the subject matter at hand and those in the wider community at large, I think it is useful to break down results by who does and does not edit classical music articles. Second, noting that a dedicated "classical" box template neither exists nor seems likely to come into being (all efforts to create one to date seemingly having foundered), I'm focusing on inclusion of the currently available box form(s) in articles about classical musicians. That also seems fair, given that inclusion of the present boxes gave rise to this perpetual debate in the first place. Drhoehl (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RELATIVE TO ARTICLES ABOUT CLASSICAL COMPOSERS AND PERFORMERS:

1. Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and support inclusion of current infoboxes as the rule, omission as the exception

2. Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and support inclusion of current infoboxes as the rule, omission as the exception

  • Cricket02 (as an editor who contributes to composer articles, not always classical)
  • -- Quiddity (talk) (but leaning towards "no strong preference")
  • Jezhotwells, occasionally contribute to classical and non classical music articles (and if you can tell me where the boundary is, then you're a better man than me.)
  • Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC) - First thing I'd read.[reply]
  • I would edit classical music articles more often if this project wasn't as overbearing. ThemFromSpace 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They'll help summarize the most important things. Personally, I tend to look at the infobox instead of filtering through the prose in the lead for the core facts of a topic. Airplaneman talk 04:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I think most readers and editors find infoboxes very useful. If summarizing things introduces inaccuracies, obviously this is a bad thing and an infobox should not be used. I agree that this project has historically been overbearing on this issue, making me avoid contact with them if possible. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and support omission of current infoboxes as the rule, inclusion as the exception

  • --Peter cohen (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) (my main issue is with how the infoboxes and contents of the rest of the article can drift apart. If the people who argue in their favour are prepared to do the work to keep them synchronised, then I would be agnostic on this issue.)[reply]
  • Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC) with the caveats that all exceptions be discussed on the talk page of the article in question and that {{Infobox musical artist}} is completely unsuitable for the purpose[reply]

4. Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and support omission of current infoboxes as the rule, inclusion as the exception

5. Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and oppose inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

6. Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and oppose inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

7. Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and would require inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

8. Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and would require inclusion of current infoboxes under all circumstances

9. Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles and have no strong preference either way

  • Jubilee♫clipman (but they should be chosen appropriately ({{Infobox musical artist}} clearly being unsuitable, for example), be relevant (with respect to the information contained therein) and add to the quality of an article, and they should not violate any policies, if they are included; merits/demerits should be discussed on a case-by-case basis on article talk pages and edit wars should be avoided)
  • Deskford (talk)
  • Jashiin (talk) (but if infoboxes are included, let them be of a type suitable for classical music, not Infobox:Musical artist)
  • Magic♪piano assuming a reasonable box exists. Existing infoboxes aren't useful.
  • Centy – reply• contribs – 03:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC) (Just giving up caring on this issue. The whole embarrassing colour of the bikeshed story has made me just take the attitude: so be it.[reply]

10. Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles and have no strong preference either way

Comment on poll[edit]

I'm not sure any of the above choices adequately summarise my view, which is: (a) I oppose infoboxes as a rule; (b) there is no currently existing "Infobox:Composer" and I strongly object to the use of unsuitable boxes such as Infobox:Musical Artist on composer articles; (c) I would be prepared to tolerate a minimal, "foolproof" custom infobox but (d) there should be no rule imposing such a box on all articles and it should only be added on a page-by-page basis with consensus from editors who have worked on each particular article. --Folantin (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This pretty much summarizes my view too, although at the moment I've added my name under 3. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include me as agreeing this comment as well. BTW I believe that all three of us subscribing here (so far) qualify as Editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles, for what that is worth.--Smerus (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, same here. Let me add, per Future Perfect above, that, as this would be nothing more than adding a frame to a picture to include exactly the same information contained in the lede (the composer's dates), I really don't see the point; but I don't object if this is actually deemed useful somehow. Eusebeus (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with all of the above. I'm an Occasional Participant here and am actually working on a new (opera) composer at the moment. --GuillaumeTell 12:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • sounds good to me, too. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This also rather neatly summarizes my view. I won't fight over a simple, foolproof box, used by local (article-by-article) consensus, and indeed it may be necessary to develop such a box just to keep this heartburn-inducing discussion from happening again and again and again. Antandrus (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with above comments that some kind of box would be acceptable.Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried implementing such a box about a year ago, and it was a big mistake. Other editors instantly leapt in and added multiple trivia fields, producing exactly the kind of box that serves the WP so badly. And the ensuing discussion was acrimonious. Let's not go there again, ok? Regards, Opus33 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A link to that attempt—and especially to the discussion—might be useful at this stage --Jubilee♫clipman 15:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere in the discussion, but then I don't have the time to read all of it. I've found two useful things about infoboxes in general:

  1. A person's date of death is accompanied by the age of death, which is rarely specified in the lead, and frequently not specified in the article. Sure, it's easy to subtract one date from the other, keeping in mind the person's birth and death days, but still.
  2. For some reason, most Wikipedia composer articles I've seen (as a matter of fact, most biographies too...) only specify the dates in the lead, not places of birth and death. In many cases, the places are indicated later on in the article, sometimes towards the end of the lead, but still, an infobox helps.

That said, my vote still stands, I have no preference whatsoever. Just make sure inappropriate infoboxes (e.g. Infobox:Musical artist) don't make their way to classical composer articles. --Jashiin (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why my vote is "no, no, a thousand times no!" To wax Stevensonian for a moment, if boxes are a possibility, no matter which ones are out there, I expect that editors who think everything from plainchant to Mahler's "Resurrection" Sym. is a "song" will persist in afflicting us with The Wrong Box, and, if history is any guide, will then get upset and combattively launch new discussions like this one when others remove them. I find maddening how much unproductive time some our most capable and knowledgeable editors have sunk into arguing over whether Beethoven should have a listing of "associated acts." Drhoehl (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the original comment

Folantin: are you opting out or endorsing option 3 but with modifications? Would that also sum up the postion of those endorsing Folantin's postition but not voting in the above poll? Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 15:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [Refactored --Jubilee♫clipman 15:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I think this sums up why Polling is evil; it creates confusion and encourages polarisation of opinion. I think this poll will still be useful, but as WP:POLL says; as the start of a discussion, not the end of one. This poll was not designed for establishing a definitive consensus, as evinced by the most popular single option being "none of the above". It very clearly is useful as a source of points to think about as this discussion develops. For instance, the questions of how strongly, to what extent, and by what means the consensus for or against infoboxes should be enforced, are ones that've come up before, but which clearly need some serious consideration. A new issue is how, if a limited infobox were to be created, it chould be maintained (and again, with what forcefulness) to ensure that it does not accumulate inappropriate fields. All interesting questions. Happy‑melon 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also: many two of those voting under Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles are actually members of this project or one of its relatives. We should probably consider Happy-melon's questions and Quiddity's new infobox, now --Jubilee♫clipman 08:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, actually only 2 of those voting under "Editors who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles" seem to belong to this or a related classical music project. I'd hardly call that "many". As for the usefulness of a straw poll... rather than polarising, it's actually made people think through their own views, as forced choice questionnaires often do. For one thing, the three out of the five "editors who regularly contribute to classical music articles" and claim to have "no strong preference either way", actually make it clear that they consider {{Infobox musical artist}} inappropriate, i.e. no strong preference with significant qualifications. All in all, it's provided a very good basis for carrying the discussion forward.Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Many" → "Two". Sorry about that. The respite caused by the debate certainly helped, though, indeed --Jubilee♫clipman 11:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voceditenore: that's essentially my point. It is working very well as a "basis for carrying the discussion forward". It's the beginning of a discussion, not the end. Which is exactly how simple polls should be used. Happy‑melon 13:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself I support what Folantin says at the top of this section, but don't feel thay any of the options 1-9 properly reflect this.--Smerus (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential minimal infobox[edit]

The Sample box has been updated with some of the suggestions from below. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quiddity/composers Given that there seems to be agreement that some few composer articles have an appropriate infobox, can we talk specifics?

In the draft infobox at User:Quiddity/composers (as shown on the right), I've taken the various suggestions above, and with some valued assistance at my talkpage, created a fairly minimal infobox. In the sample documentation, I've included a few longer examples containing fields that will not be applicable in every case.

Up front, any final infobox documentation would make it very clear that additional fields (beyond those that we can agree on here) would need a substantial consensus before being added.

At the bottom of the sample documentation, I've included a list of "Fields that are purposefully Not included", with brief rationales. Hopefully that will prevent the majority of future disagreements from even starting.

Thoughts, feedback, direct improvements to the template and docs, and suggestions are all welcome. -- Quiddity (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very promising. Thanks so much for putting in the work! I especially like the plain background. The coloured bars (often used in these things) serve no real purpose, make the infobox even more space-greedy, and often clash with the images that are used to depict historical composers. Thanks also for starting this section. It seems a fair amount of discussion has gone on here and later here involving only 2 project members, without the rest of us even knowing where it was happening. No big deal, but for the sake of openness and wider participation from editors who are familiar with content issues in these types of articles, I'm glad we are now discussing it here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: sorry about that. We felt it best to avoid confusing issues at that stage and bash out the most important particulars first rather than send an incomplete proposal over here then sort it out. Sorry if it all looked a bit cloak and dagger! Not the intention, at all... --Jubilee♫clipman 18:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good, but I'd suggest removing the occupation, eras & genres fields - that's the kind of information that gets messy. Eusebeus (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eusebeus, can you give me an example of a case where the occupation, era and genre would be in dispute? I am asking seriously, not trying to be pugnacious. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Occupation" should be changed to "Famous as". Many, many composers did not write music for a living but their works are the reason they have a Wikipedia biography. --Folantin (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you mean like Borodin and Frederick the Great. Okay, I buy. What about genre and era? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Granados example shows how imprecise these things often are. "Nationalism" isn't really an "era". Romanticism is more specifically associated with the early 19th century (maybe have Granados as "Late Romantic"?). "Twentieth century" doesn't really tell you anything, it's self-evident. Another famous example is how "Classical" or "Romantic" is Beethoven? --Folantin (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Famous as" is apparently a bit of a no-no in these boxes. The anachronistic term "occupation" is not quite right though, especially for historical composers, and not just those who were independently wealthy (e.g. Alberto Franchetti). Many of them actually earned a living from other activities such as teaching, and received very little for the work that made them famous. Is there a way that what they are famous for can be added not as a field, but as a kind of centered caption beneath the photograph? This would have the added advantage for the reader who may have heard the name, but has no idea what they are famous for, and currently has to plow through several fields to find this out. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Famous as" is apparently a bit of a no-no in these boxes. Where does it say this? There can't be any binding policy on it. French Wikipedia has a field for Activité principale instead of "Occupation" (with Activités annexes for secondary activities, e.g. chemist for Borodin). However it would be better, as I think you are suggesting, to have the word "Composer" as an integral part of the box.--Folantin (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it may have been in relation to "famous ideas" for philosophers, "famous works" for artists, writers etc. I personally don't mind "Famous as", although I still think making what they're principally famous for as an integral part of the box is better. See [3]. The genre thing is also very dodgy, e.g. Granados. Piano is not a genre. It's an instrument for which multiple genres have been composed, and he was not a zarzuela composer, but I guess that's just there as an example. Even so, both the genre and style fields are very prone to misleading over-simplification. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Granados wrote at least four zarlulas (though the list I have groups all his operatic pieces in 'lyric drama'). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list of his stage works in Grove gives only one zarzuela, Los Ovillejos, which has never been performed and was probably unfinished as well. María del Carmen is sometimes erroneously listed as a zarzuela, but it is an opera. He did not make a significant contribution to the zarzuela genre at all. You'll get the same view in the definitive biography of Granados by Walter Aaron Clark. Some less scholarly sources may also be confusing him with his son, Eduard, who did write a few zarzuelas. It's an example of how an infobox can compound and perpetuate an error in article. In this case it appears to come from the unreferenced assertion in the article that Granados "wrote zarzuelas". Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for navigation[edit]

What this seems to show is that even supposedly 'straightforward' issues such as era, genres, occupation, can (and will) create significant debate and disagreement. (I speak as one who has spent far too much time repeatedly weeding Tchaikovsky, Mahler, etc out of the Romanticism template) Which means, if you're only left with dates, where born and died, and a picture --- why have an infobox? This example, presented with the best intentions as a suitable compromise, reminds me why I feel uneasy about boxes as a whole. I'm now veering to being against them in any circumstances.--Smerus (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. These additional categories gets us into the round pegs, square holes problem. Where known, DoB/Death + location is fine; beyond that the problems appear, which is what sparked this debate in the first place. I should add that contemporary composers may deserve a more detailed box, but I'll leave that up to the CTM folks. Eusebeus (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My hat is off to Quiddity for a gallant effort at the cost of much time and thought, and I'll try not to nitpick it to death (a mindset that I'd urge everyone else to adopt as well), but that said the sample box demonstrates the uncertainties of the undertaking. While a "generic" box sounds like a good idea, in practice there just isn't much "generic" information about classical composers and performers. The response to the straw poll by Jezhotwells neatly, albeit unintentionally, encapsulated the problem: "...occasionally contribute to classical and non classical music articles (and if you can tell me where the boundary is, then you're a better man than me.)" In other words, even the term "classical music" is inherently imprecise. As a term of convenience for lack of a better, it covers a body of work, its center generally accepted but with a penumbra subject to debate, ranging from the most sober and serious "art music" to just very old pop music, that grew like Topsy across multiple continents over a thousand years or more at the hands of people who mostly are interesting because they were mavericks. The result is nearly total lack of standardization. For instance, take the seemingly cut-and-dried matter of birth date and place. The date, even well into the Classical period, is often subject to debate over whether what we have is actually a birth date or a baptismal date or something else entirely; have a look at the Music Sack site, and you'll quickly find conflicting dates even for modern-era performers. As to place of birth, leaving aside questions of "Austro-Hungarian Empire" or "Austria," "Prussia" or "Germany," "Republic of Venice" or "Italy," if you want to see what kinds of arguments can erupt on that subject even with living persons, have a look at the minor edit war that has smoldered off and on (happily, off for some time now) at Simon Trpčeski. Drhoehl (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for the feedback. I've updated the sample box above with some of the suggestions. Specifically, I've moved the famous-as/occupation to the caption area (which can be further tweaked for better semantic-structure, as we go on), and replaced the era values with "Late Romantic", and zarzuela with opera
To initially populate the sample fields, I was primarily using the categories and lead section (and in the case of Enrique Granados, I also used Music of Catalonia and Musical nationalism#Spain which is where the zarzuela was mistakenly taken as important from). If those areas can be agreed on in the articles' prose, then it should be a simple matter of transferring the information to the infobox. If the information is inherently contentious, then it will be argued over whether in prose or bullet form. The infobox should always follow the article.
I was also trying to preserve the core fields in the infoboxes that are already at the articles. I think we all agree that using the {{Infobox Person}} at Enrique Granados, and using {{Infobox musical artist}} at Bradley Joseph, needs to be fixed, somehow. Hopefully this can be a step towards that. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, first, I echo the encomium above. That said, I would definitely leave off principle genre. That might work for a few souls like Wagner, but not for most classical composers (think Haydn); as we've observed before, the existence of such categories encourages their population without regard to accuracy. Eusebeus (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haydn: symphonic (if that is even the correct word to apply to the large scale orchestral music of that period), chamber, operatic, solo instrumental, vocal, choral, mixure of all previous and "other". Among other things... Probably not useful for Haydn, at least, as stated! Occam's razor applies here, methinks --Jubilee♫clipman 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very good and hopefully will serve the project well. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a caution to the docs, advising to only use the "genre" field if the composer worked in only 1 or 2 genres. (Does that go sufficiently far?) Hence, I've removed the genre field from the Granados example above. (please feel free to improve the docs yourselves, too)
Frédéric Chopin currently has a box with rather a lot of genres included. "Piano music" might be simpler. Until I just edited it, "mazurka" was in Polish and there was no indication of any doubts about his birthday. It's very easy forsuch nuances to gomissing from an info box.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also changed the "notable_works" field to "list_of_works", and made it explicit that individual pieces should not be listed. This should make it useful for linking to subarticle-lists (when they exist), and avoid argument over which pieces to pick.
I'll work on making the currently-captioned "occupations" field semantically correct, later tonight. I hope to make it display like a caption, and without any misleading "occupation" or "known for" header/title. (done) Possibly like Voceditenore's example?
Thanks again for all the patient feedback. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I think "historical era(s)" is problematic. It works OK, I guess, for someone like Granados, but how the dickens would you classify Ernst Krenek? He went through a succession of styles: first late romantic; then atonal; then neo-classical; then neo-romantic, some with jazz influences and some with influences from Schubert, of all people; then twelve-tone; then serial, eventually incorporating aleatoric influences; and finally a style drawing elements from several of the earlier ones. Trying to classify Hovhaness or Ives strikes me as equally dicey. Besides, although they're a can of worms in themselves, the birth and death dates should suffice in most cases to give an idea of where the composer falls along the continuum, at least for those figures not straddling one of the ill-defined "dividing lines"; those who do straddle a line are precisely the ones likely to raise Krenekesque issues. [Rats--my login had expired. Let's try another signature.] Drhoehl (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to Stravinsky, for one, but in his case we usually just slap "Modernist" on him and not worry too much. This conversation is rather reminiscent of the conversation that is now archived here, now I come to think of it. Parkinson's Law of Triviality as someone aptly put it above... I suspect it hardly matters what we do now as someone will come along soon enough and add things to the box, someone else will misuse it, someone else will... Pointless worrying --Jubilee♫clipman 02:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Beethoven (if he gets a box, which I doubt...) would be Classical and Romantic. Unequivocally --Jubilee♫clipman 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, he'll get a box, all right, of that I have no doubt if a "generic" box gets the nod. Plenty of editors--for reasons ranging from aesthetic preference to, if memory of past disputes serves, incorporating something called "metadata" of which I wot not--have been champin' at the bit to put boxes on everything in sight, and adoption of a box here will just open the gates wide, methinks. So it's not "pointless worrying" at all for me, and I would think for others of my reluctant stripe; a big objection to boxes is that they give the appearance of conveying information as precisely factual that's "squishy" at best, misleading at worst, and the "era" label strikes me as likely in that category for an awful lot of subjects. "Modernist"? Maybe--but how "modern" is neo-romantic or neo-classical or any other current-as-of-the-1950s movement in this age when "minimalist" is probably rather old hat? Given that I expect a deluge of the things once they've been "endorsed," I'd say that if we're to have boxes, it's critical that we get them exactly right, and all I'm suggesting is that "Historical era(s)" may call for rethinking. Drhoehl (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... I see your point. Maybe the colour of the shed—and type of roof covering we use for that matter—are not so trivial after all. Yes, we do need to get it just right. Assuming that we all agree to its being mainspaced in the first place of course... --Jubilee♫clipman 04:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could follow the lead of Template:Infobox philosopher#Usage, and give a prescribed list of acceptable "eras" to choose from, in the documentation. A list as restrictive as the 10 eras found in {{History of European art music}} would be a good minimal list. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about that template! Leaving either "21st-century" or "contemporary" off the list for now, perhaps (because of the huge overlap)? And avoiding the non-sequetur "contemporary classical" at all costs! I'd go with that, with those provios --Jubilee♫clipman 05:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Ernst Krenek, the lead paragraph links to Contemporary classical music, and the categories link him to 20th-century classical music, so in that case, if an infobox was wanted there, I'd suggest using both of those links in the "era" field. The infoboxes in all articles (on any topic) should just follow the information given within the article.
Many of your examples (eg aleatoric) appear to be of what might be classified as his "style/school", which we're purposefully/explicitly leaving out of the infobox design completely (see User:Quiddity/composers#Fields that are purposefully Not included for the list, so far). -- Quiddity (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion shows that we need more nuance in ascribing genre than an infobox category can provide. Frankly, based on previous discussions, insofar as consensus exists on this project for an infobox, it needs to be limited to date and place of birth & death. I suggest the candidate observe these limits. Eusebeus (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded - but then - as I observe at the top of this arbitrary break, and with apologies to User:Quiddity and appreciation of his work - why have an infobox at all? --Smerus (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... the idea is already floating around now. Undoubtedly, if we don't do something (ie either allow the use of this infobox in specific circumstances or make the style guidelines clearer to explain why infoboxes are to be avoided), then editors will continue to use inappropriate boxes or even create a composer/musician box themselves without consulting us. I like the "less is more" approach, too, BTW. Many picture frames actually use birth/death info as part of the text: this box just expands on that and pre-empts all attempts to place an inappropriate box into an article --Jubilee♫clipman 19:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Peter cohen's comment above: "Frédéric Chopin currently has a box" --Jubilee♫clipman 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, and much good does it do him (Chopin that is, not Peter cohen). The only thing in the box apart for the stuff one would normally see in the frst sentence of the article is the abortion section of 'genre'. First, look at the existing article on genre, to which the box gives a link and to which an ingenu might be expected to refer. It's an utter dog's breakfast. (And don't advise me please to rewrite it if it upsets me so, I have other things in life to do). Then let me take issue, as I think many others would, as to ecosaisses etc. being considered as genres. If he has a genre, it's perhaps 'early romantic pianism', but don't quote me on that, I am sure many will disagree. However, all the quibbles of nerds like myself would be most easily avoided by abandoning the box. The information provided by the article will not suffer in anyway. The notion that we should adopt boxes just because 'the idea is floating around' must be, hands down, the weakest argument yet put forward in this thread (even though it's against some very tough competition).--Smerus (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (both on Chopin box and my weak argument...) The Chopin box is terrible but then again it is the wrong box. I dare not remove it yet but if it were to be removed the rationale used would simply quote the lead in the box documentation: "{{Infobox musical artist}} is the standard infobox for non-classical musician articles..." [my emphasis] --Jubilee♫clipman 21:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Genre now removed from the sample infobox, and added to the list of "Fields that are purposefully Not included".
In regards to "why at all?", I'm just here trying to help out because there seems to be agreement that the infoboxes that are being used in certain places currently, eg Enrique Granados and Terry Riley, are inappropriate.
I would be horrified if anyone tried to remove the infobox from calcium or felidae, but most of my concerns about biographical infoboxes are met with the appropriate use of Wikipedia:Persondata (eg as used at the very bottom of Ludwig van Beethoven). So, I'm happy if the majority of you are happy. If you elect to never use the sample infobox, or mark it {{historical}}, etc, that's fine by me. (Oh, and if anyone wants to move it to WikipediaTemplate:Infobox composer/draft or elsewhere, feel free.) HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I think we all--box proponents, agnostics, and opponents alike--owe you a vote of thanks for your efforts to develop a workable, broadly acceptable solution. Regardless of what comes of it in the end, you've done us a real service and stimulated some very useful thought and discussion. If a box design does come up with an endorsement, it cannot but be better for all the work and thought you've devoted to the issue. Drhoehl (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Template:Infobox composer/draft Since Quiddity has more or less finished knocking it about (thanks again), this can be sent to template space (rather than article space as I did by mistake before moving again). It is still a draft so it can be further refined of course. Note that Template:Infobox composer redirects to that other infobox at the moment so the move upwards might not be quite so easy --Jubilee♫clipman 04:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it upwards should be fairly smooth, as they use the same field titles. I've added Chopin to the /doc examples, and left notes on how I converted the box at Template talk:Infobox composer/draft. It's a lot shorter and cleaner (and hopefully more useful and precise) than the one currently in use at Frédéric Chopin :) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The REDIRECT at {{Infobox composer}} is currently not used; see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox composer. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This (linking to the infobox redirect) makes interesting reading. Anyway, I meant that because of the page history, simply trying to move Template:Infobox composer/draft to Template:Infobox composer via the move page tool might not work: we may have to go to WP:RM (or copy/paste, losing the history). No problem though, just place the subst:temp in uncontroversial moves and wait a while --Jubilee♫clipman 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Jubileeclipman[edit]

Now that a number of the issues have been discussed, this would seem to be a good time to reflect upon what has been said and what has been done, and to suggest some possible solutions.

First some given or perceived facts:

  1. Infoboxes are neither obligatory nor forbidden.
  2. Infoboxes can enhance some articles and damage other articles.
  3. Certain infoboxes are deemed to be inappropriate for classical musician articles.
  4. Certain classical musician articles have been given an infobox and many of those are using one of the inappropriate templates.
  5. A draft of an extremely minimal infobox is available which might be useful as a replacement for those using one of the inappropriate templates in-article.
  6. We have a style guideline that is presently potentially unhelpful.[note 1]
  7. The perception of our project—possibly only because of this issue—has sometimes been very negative.[note 2]

My simple solution is three two-fold, therefore:

  1. We immediately redraft the Style Guidelines along these lines:
    "Infoboxes are not always useful because:[note 3]
    1. [important reason #1]
    2. [important reason #2]
    3. [important reason #3]
    We feel it is better, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians and we prefer only to add an infobox to an article following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page.
  2. We move Template:Infobox composer/draft upwards to {{Infobox composer}}[note 4] so that it can be used judiciously.[note 5]
  3. We work on the way we present ourselves to non-member editors. [Stricken: we should focus on the infoboxes here obviously][note 6]

If that solution is rejected, I fail to see any other solution beyond accepting the cold fact that yet more edit-revert cycles will ensue causing people like Buzzzsherman to come over and complain loudly about their rights as WP editors being violated (thus, sparking off yet another discussion...) I suggest that since Buzz withdrew quietly quite a while back, we got off lightly, this time, though we are left with this ongoing RfC, of course.

Footnotes
  1. ^ Our guidelines might be interpreted as saying (though this is not the intended meaning):

    "We hate infoboxes. We will only allow them in an article if you explicitly ask for one and even then only if we decide it is appropriate for the article. Read our extended debates (fashioned after Aquinas' Summa Theologica and Tolstoy's War and Peace) for more information. Now go away."
  2. ^ One editor has explained that he avoids this project because it is "overbearing", another had previously pointed out that we are apparently acting "dogmatically" and that it is "saddening that my closing comment... seems to have been ignored". One other editor had gone so far as to say: "O well like the others tried to warn me..not to bother with this group..." One of our own members even pointed out that there is "a difference between 'I don't want to maintain the boxes' and 'shame on you for even thinking about putting a box into one of OUR articles', which is how it often came across." Other editors (project members or otherwise) have voiced similar concerns.
  3. ^ My suggestions for 1, 2, and 3 would be: 1. They rarely appear to add to the quality of classical musician articles in any significant way; 2. They tend to become redundant (by duplicating the lead); 3. They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague and confused, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, listing endless works, and describing a professional chemist who happened also to compose (but not as a profession) under occupation = composer, chemist.
  4. ^ Overwriting the redirect, obviously, rather that the page directed to—tempting though that latter course of action may be...!
  5. ^ I also suggest that we immediately replace the in-article boxes that use {{Infobox musical artist}} with that new box and maybe also replace e.g. {{Infobox person}} etc where necessary, too.
  6. ^ "non-member editors" includes both editors who are not attached to any of our projects but primarily edit classical music articles and editors who are knowledgeable on classical music but don't often edit classical music articles.

Hope my suggestions help. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have added a new footnote to clarify my meaning re "non-members". I can see Opus33's point, though. Now I'm gone... ;) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Support, with an additional comment on 'Fact 3': Some of the existing infoboxes might be fine in some articles, so long as only appropriate fields are completed (e.g., "Name" and "Image"). Most templates are designed to omit parameters that are left blank. Also, there's no particular reason why the same infobox template (if it is wanted at all in an article) couldn't be capable of proclaiming the undisputed fact that e.g., John Rutter is English, while remaining resolutely silent on this point for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"capable of proclaiming the undisputed fact that John Rutter is English". Really? English or British? I'm not joking, I've seen masses of such disputes on Wikipedia. There really shouldn't be a parameter for nationality in the box. --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then answer this. WHY does it only apply to composers, and no other people? Huh? I'm not joking either. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is a valid argument per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If I had my way I would get rid of almost all biographical infoboxes. They cause an inordinate amount of trouble on the pages I have watchlisted. WP:MOSFLAG acknowledges the massive problem caused by feuding over nationality in infoboxes. Unfortunately it doesn't take the matter to its logical conclusion (it's not the flags that are the root of the problem). --Folantin (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why "English"? Because it's what the sources say about Rutter (e.g., [4][5][6][7]).
Melodia's point is also important: There are well over three-quarter million biographies on Wikipedia at the moment. If we can figure out both whether and how to include nationality in infoboxes for the other bios, then why can't we manage it for the 5,000 pages in this project?
Are composers really that much harder than Adolf Hitler, Napoleon I, or Otto von Bismarck -- each of whom dramatically changed the definition of the nation that they claimed? Are the same editors who manage this for people in ancient cities that predate the entire concept of a nation, for exiles and people in modern disputed territories, and for persecuted and nomadic groups like the Romani people -- somehow magically unable to figure out whether a white person that was born, raised, and lived essentially his whole life in England, and whom reliable sources, including himself, identify as "English" should be described as "English"? Do you really think that editors specially turn off their brains when editing composer bios, so that basic editing skills can no longer be assumed?
I don't think so, but it sounds like you've got a different view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and I could easily dig up a whole bunch of sources calling Rutter a "British composer". You've obviously never come across this kind of fight on Wikipedia before. You are living in a dream world if you think there will be no arguments about nationality in the infobox, including British/English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish/Northern Irish etc.. The box attracts tendentious "patriotic" editors. Don't try to tell me otherwise because I spend a disproportionate amount of my Wikipedia time trying to fix the boxes on my watchlist after this kind of drive-by user has done their work. --Folantin (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think suggestion #1 (clearer guidelines) is very good but I'm still opposed to #2, the infobox, on grounds that any nontrivial fields will produce problem edits (for example, is everyone psyched up for more discussions of whether Beethoven is Classical or Romantic?). And if all we have is birth and death dates, it's silly to have an infobox at all. Why not do what professional encyclopedias do? They don't have or need infoboxes.
Re. #3, being more open to non-classical editors: in truth this is something of an issue for me. I generally avoid editing in biology or popular music or Ottoman history or any other field that I haven't tried to learn about first by doing some reading. I'm rather puzzled and dismayed by editors who act otherwise. The results you get when ill-informed editors try to edit are generally pretty bad, so it strikes me as not all that unreasonable to try to elbow them away a bit--nothing really mean, but some firm discouragement seems justifiable. Opus33 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sounds good to me. Support.
    Regarding Beethoven, surely his Era(s) would be listed as "Classical–Romantic", based on what is given in the lead paragraph and the categories? Apologies if I'm missing something obvious there. Please explain in the section above Jubilee's view, if I am :) Also, Britannica does provide the birth/death dates in a bold line at the start of biographies, in duplication to prose mentions. eg
    Regarding the objections noted in Jubilee's notes, I'd reply with: 1) Hopefully the draft infobox has at least minimal utility by giving links to any "list of works" article(s), and age at death. 2) my major uses of biographical infoboxes are to check age (so that I can begin to construct a better mental timeline of their chronology); and if I'm browsing whimsically, to peruse for morsels or tangents (e.g. I just visited Vincent van Gogh, scanned his stats, opened the items in his "works" list in new tabs, and glanced at each to remind myself of his range. Liking what I found, I used the footer-navbox to skim through all the other articles we have on his individual paintings (reading occasional paragraphs, looking at the paintings fullsize, chortling over the wonders we contain). A very enjoyable few minutes; I anticipate reading his full biography article later. I'll watchlist it, so that it pops up occasionally to remind me of its existence.) 3) The documentation should prevent most of the objected-to fields from appearing. I'll keep it watchlisted and try to help out. Question: The metadata uses the keyword "role" as its hook for understanding what biography-infoboxes usually call "occupation" or "profession"; would it help if we changed the name of the field in our infobox to "roles"? This would seem to fit Borodin et al, quite well. -- Quiddity (talk) (updated at) 09:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Roles" makes no sense to me. It makes it sound as if they were actors. --Folantin (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would never be displayed; just a different field-title. I understand what you mean though. It's as imperfect as "occupation" et al. Question struck. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Ravpapa (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there going to be a hide/show alternative on the box, as previously suggested? -Duribald (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My original replies to your suggestion are above at #Preliminary discussions. I think it would generally add fuel for argument, as much as anything. Only overwhelmingly-long content should ever really be hidden, otherwise things veer into "I don't like it, therefor I'll hide it" territory (ie. spoilers, notcensored, etc). The only items hidden in the {{infobox author}}, for example, are the Influences/Influenced sections, which can get overwhelmingly-long, but which we're purposefully excluding. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the best infobox is this one, I would support this with a few caveats/comments:
  1. The name... I would call it {{Infobox classical composer}}. The whole point is that most (if not all) of the classical music content editors consider the current {{Infobox musical artist}} completly innappropriate. Calling it "Infobox composer" implies that it's to be used for composers of all genres which these folk would take great exception to, as they think the one they have is just fine. Plus, if editors are creating articles about non-classical composers and think they ought to use this new one instead, they're liable to start monkeying around with it and adding more (and more inappropriate) fields. Better to make it clear that it has been designed specifically for classical composers.
  2. I know that a minimal infobox is a glorified caption, redundant, etc. But Quiddity's does no harm and is not aesthetically unpleasing. It can forestall an awful lot of trouble, for a very small price. And I honestly don't think it's going to lead to mass-additions of infoboxes.
  3. I know that "eras" can be problematic, but frankly if the exact same description appears in the lede, then why is there a problem with having it in the infobox? Infoboxes and ledes can and should be edited if a summary description is problematic or wrong for a particular composer. I don't think you'll get people even noticing such an edit let alone having a Rumpelstiltskin-like fit. They reserve that for a wholesale removal, especially when there's a snarky edit summary. So I have no strong feelings one way or another about the eras field.
  4. I would suggest that you be wary of replacing an existing infobox with the new box if it's a Featured Article. The final form of those articles was arrived at by consensus of the main contributors and the FA reviewers, especially if you don't want people to then go around adding the new infobox to the many FA composer articles that don't have one. Besides, I think that the original one at Bradley Joseph is actually more appropriate for this type of composer/performer and the genres which form the core of his compositions. Also, check the talk page to make sure the article is not a current Featured article candidate and don't go blundering in with a new infobox. Make a suggestion instead at the FAC page for that article.
  5. Although I think it's an important thing to do, I'd save discussion of how you present yourselves to non-member editors for another day and con calma, and use the project's normal talk page for it. Probably better to keep this RfC focused to the infobox topic.
Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support all of Vdt's thoughts, (including his nomination of his own infobox version as the best, although I accept reluctantly that it probably wouldn't get us out of the present quagmire).--Smerus (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment... re the presumed redunancy of the minimal infoboxes. I think a very useful longer-term project for this project would be to check the current ledes on composer articles, especially the key ones. Some of them are awfully turgid and "waffley" and don't cover the key facts (including place of birth and death) in the first few sentences at all. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nothing really to add to what I've said before. I'm prepared to tolerate a minimal, non-compulsory infobox along the lines of Quiddity's experiment. A redundant but correct box is less bad than a misleading one. Whether it is added to an article will depend on local consensus. As for "attitudes towards this project", then I agree with what Opus says in his third point, unless this is open season and I can say what I like about the "infoboxers" too. But I'll just confine myselff to remarking that those most passionately in favour of infoboxes have not been doing much of the heavy lifting in designing a new appropriate composer box. --Folantin (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folantin: In answer to your last point: that's no bad thing. The fact that relatively disinterested parties (Quiddity, Ravpapa, Turangalila (3 years ago), me (aborted)) have been doing the work will help ensure that the resultant box follows the consensus rather than personal taste.
Everyone: I'll hold back answering other important points made above for now as more insight will quickly follow, no doubt, to refine the focus further. Thank you everyone for taking the time to consider my views --Jubilee♫clipman 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this just strengthens my conviction that if we are going to have an infobox it should be absolutely minimal because the "infoboxers" are not going to maintain them properly, either because they don't really understand the issues at stake or out of sheer apathy. A puppy is for life, not just for Christmas. --Folantin (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Jubilee was suggesting that: the adamant-infobox-advocates were avoiding doing any designing "on-behalf-of" the composers wikiproject, in order to avoid treading on anyone's toes. They realized they weren't welcome (usually), and so didn't try to force any designs on you, and mostly stayed out of your way... (I'm a one-cat human. No temporary puppies for me!) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Furthermore, if "the 'infoboxers' are not going to maintain them properly, either because they don't really understand the issues at stake or out of sheer apathy" then so much the better! That means the we can maintain them [=it] ourselves following our own common sense and general consensus. Infoboxes and leads, both, are prone to becoming "awfully turgid and 'waffley'" as pointed out above. If the box is essentially accurate in all points, it will be much easier to correct the lead and text body to sync with it. IMO, the opposite (ie correcting the box to sync with accurate text) would be somewhat trickier but just as important, obviously. Note that changing the doc for a box is actually quite a diffult process and that merely adding a field that is not included in the box's doc into any usage of that box in-article will not work as fields will not transclude unless they are in the doc. See here. Hope that helps --Jubilee♫clipman 20:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Jubileeclipman's last point: that's not true; I think you confuse "doc" with template code. Adding a field to a template's code (and to its documentation) is not difficult. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, I'll answer each commentator individually. I address these points to everyone not just those linked at the beginning of the paragraph, of course.

  • WhatamIdoing - Ah yes, I forgot about reminding people about the fact that most fields are optional. However, the template page points that out anyway, so it might just be redundant to mention it in the advice we give editors. (And be a "case of WP:BEANS", for that matter...)
  • ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ - I'll turn your question around if I may: "Why should it only apply to composers, and no other people?" We—or rather those who understand such things, (see below)—can easily expand the coverage of this box to include all classical musicians, if necessary. Speaking for my self—and most others, probably—I think we ought to concentrate on the composers for now, though, especially since this is an RfC about the activities of the Composers project. We could raise the issue at WP:CM later if we feel the box ought to be expanded (which I doubt...)
    Oh my fucking god, did you really just write the above or am I imagining it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I did: any particular problem with it? Or was that merely a rhetorical expletive? --Jubilee♫clipman 04:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duribald - Further to Quiddity's points, I think it best to avoid complications at this time. Let us first concentrate on what to do with the info box; after that, we can decide how to present it.
  • Voceditenore - Yes, we should avoid both FAs and FANs. I would also add GAs and GANs... I also agree with all of your other points, including the rename and especially the presentation issue. I'll leave #3 unstruck for now, though, in case others feel strongly to the contrary.
  • Michael Bednarek - Not quite sure how to answer that except to say that the source code is locked for editing by admin only, that the link to the documentation page (where one actually edits the fields) is usually hidden away at the bottom of the template page, and that there are often other subpages—usually not linked from anywhere on the template page—that define the colours and layout etc, and even the way a field's name appears in the transcluded template (eg "alias" becomes "Also known as" in the musical artist box). It all looks like pretty forbidding stuff to me! Even A Knight Who Says Ni confirms that only people interested in coding are likely to work on templates, including infoboxes, saying "Most programming code isn't rubbernecker-friendly": Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Definitions. Hence, if we can set up a friendly dialogue with the actual coders then we should be on the right foot from the start, surely.

There is so much else suggested or commented above that I would have to rewite Summa Theologica myself to answer! Perhaps another day or on user/project talk pages? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note I'm now going to take an extended Wiki-break for six months or so. Nothing to do with this debate, I just need time to concentrate on RL business. I think I've made my opinion clear enough in this RfC if anyone needs it in the summing up. I'd just add that those in favour of having infoboxes should really be prepared to take on the responsibility of maintaining them. See you in the autumn. --Folantin (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Do we have consensus for the rewrite?[edit]

Any more to add here? The consensus seem to be that #1 (rewriting the Composers guidelines) is carried, that #2 (moving the infobox upward from draft template to full template) is being considered favourably though reluctantly (but there may be a better template name), and that #3 should be discussed elsewhere and at another time. Should I, then just go ahead with the the rewrite of the guidelines, using my proposed reasons (footnoted)? Also, if we do move the template upwards should we just use the short version but still leave the long version on the drafts page? Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 02:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re #1: I concur.
Re #2: I agree (with the suggestion above) that {{Infobox classical composer}} is probably a better name/location.
Re short/long examples: the split was only intended to demonstrate what the box would look like without all the fields filled in. It's all the same template code. I've edited the docs to hopefully make that clearer. But if that seems problematic, revert and we can discuss further :) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with #1. I'm definitely still opposed to #2 and think this is really asking for trouble. Please don't do it. Opus33 (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, as usual, with Opus. I see no need for an infobox and do not see any consensus from project participants to include one. Eusebeus (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opus and Eusebeus: 1) Are there any remaining concerns about the template's structure/style itself, or, are you mainly concerned about the template being forced into usage prolifically?*
      2) What would you suggest that editors should use, if not this template, in articles such as Terry Riley and Robert Nathaniel Dett, if there is a consensus to use an infobox? Thanks.
      * (I agree that there is a clear consensus amongst this wikiprojects major contributors that this should not occur. (based on the discussions above and elsewhere). Any future-hypothetical mass-additions should/would be legitimately reverted, as counter to the "default agreed upon" consensus of this wikiproject's style guide.) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eusebeus, I hope that you didn't mean to imply that only the opinions of 'project participants' matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jubilee, why don't you start with #1? We don't have to do everything at once, you know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. #1 is overwhelmingly carried and can be implemented immediately. I actually feel that #2 is also carried if you (as you should) include everyone's opinion. In fact, both Voceditenore, Folantin and almost all of those commenting on the poll (including Smerus, GuillaumeTell, Antandrus and Viva-Verdi, and even Eusebeus himself) have stated that they would tolerate an infobox (though some have pointed out that it should be minimal and correctly named). Furthermore, Cricket02 and Airplaneman (both members of this project) have declared in favour of infoboxes. More to the point, the weight of argument for the box vastly outweighs the weight of argument against, as far as I can tell. I may have missed some crucial point here, of course, but #2 (with modifications) seems to be carried, also --Jubilee♫clipman 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this be acceptable:
    This project feels that Infoboxes are not always useful seldom useful because:
    1. They rarely appear to add to the quality of classical musician articles in any significant way They can lead to minor trivia being given a prominent location at the start of the article at the expense of more important information [← needs further work, perhaps]
      How about something like this? "They often give trivia undue emphasis and prominence at the head of the article." Drhoehl (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. They tend to become redundant (by duplicating the lead)
    3. They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague and confused, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, listing endless works, and describing a professional chemist who happened also to compose (but not as a profession) under occupation = composer, chemist
    We feel it is better, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians and we prefer only to add an infobox to an article following consensus prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. Especial care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted over many years according to clear consensus on that article's talkpage.
Looking at this last sentence again, I'd suggest a minor revision: "Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles, which embody careful, protracted crafting according to clear consensus on their talkpages." Drhoehl (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the opening phrase in order to explain that it is our opinion rather than a widespread belief (though other projects can take up this guideline also, especially CM and Opera; I think we are all still in a minority position, however...) The last sentence explains itself (and follows the clear advice, above) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For "...not always useful..." I'd substitute "...seldom useful..." or even "...seldom, if ever, useful...." Later, "...only to add and infobox..." should be "...prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus...." Drhoehl (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changes noted (along with Opus33's suggestion). Point below understood but I concur with Melodia, personally --Jubilee♫clipman 20:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I should add that I still have misgivings about endorsing boxes, particularly in light of the voice of experience in the form of Opus33's warning. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it, and all that. Drhoehl (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you should learn from 'history' that if nothing it done it WILL be brought up again if people just shove it aside claiming some deep rooted horror in making a box available. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, one can turn that on its head: according to opus33, history teaches that if an attempt at a basic infobox is made, controversy WILL erupt as others rush in and make it no longer "basic" at all. So far, nobody seems to be paying much attention to that warning, and I think it deserves careful consideration, if nothing else as a guide to potential pitfalls, although I'll grant it would help if, as earlier requested, we could have a link to the previous discussion. So far, such history does seem to be at least rumbling about repeating; you'll note that the advocates of "metadata," whose prior participation in such debates I noted supra, seem to be making an appearance again (see infra). Oh, and for the record, I'm not necessarily arguing that the appropriate solution is "nothing is done"; I'm simply suggesting that "doing something" and "endorsing a basic infobox" are not necessarily synonymous. Drhoehl (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this language with drhoehl's changes. I think, for instance, many contemporary composers could easily accommodate an infobox without any problem. Eusebeus (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is missing, I think, is something like "Infoboxes lead to minor trivia being given a prominent location at the start of the article at the expense of more important information." Opus33 (talk)
    • I am not unhappy happy with #1, but would be not unhappier still if we could incorporate notions in line with the proposals of drhoehl and a perhaps rather less inflammatory version of Opus33's comment immediately above.--Smerus (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as I'm playing lightning rod, another issue belatedly occurred to me this morning. Do we need to address the potential to add placeholder images as part of the "add a box" process? That's another perpetual can of worms that often seems to come up in this context, and I don't think we've considered whether it's implicated here. Drhoehl (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason that the normal community-wide consensus won't work here? (Read this if you don't know what the current consensus is for placeholder images.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(It says: "the proposal to use such placeholders has been rejected by the community".) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, assuming we can be confident that consensus will prove more durable than what many of us thought was a consensus against infoboxes for classical musicians. I'll confess that I didn't realize, or had forgotten, the matter was "settled," and I thought it worth considering whether a line of discouragement should be added to the proposed template. Apologies if I cried "wolf." Drhoehl (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(In reply to a since-deleted/edit-conflict comment: Those extensive sections in the Bismark infobox should really be replaced with footer Succession Boxes. I'll go inquire about that possibility at Template talk:Infobox officeholder)
Opus: I asked you and Eusebeus two questions above, which you might have missed. I'd greatly value your replies to those. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes noted but #1 needs work, I suspect. Perhaps a note about avoiding images unless they are public domain or free licenced... or would that be WP:BEANS and blindingly obvious (at the same time...)? And yes: certain contemporary composers definately warrant a box, I agree, even a different box... even the dreaded {{Infobox musical artist}} in some cases (eg Bradley Joseph) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm coming here to give another outside view, confirming the decision here to try do it as well as possible. I want to emphasize what I consider the most important reason for this, a reason of great long-term importance: providing reusable metadata for a semantic wiki as Wikipedia develops into a Web 3.0 environment. There is incredible flexibility and power from such a structure. It requires a considerable degree of uniformity across the encyclopedia, and the use of structured data for many different types of subjects--organizations, places, and so on. If this is omitted for musicians, then the value of the data for the other fields will also be diminished. A query by place or date in the database will give results for everybody but classical musicians! This is no service to a user; this is especially no service to the use of Wikipedia information for other purposes than our encyclopedia-- remember that our intent in being an encyclopedia with free content is that it be used for whatever other purposes devise. The primary additional reason is that the encyclopedia is aided by a considerable degree of uniformity in presentation. Not just does it give a more professional appearance, but people learn to look for specific types of things in specific places.
Additionally, as concerns this project, some comparative experience: My principal working area, academic journals, is one where the infobox almost always duplicate at least half the content of the article, but has none the less proven useful in focussing editors who arrive with COI in mind for what they need to say. Although the material is duplicative, it does no harm to specify it and it aids clearer writing by the inexperienced--and especially in a thinly populated area like this we need to recruit more people who are knowledgeable about the subject, but will initially be inexperienced at Wikipedia.
As for dealing with some limitations: the problem with the Bismarck infobox is that it includes a specialized succession box for his multiple offices, and not typical--though in fairness I need to say that something like it would probably apply to many conductors of a series of major orchestras, and you'll need to figure out how to present it. The problem with people with music as a significant but relatively minor activity has been a problem elsewhere. At some point the data structure will probably need to be refined a little to deal with it. The problem with excessive works can be dealt with by adopting some standards about it, such as a limit of 5 or so.
I've been checking a few dozen featured bio articles in various fields. It seems to be not yet required that they contain an infobox, but most of them do. At some point it probably will be required, and the others will need them added or the status will be successfully challenged. I don't see that the ones from chronologically earlier periods do any worse than the precent ones. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks David for the thoughts. The question of metadata was Andy's initial argument and it remains compelling, should that be the only way to include article info within this kind of indexing. However, as I recall from the earlier debate, the information can be metatagged within the body of the article - infoboxes are not the only way to proceed. And very quickly, the project's issue you raise above is not quite right - the primary concern has always been inaccuracy not duplication. Eusebeus (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the number of times I've seen "and the info duplicates the lead", I'd wager you're wrong there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so! Then again, as far as I can tell, all infoboxes duplicate the lead. It is a point that people here make over and over but it is a something of a non-point, IMO. Still, it can remain as part of this project's objection. More important are the facts that boxes can lead to compounded errors and that boxes contain crucial metadata. And that they may become compulsory for FAs... That last has to be the most important reason of all as we consider our position here: FA is the ultimate goal! --Jubilee♫clipman 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox disease}} certainly doesn't duplicate the lead. In a significant number of articles, it contains only information that is not present anywhere else in the entire article (plus the name of the disease). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the larger view I'd say that accuracy, logical presentation, and utility are goals at least a bit more important than satisfying a checklist of formalities for Featured Article status on Wikipedia. I know you weren't trying to suggest fixation on formalities, but worrying too much about Wikipedia feathers in the cap can lead, and has led, to the kinds of messes bedeviling the Opera Project as it attempts to correct widespread copyright violation by a rogue user, now happily committed to staying on the straight and narrow.Drhoehl (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... correct. I meant: "FA is presented as the ultimate goal by the Wikipedia 1.0 [or whatever number we're on now] crew..." I personally tend to look at the GA standards, anyway, when sorting out an article; they more or less set out what you just stated as the most important goals --Jubilee♫clipman 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a summary for Melodia, since apparently she has MISSED (oops) previous discussions:

  1. infoboxes with information beyond dates (where known) contain categories that are inappropriate to an encyclopedic treatment of many pre-contemporary composers
  2. the presence of infoboxes encourages editors to fill them out, as in "ZOMG Beethoven is so famous for Für Elise it has to be in the infobox."
  3. Hence, for many composers, a reasonable infobox will merely duplicate the lede, while encouraging the propagation of misinformation through additional categories.
  4. Hence, why bother? Little upside, lots of downside.
Counter-arguments:
  1. Everyone else has them so we should as well.
  2. We can revert bad info, just like we revert Vivaldi was gay.
  3. Discussion on a case-by-case basis is fine (Mozart was Austrian, dammit).
  4. They contain crucial nuggets of meta-data and if we don't have them, Brahms will remain, much like his early piano music, unindexed.
Eusebeus (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC) :I don't think she MISSED anything. She is simply stating a fact: editors here do use the "argument" that the box duplicates the lead far more often than any other argument, as far as I can tell. Your summary is useful, though. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 16:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
joke. Eusebeus (talk)
<tiniest>figures :P --Jubilee♫clipman 17:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)</tiniest>[reply]
I just love how people like to tell me what I do and do not know and continue to harass me while doing it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I didn't mean to insult or harrass you Melodia, I am sorry if it appeared that way, I simply meant to agree with your statement. [I moved your post here as it seems to address the above exchange: hope that's OK?] --Jubilee♫clipman 18:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could everyone stop with the sniping and sarcasm and hilarious repartee? It's very hard to follow, and doesn't assist the discussion one iota. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Quiddity is right: in-jokes, sarcasm, and jolly japes have no place in an open discussion like this even if it is an "informal process" and on a subpage of a Wikiproject. An RfC needs transparancy and direction and is attended by many people from many places on WP. These "outsiders" (as they were incorrectly called above) will not have a clue what is going on when they see in-jokes and these latter are anyway distracting. I am guilty here also, note, but given that we have several days before the bot closes up here we need to remain focussed. I have therefore collapsed the above exchange. If Eusabeus wishes to repost his summary without the in-jokes and sarcasm attached that would be great. Thanks for your understanding --Jubilee♫clipman 21:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed my snipe and struck the related comments, whining from Quiddity notwithstanding. Eusebeus (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced guideline text[edit]

I just made the bold decision to replace the guideline regarding infoboxes with a slightly reworked version of the above. We seem to have consensus; feel free to revert and discuss further here, though. Please review the new text, anyway (I toned down Opus33's text a little). Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 16:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note Drhoehl's useful suggestions above: for #1 use "They often give trivia undue emphasis and prominence at the head of the article."; for the final sentence use "Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles, which embody careful, protracted crafting according to clear consensus on their talkpages." These seem to be sensible substitutions. Thoughts? In response to his comments buried above about doing something not equaling endorsing a box, I suggest that the present guidelines are now quite clear and acceptable. If we use Drhoehl's new text they will be even more acceptable. Something has been done: does more need to be done? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have substituted the wording of #1 with Drhoehl's "They often give trivia undue emphasis and prominence at the head of the article". The rephrase of the final sentence is good but neither version is ideal. Any further thoughts on that? --Jubilee♫clipman 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any remaining concerns[edit]

Opus and Eusebeus and anyone else. I've asked before, but it got lost in the flurry:

  1. (vis-a-vis your objection to Jubilee's proposal #2) Are there any remaining concerns about the Template:Infobox_composer/draft's structure and style itself, or, are you now mainly concerned about the template being forced into usage prolifically? (which we've agreed is against project-consensus)
  2. What would you suggest that editors should use, if not this template, in articles such as Terry Riley and Robert Nathaniel Dett, if there is a consensus to use an infobox?

Everyone:

  1. We've clearly stated in the template documentation that certain fields have been soundly rejected and are not to be added or used. These fields are listed here: Template:Infobox composer/draft#Fields that are purposefully Not included. Does that satisfy the concerns that keep getting repeated, about inappropriate fields appearing, or, are there further changes that need to occur to satisfy these concerns? [Nobody is going to (successfully) add "genres" or "notable works" or "ethnicity" to this infobox, but it keeps getting raised as an "objection to infoboxes"...]

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think your "long" example is going to a tough sell, but your short example may work. I suggest a straw poll so we can see where we're at. Eusebeus (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which fields specifically in the longer examples are problematic? All of these have clear guidelines/restrictions on usage in the documentation. (Would improving the restriction-wording satisfy your concerns?). Thanks. (I don't think a straw poll is useful until we've got the specific objections addressed). -- Quiddity (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Straw poll on long or short, you mean? Actually, the code includes everything: there is no short version! (See above.) We could remove all the coding except that which is displayed in the short example before moving it over to {{Infobox classical composer}} (or where ever). A straw poll on that idea might help, perhaps --Jubilee♫clipman 22:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know how I've come to be Chernenko for the CP Politburo, but sobeit: first off, contemporary composers fall under the CM project as well. I doubt many of us would disagree that many of the CM could easily have a box. Second, for the longer fields some are fine: the LOC link, for instance is quite useful. Flourished as a substitute for death/birth = ok. Era: I would scratch. Too tempting to fill in, too complex to get right. Was CPE Bach late baroque or early classical? Ditto Beethoven... Others will have more intelligent examples than me. Prominent Family = unnecessary - scratch. Occupations = silly. They're composers. So Borodin was a chemist and Ives sold insurance. Holst was a bandmaster and Hummel a Kapellmeister but who cares - it strikes me as a silly category since they are primarily known as composers and this kind of trivia we can leave out of a box. Associated Acts... what does this mean? Anyway, it's CM only, so I don't care. So the flourished and loc are fine. the rest, I would junk. = $.02 Others will certainly disagree. Eusebeus (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: CM = WP:CTM? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stravinsky: Late Romantic, Neo-Romantic, Post-Impressionist, Primitivist, Neo-Classical, Modernist, Serialist... um: "Multi-talented 20th-century eclecticist and polystylist"? Contemporary figures are a different matter: often even the other boxes work fine for them. It is really the composers from pre-1975 or so that are at stake here, IMO. Again: Occam's razor... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Eusebeus and with the suggestion of dropping everything not actually displayed in the short version. I do have one caveat, however (and, just for once, it's not "no, no, get rid of that!"). If we are to have infoboxes, and I've already noted my unease with letting this particular camel intrude a nostril into the puptent, might we profitably think about ways to make them actual enhancements to the articles, even at the cost of creating new kinds of content, rather than mere regurgitations of tidbits from lead paragraphs? The link to the list of works is one example, and it points in the direction of my thinking. Briefly, works lists are useful adjuncts to the biographies, and at present finding links to them is usually a treasure hunt through the article. Hence, a standard putting a link in the infobox is a real convenience, and as far as I can imagine it offers no opportunity for mischief. Are there other such navigational matters that would benefit from similar treatment? One that springs to mind as a possibility is a relative of "prominent family": links to dynastic listings for familes like the Bachs, the Bendas, and the Couperins. With JS Bach, for instance, one can eventually work through disambiguation to Bach family, but a direct link from an infobox would greatly simplify the process. For others, like the Bendas, we might need to create new articles. Worth considering? Suggestive of other like possibilities? Or should I retire to my tent with a can of camel repellant? Drhoehl (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are good ideas. Obviously, only a fraction of composers come from a prominent musical family, but when it applies, it might save our readers the hassle of wondering where the link has been hidden this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
  • Era: We discussed above, the idea that entries in the "era" field should be selected from a very short list of recommendations, either those listed at {{History of European art music}} or something similar. Hence, CPE Bach would (hypothetically) have era listed as "Baroque–Classical". Beethoven would (hypothetically) have "Classical–Romantic". This is how the composers are described in prose in the lead paragraph, and it fits the categories they're placed in. As Jubilee says, Occam's razor. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occupation: Re: "Who cares"? The chemists might care... Borodin doesn't appear to have been a minor lab technician, he actually contributed to the field. It seems very significant. (and hence he has an {{infobox scientist}} currently...)
    Holst is described in his article as "Director of Music at ... [2 locations]. These were the most important of his teaching posts, and he retained both until the end of his life." That, too, seems significant. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's left: There are only 6 additional fields in the longer example:
    • Baptized and Flourished (nobody objects to)
    • Alias (?)
    • Notable_family (Eusebeus objects to, but Drhoehl sees a use for (eg. Mozart family, Bach family, etc))
    • Occupations (being discussed)
    • Associated_acts (would be removed if we create a separate {infobox contemporary composer})
  • So: "Alias" is unmentioned (I think it is useful when applicable, and will hardly ever be used), and Occupation/Era need some kind of minimal agreement, but everything else seems to be agreed-by-most. Feedback from everyone on those 3 would be great. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, the fact that somebody might use a field in the way that somebody else might object to in an article that might have a consensus to include an infobox seems too tenuous to act on. I'd suggest leaving the existing fields in place until (and unless) a real dispute arises. Deleting fields over purely hypothetical objections seems to lack good faith. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Whatamidoing and Drhoehl generally, except that I would remove Alias: it means very little, IMO, and makes it look like the composers are outlaws or undercover agents! (OTOH, some composers may actually have been spies, Corelli and Handel, for example! We don't know for sure, though, obviously...) Otherwise, leave the rest and refine later, I say. Utility is more important than personal preference or potential possiblities that hypothetically may or may not be disputed/wanted --Jubilee♫clipman 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During my most recent re-examination of the proposed template, I was struck by how poorly one aspect fits Bradley Joseph, who has been advanced more than once as a particularly good candidate. "Associated Acts" lists three names, none of whom are "acts" as I would define the term--they're individuals, peformers who may or may not have their own group associations. Considering that "associated acts" is probably the single most vilified aspect of the existing infobox regime as applied to classical musicians, I do think we'd be well advised to delete it from the proposed new template. Drhoehl (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: "Associated Acts" has to be the most ill-conceived term ever. Were Yoko Ono and John Lennon Associated Acts? How about Pink Floyd and Roy Harper or The Alan Parsons Project? (I note the Floyd article only uses the term for those bands closely associated with the Pink Floyd name and that Floyd members were actually in. Same goes for The Cure, almost... just drop Siouxsie & The Banshees and it would make sense there, too.) If we use the PF article's sense of that term it becomes a non-sequetur for individual people. Obviously, a single person cannot morph into another person (except Dr Who, perhaps!) nor can they merge with another person... If we use the other sense (acts bands that the person has been in), we find that composers rarely have bands (except Micheal Nyman, of course). Associated Acts should be dropped as more or less nonsensical! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Removed and added to "Not used" list. Can be discussed for potential inclusion at any (hypothetical) contemporary composers infobox. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of copy editorial matters, and then a general observation. First, in the explanatory text of "Occupations," we need "principal," not "principle." In the explanatory text for "Born," I think we want only "Birth date," not "Birth date and age." Presumably "age" in this context would always be zero. Now, the general observation that arises from some of the surrounding discussion. A couple of the categories--Alias and Occupation--are advanced on the strength that they are useful in specific instances, namely "Vivaldi was The Red Priest" and "Borodin was a noted chemist." I think both of these cases, particularly the latter, could be characterized as "outliers," entries whose circumstances will almost never apply elsewhere. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another example like "The Red Priest." As to occupations, yes, Borodin's stature as a chemist is compelling and noteworthy in itself, but how many other composers in particular or musicians in general were similarly celebrated in a non-musical field? Holst's positions as a "director of music" really aren't anything out of the ordinary for a musician of his stature, and it's not why he's remembered. That Ives ran an insurance agency has already been mentioned; again, not really worth featuring with the inherent prominence of a box. Josef Strauss started off life as an engineer and only reluctantly entered the musical calling for which he is now remembered. Scads of composers trained first as lawyers. All these facts are worthwhile background in articles but, it seems to me, don't rise to the level of "worth inclusion in a box." The list could go on and on, but the point is, does the existence of one or two exceptional cases justify including the categories for the general run of musicians, for whom they are likely only to invite trivia? I'd suggest that on balance perhaps these two options might also be better placed in the "deliberately excluded" category. Drhoehl (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Chopin box in the examples, that probably goes as far as we really need to go (aside from the either/ors like bapismal date vs birth date). Knocking the alias out of Vivaldi's box wouldn't be a bad thing: who the heck calls him the Red Priest these days except as a reference to his nickname back then? It is an interesting fact but no where near as important as the fact that Paul David Hewson happens to be far better known as Bono. Occupation isn't used in any example, so it can probably be quietly dropped, too. Basically: (usual) name, birth name, dates of birth/baptism/death, era(s), list of notable family (though I'd link to a list, like Bach family, rather than list them individually) and list of works (ditto, as in documentation) plus a picture (if free). That's it: that's as much as we need. It will give the metadata gatherers enough info to use, it will summarise the composer for those that prefer graphic summaries to prose summaries, it goes beyond duplicating the lead (list of works, at least), it does not confuse or oversimplify and it is unlikely to be filled with misinformation. I like it --Jubilee♫clipman 02:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are a few straggling loose ends. If you have a look at my (daft) sandbox experiment, User:Jubileeclipman/Sandbox#Experiment_with_infobox, you will see that there are some anomolies. First if you simply use the name as the Img_capt you duplicate the heading: do we need Img_capt? Also, {{Birth date and age}} will give Mozart as: {{Birth date and age|1756|01|27}} = January 27, 1756 (age 260) invalid year. We need {{Birth date}} as an alternative. There might be more to resolve but I think we are getting there! --Jubilee♫clipman 04:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the Chopin example in the docs, for good uses of the Img_capt and Occupations fields.
The img_capt tag is useful when the image can be helpfully contextualized. I believe that field should be left in.
The occupations field is used in all the examples on the documentation page. It has been placed at the center, underneath the caption, so that no field-title is required (because the possible titles were all considered confusing/ambiguous: eg occupations/professions/roles/jobs/known as). I would like to leave Occupations in, at least until it is proven heavily-problematic in actual use. It is a potentially highly-informative field, and it holds one of the key metadata fields.
Alias can be removed, and I've done so. I was about to offer a counter-example as reason for inclusion, but upon checking, it seems even the jazz royalty don't list their nicknames in their infoboxes.
I've added details to the docs for the other problems. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Quiddity. I had missed the Occupations in those boxes for some reason. In fact, I thought it wasn't being transcluded: see an older edit on this page! Anyway, it does hold useful data; Pianist, Violinist, Priest, Chemist and Ringmaster (!) are all important facts one way or the other. Certainly, the sensible examples in the documentation (ignoring my silly version, that is) highlight the important occupations for each of the composers there. Vivaldi was a priest (and that fact is actually on a par with Borodin being a chemist), and Joseph is a producer/arranger (and that fact is crucial to his art). However, although Chopin was both pianist and composer his profession was as a piano-teacher-cum-composer and is seems that he didn't often perform very often in public, at least in his later years. Liszt might get a litle hairy, too: many people assume his was a priest but he only took minor orders, hence he was called "Abbé Liszt" not "Fra Ferenc/Franz/Liszt" etc, as I understand it. (This, despite the text of his bio missing out this title, claiming he was an Abbot (I am not sure he was actually an abbot but I may be wrong), and undervaluing his extremely important contributions to the the Catholic Church, which proves a point, perhaps...) There seems to be much confusion on the web on this point and it needs clearing up once and for all; that's for the Liszt experts, though, obviously.
The rest makes much more sense, now, thanks. There are a few grammatical/stylistic changes I would make in the documentation ("purposefully Not included" seems a bit clumsy, for example) but overall it all looks fine to me. Thanks again for taking the time to do this! --Jubilee♫clipman 16:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heading changed and text added:
== Fields that are specifically excluded ==
Note: the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC|Composers project RfC on infoboxes]] 
concluded that this box should remain minimal; 
the following fields were felt to be ambiguous or otherwise unhelpful.
Is that any better? --Jubilee♫clipman 18:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The field header is more graceful, to be sure; an edit conflict preempted my planned suggestion of "Fields deliberately omitted," but I actually prefer "specifically excluded," which is more forcible. As to "occupations," just be prepared for Dvorak's occupations to read along the lines of "Composer, Conservatory Director, Music Professor, Violinist, Violist, Organist, Piano Teacher, Conductor, Butcher"; every one of those entries (except the last, which draws on my recollection of articles referring to his apprenticeship in youth) finds solid support in the article. Moreover, every one of them was of great importance to Dvorak at some point in his life--and every one of them except "composer" is utterly trivial in the context of why we remember him today. Surely there must be some way to narrow this category, if it must be included, so as to avoid trivia, however picturesque. My willingness to let "metadata" dictate content is quite limited, read "nil," but even on that basis I can't imagine that such a hodgepodge (but completely accurate and objectively defensible if challenged) listing would be of value. My vote would be that we should leave such information for the article lead, where it's easier to sort out and put into proper perspective. Drhoehl (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving fields empty/out in specific instances, based on consensus, such as at Dvorak, is perfectly fine. If people were to keep randomly adding the field, one would simply add a <!-- hidden explanatory note --> in that article's infobox. Again, this just follows from the information given in the lead and categories. If in doubt, refer to reliable sources. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns and technical questions[edit]

I'm rather concerned with the character of this discussion. A decision that is likely to negatively impact the quality of a large number of articles is being made, it seems, by a rather small number of editors, which I would guess are the few people who haven't gotten so weary of this discussion that they've taken it off their watchlist. If this infobox makes it out of draft, it would be an entirely reasonable response of concerned editors to revert its use systematically as it appears. Opus33 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, blindly and systematically deleting an infobox is not "entirely reasonable" under any definition, and most especially not under Wikipedia's editing policy. No single editor (or group of editors) owns the template (or the articles); you therefore cannot unilaterally refuse to allow someone to use it -- or to create it.
What editors can do is determine the consensus for each individual article. The consensus will doubtless be to avoid the infobox in many articles. It might be to include it in other articles. We're looking for good editorial judgment, applied for the best outcome in each individual article, not systematic reversions over personal preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this RfC has over a week to run yet. If people have de-watchlisted this discussion, so be it. As I stated from the off: this is intended to end the cycle of discussion and the edit warring once and for all. If you have an objection to the infobox as it stands or object its use, say so now. That applies to everyone above, BTW. However, I note that a large number of people have stated that they do not object to a minimimal infobox and the weight of argument seems to be in favour of its use. Eg, people use all sorts of boxes, at present, most of which are inappropriate: what do we do about those? Also, the metadata that infoboxes hold is invaluable to bots etc. I may have misread the signs but there does seems to be consensus here to use the proposed box, despite your edit summary. (See above for my assessment of the overall consensus; it is a little buried, though, I admit so I could move it down here if that would help.) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more accurate to say that the consensus is in favor of its use -- in thoughtfully selected articles, as determined by the editors at a given article. It should neither be spammed everywhere nor deleted everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does appear to be a more accurate reading, actually, now that I have rescaned the above over the past half hour or so. Thanks WhatamIdoing --Jubilee♫clipman 01:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "the metadata that infoboxes hold is invaluable to bots etc." Is there any evidence that an infobox's content is useful for bots and is in fact used in any way? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. It is just something that DGG, Eusebeus and Andy Mabbett (eg here) have said so we need their input again, really --Jubilee♫clipman 02:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. DBpedia among others, uses metadata from infoboxes to make searches like French scientists who were born in the 19th century possible. See http://wiki.dbpedia.org/FacetedSearch?v=lrf for more examples and details. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was suggested in a previous discussion that {{Persondata}} would do that job just as well. I had never heard of that template until I read the old discussions thoroughly, recently. Is it a viable alternative? --Jubilee♫clipman 03:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Andy, and apparently it isn't. Persondata is only for internal (WP) usage. (I mistakenly assumed it was equivalent, and suggested so earlier. Sorry for causing confusion.) He says google and yahoo also utilize our infobox metadata (hcard), so it is a tangible benefit. (I'll nudge more people to improve the metadata-project's docs with specific examples, later.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text of rewritten guideline[edit]

leave this issue to one side for now and move on

Kleinzach recently restored the link to the previous debates in the guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes). I have added a link to this RfC, now, and updated Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates with a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 27 which contains the original debate that this RfC span out from. Question: do we need any of that? The point was to avoid sending people to a mass of previous debates, IIRC. Also, the original text (without the links) was drawn up according to consensus (it contains amendments by Opus33 and Drhoehl among others). Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much rather Kleinzach raised his concerns here rather than continuing to attempt to bludgeon people over the head with past discussion, yes. Happy‑melon 10:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Kleinzach is trying to bludgeon anyone. It seems clear that if (when) we replace our existing policy for a more flexible case-by-case evaluation of the value of infoboxes, that in most instances the consensus will be against inclusion. If I am asked to weigh in on whether we should include an infobox for our articles on Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Josquin etc etc I would invariably argue contra and I suspect many project participants will agree. Let's not lose sight of that. We may be proposing a composers infobox, and we may be proposing that consensus be explored in the instance rather than the aggregate, but ultimately a majority of participants (myself, Ant, Opus, David, KZ, Fol, Dr, etc..) will not support their inclusion for most composers in most circumstances. Eusebeus (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify: I had already replaced the old text (see above) with the text carefully drawn up in the above discussion. Opus33, Drhoehl, I, and others suggested the wording and everyone agreed that the old text should be replaced. There were no links to past discussion in any of the new text, not even to this RfC. I assumed good faith on Kleinzach's part and rather than simply delete the restored links, I expanded that restored part of the old text to include this debate; I also expanded the subpage infobox debates to include the original discussion (archive 27) that this RfC broke off from. Hence, this has nothing to do with the eventual application of that new guideline (which still being debated) but is rather to do with the wording of that guideline. As I understood it, the project felt it best to avoid sending people to those old debates and decided to set out simply and clearly the reasons why infoboxes are to be avoided on composer articles in most cases. Have I misunderstood that? Do we actually want those debates linked in those guidelines? --Jubilee♫clipman 12:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I have no objection to that. I was objecting to Melon's characterisation. Eusebeus (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm. Yes I see that. (I'll take the 5th amendment on that issue, though...) However, I think what I am (somewhat tentatively) asking is: "can I restore the revision shown on the left of this diff with impunity and according the consensus of all the editors here?" (...) --Jubilee♫clipman 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I said "bludgeon... with past discussion", I meant exactly that, not "bludgeon with discussion which means [anything]". I agree that the consensus-for-infobox-creation-but-individual-consensus-against-on-many-articles outcome is very likely, and there's nothing at all wrong with that position; as I've said before, I really DGAD about one side or the other. But Kleinzach is perfectly capable of expressing that position, and its supporting arguments, here constructively, rather than continuing to treat this as 'just another infobox discussion'. We all very much hope, and are working towards ensuring, that this is the last infobox discussion, and the more people participate, the more likely that becomes. But even more importantly, this discussion needs to produce a consensus that can stand on its own, so all that old 'consensus' can be put to bed. Continually dragging those megabytes of dead weight into things doesn't help that at all. Happy‑melon 18:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that a link to this page is appropriate if we are also linking to the earlier discussions, otherwise, is this issue really worth recriminations and protracted argument? For what it's worth, I can see some value in linking all the discussions about infoboxes, both from a historical perspective and because the links may be handy later if those who think the instant discussion is not "The War To End All Wars" prove correct, but otherwise this particular matter seems awfully small beer (albeit probably green in keeping with the day). I concur with "let's assume good faith" and would just move on. Drhoehl (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed guidance about when to omit?[edit]

Looking at the template again, I had the thought that for all its general admonitions about "exercise caution" and such, it really is short on concrete guidance about when to apply (or not to apply) an infobox. For instance, "The box should be used sparingly and only where it adds to the overall quality of an article" really doesn't limit things; those who are gung-ho box advocates will almost certainly conclude that an infobox will always add to the overall quality of an article. Might we therefore do well to add something like the following up front? Note that I'm shooting more or less from the hip here and offer these factors as illustrations, not necessarily as final proposals:

"This project recommends that editors refrain from adding infoboxes to articles lacking any of the following features:

  • a picture of the subject
  • a related list or lists under separate heading (list of works, dynastic listing, etc.)
  • well established birth and death dates or life period
  • well established birthplace and place of death

If any information specified in the template is subject to controversy as outlined in the article, editors considering addition of an infobox are urged to proceed only with extreme caution and after careful discussion." Drhoehl (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that for the box or the project's guideline section? If for the box, then "this project recommends that..." makes no sense. It might be a useful addition to the guidance we give, however. We'll have to see what others think. Specific warnings in the box's own documentation will need very careful wording, though, if we don't want to be appear to be claiming ownership of it --Jubilee♫clipman 01:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt at the doc-writing could definitely use some tweaking by other people. More specific cautions/suggestions/recommendations would be good (along the lines that you suggest; perhaps someone else can suggest specific tweaks).
If there are any specific composers who represent near-indisputable examples for the ambiguous criteria, eg "well established birth and death dates", those might be useful, too. (I'd weakly object to "missing birthplace/deathplace" as a recommended reason for omiting. And, by "dates" i presume you mean "year unknown", not just "day/month unknown".) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just replaced the questioned text with: "This box was created as a result of extended debate in [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC]]; the participants there felt strongly that infoboxes should generally be avoided in articles on classical composers and requested that each proposed inclusion should be assessed on a case-by-case basis on that article's talkpage. See also the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes|Composer project guidelines]]."
Is that better? Worse? Too harsh/ownery? (See above for a parallel discussion on the fields.) --Jubilee♫clipman 17:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any final thoughts?[edit]

This RfC is due to close on Wednesday 24th March (if my maths is correct). Are there any final thoughts? What do we do with Template:Infobox composer/draft? If we reject the proposed box do we accept {{Infobox Person}} as used in the article Enrique Granados? If we accept the proposed box where do we use it and do we need to link it from the guidelines? Any more issues to deal with? Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 21:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the wording of the guidelines still might benefit from tweaking. In particular, the third bullet point, which now reads "3.They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague and confused, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, listing endless works, and listing a professional chemist who happened also to compose (but not as a profession) under occupation = composer, chemist" might be better fully generalized, along these lines: "3.They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre; setting forth haphazard lists of individual works; or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations." Apologies for besetting defunct equines so late in the day.... Drhoehl (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree: I did wonder if the explicit examples were necessary at all, actually, but felt we need something to contextualise the preceding statement, "They can, conversely, become..." Your changes are good. I'd just go live with them. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 06:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. I meant to change those semicolons to commas (they're a holdover from an earlier draft I had worked out), but I'm leaving them be for the moment pending any further comment or revision by others. Drhoehl (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I loathe about infoboxes[edit]

  1. Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
  2. Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
  3. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
  4. Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
  5. Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
  6. Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.

Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists. Tony (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a thoughtful and well-argued contribution! Your arguments #2, #3, #5, and #6 were new to me. Thank you from a beleaguered infobox objector. Opus33 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also loathe infoboxes. Tony's comment is among the most cogent I have ever seen on the topic. I view infoboxes as part of a dumbing-down of Wikipedia that we who care about the project as an encyclopedia and not a repository of trivia, a product of our attention-deficit-disorder age, should fight against, using the same means that we use to craft a fine encyclopedia article: language, rendered in coherent prose. Thank you everyone for not attempting to summarize our arguments in an infobox. Antandrus (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, would you consider merging your view into Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes!. Tony (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am grateful that someone has finally given us a full and frank description of the problems inherent in infoboxes and explained why they are seen to be so undesirable in most cases by many people. I would not stop at placing this in the talk page of Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes, BTW, I would raise these issues WP-wide and get the Infobox-advocates to respond in kind (i.e. Why I adore infoboxes or what ever). As I say, I care not one jot whether an article has a box or not, I just want peace to reign in this corner of WP without some editor coming along every 2 years to edit-war with the regulars then complain loudly that we "have deleted his prized box with some snarky edit summary" and, finally, proceed to misquote "policy" and start a war of words. (Neither editor was entirely innocent in this latest battle, note, and neither editor was entirely guilty.) At least the new guidelines for this project are generally accepted as more reasonable: should the other projects (Opera, CM, CTM, etc) adopt a similar approach in their guidelines? --Jubilee♫clipman 06:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the points above, seem to primarily apply to biographical and art infoboxes (and others?), and not to other types. It might help future discussions if this were clarified. By which I mean: from a glance through WP:FA, these seem like infoboxes you might feel differently about: taxonomy infoboxes such as at Armillaria gallica or Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo, hurricane infoboxes such as 1910 Cuba hurricane, chemical infoboxes such as Zinc, hardware infoboxes such as Macintosh Classic, or sport infoboxes eg 1930 FIFA World Cup.
Some information is readily summarizable, and some people appreciate it in that form. See CIA - The World Factbook -- Iceland for example - Some prose, but mostly raw facts.
I often visit an article looking for a specific fact or type of information (eg "what is the population of Iceland", or "how old is William Gibson, and who does he (or notable critics) claim as his 'influences'?" (ie. looking for tangential book recommendations)). Infoboxes often contain this type of instant-information. I don't read 100% of every article I click on, I suspect most readers do not. Sometimes the lead paragraphs are enough, sometimes the infobox is enough. Depending on what I'm looking for, I'll usually read one of those first. Or I might skip past them both, straight to the TableofContents, and go looking for a particular subsection.
I won't try to respond with my own thoughts to the rest here. Partially because I'm getting late for work... :/ But again, clarifying whether there are some infoboxes (or aspects thereof) that are acceptable, (and not calling them all a "cancer"!) might help convince more people of your perspective, and might help clarify the problems for potential discussion. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A point that I suspect we should discuss, even at the cost of delaying the closing date for the RfC: would Tony's language, or more likely some extract thereof, be a good substitute for what we've worked out as a policy statement on the project page to date? Drhoehl (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a delay is necessary; I believe that normal editing is likely to be sufficient now.
IMO the primary problem was the advice page's previous efforts to impose a one-size-fits-all decision with an unhealthy dose of "consensus can't change". A detailed explication of the many (potential and real) failings of infoboxes can be added and expanded at any time without re-creating what are (IMO) the real problems with the previous version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another thing: I see infobox field titles can't be changed from singular to plural and vice versa. So we have the ridiculous situation of "Pen name:" followed by six pen names. And the ungainly "Language(s)". It is clumsiness exposed right at the top of our articles. Tony (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-arguments to this view[edit]

FWIW...

I first look at each point then address Tony's closing text.

  1. This first is a non-argument unless it is to be applied equally to all potential elements in an article. Article text itself can become expansively undisciplined: we are encouraged to include as much information on the subject as possible in the article body and this can become repetitive, rambling, unedifying, etc etc. Other templates can become undisciplined, too, such as list templates. On the other hand, a minimal box—including only the most necessary fields—avoids this, especially if the documentation explains why certain fields are excluded. Hidden comments on the optional fields also help to discourage the use of those fields unless they are needed.
  2. Again this is a non-argument unless it is applied equally to all potential elements in an article. Lots of things move text about, not least images.
  3. Or "here's a quick visual summary if you wish to get the basic facts for now". The objection assumes that every one reads articles in the same manner which assumption is manifestly untrue. It also forgets the fact that minds work in different ways: some people learn by reading, others by doing, yet others by seeing. Most people use a combination of these techniques. Infoboxes are extremely useful for those that learn better from graphic representations.
  4. POV... "...seem to contradict" in whose opinion? If the box is well-constructed and well-maintained, inaccuracies, inconsistancies and visual disaster can all be avoided, obviously.
  5. See my answers above.
  6. Not necessarily: comparisons of the tallest buildings in Atlanta, the list of 24 episodes, the list of Blue Peter presenters and the Woody Allen filmography all lend themselves to the list format admirably; a person's vital statistics and career do not. None of the FLs even attempt to assemble any of the latter data unlike the infoboxes on Featured Articles like Samuel Johnson, Bradley Joseph, Anton Chekhov, Catherine de' Medici and Gerard K. O'Neill.

The other arguments are simply either to do with practicalities (e.g. singular vs plural), which could probably be resolved by taking the trouble to approach the box creator, or are personal opinion that is unlikely to be shared by everyone, if even by that many at all. "Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span" [refactored after a considered review of my words: see the replies below] and "...that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text" are both equally unforgiving and actually read like a personal attack on any one with an IQ lower that 110. "...that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape" forgets that the writer has previously advocated WP:Lists. "They judder against the lead...": only in that writer's opinion. "Their inclusion would be derided..." is more like an attack on the modern world that a measured objection to infoboxes. "Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal...": are they; do they not, rather, help those that find large bodies of text difficult to navigate and those that just want the basic facts? I repeat: a well-constucted and well-maintained infobox will avoid inaacuracy, inconsistency and visual disaster and instead will summarise the most important facts in a concise manner. This information obviously belongs at the head of an article not (like most Template-Lists) at the end. However: "Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles." That much is true: infoboxes should be used with care and not be part of some formulaic system.

Infoboxes, therefore, can be as useful or as un-useful, as well-maintained or badly-maintained, as good or as bad as any other element in an article.

--Jubilee♫clipman 10:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responses:
    • I find Jubilee's responses most unconvincing, and could I remind him that he has significantly breached WP:CIVILITY by labelling me as "pretentious, arrogant and prejudiced"? I will take no action at this stage, other than to ask him to read the list of behaviours that are classified as in breach of the policy.
    • My main concern is for readers with IQs of less than 110, whose understanding of a topic we hold in our hands more than for those who have more flexible minds. It is our responsibility not to allow a system of quick and dirty formulaic factoids to dominate the openings, since they are so prone to misleading even the astute reader.
    • "we are encouraged to include as much information on the subject as possible in the article body"—no, we have to write in WP:SUMMARY style, and there are rules and guiedlines about taking articles over a certain length.
    • "Infoboxes are extremely useful for those that learn better from graphic representations."—Infoboxes are textual, not graphic in that sense. It is in the form and content of infobox text, and its relation to the main text, that the damage is done. Tony (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder whether I should leave the "pretentious, arrogant and prejudiced" statement in or not. However, I meant that the statement could be read in that manner and should have made that clear as I did elsewhere when I said "reads like" and so on. I did not at all mean that you are any of those things. Sorry if I offended! I did explain why I chose each word, however. [Edit: I have refactored that particular sentence.] [Further edit: I have refactored that sentence out altogether: I couldn't figure out how to express my meaning without appearing to be uncivil.]
Your talking derogatively about people with low concentration spans and that "can't absorb the key facts from extended text" seems to suggest that you are more concerned with those of execellent attention spans and high IQs. Sorry if I misread you there.
I had never even heard of WP:SUMMARY until now. However, 1b and 1c of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria seem to suggest otherwise: we are encouraged to include everything.
Infoboxes do indeed contain text but present them as a table, much like the periodic table or a family tree. In that sense, they are graphic. Different people do need different aids to learn a subject: just because a particular aid is unhelpful to you doesn't mean it should be banished forever and everywhere --Jubilee♫clipman 11:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take exception to one of your points. FAs, just like all other articles, are expected to exercise summary style in their comprehensive coverage of an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten that FAC #4 says we should avoid "going into unnecessary detail" and had missed it (and the link, of course) somehow when reviewing the criteria earlier. Thanks for the reminder! However, that criteria clearly applies to every element of an article, including infoboxes. FAC #4 therefore negates both my argument and Tony's. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I preface my remarks by noting that I am neither an advocate nor an opponent of infoboxes - what will be will be. But I would like to point out that all the disadvantages that Tony cites are viewed as advantages by proponents of infoboxes, to wit:

  1. Expansiveness: It is possible in an infobox to present concisely information that otherwise might require a reader to look through often prolix text. What instruments did this composer play? Where was he born? Did he have some other profession besides composing? These facts are often not included in the lead, and for someone looking for composers born in Vienna before 1800, a glance at the infobox is a lot more efficient than wading through the article.
  2. Visual enhancement: The infobox presents concise information in a format that is pleasing, consistent, and easily understood.
  3. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles is an advantage. It adds an element of uniformity and order to all articles on the same subject, regardless of the personal and often conflicting tastes of the different authors. The infobox is a quick and dirty way to find specific information for readers who don't want or need to read the whole article.
  4. Disconnected particles: Their terse, to the point presentation at the very opening of an article saves readers looking for salient point the need to read through continuous, connected form and style of the running prose.
  5. Uncertain benefit for readers: There has, indeed, been no research on the usefulness of infoboxes in Wikipedia. Performing a survey of the type I did would be of no use, because the readers for whom infoboxes might be meaningful are not the type of readers that will take the time to fill out a survey form. It seems a fair assumption that for many Wikipedia readers, especially high school and lower school students looking for specific information for a homework assignment, infoboxes might well be a useful place to start reading. We can't be sure of this, of course, without a reader survey, but it seems to me only fair to give this assumption the benefit of the doubt. In any case, the cost is minimal and the benefit, while uncertain, might well be considerable.
  6. Better as lists: The difference between an infobox and a list is pretty strictly a matter of taste. An infobox generally has a picture, while a list does not. Information in an infobox is formally structured for uniformity, a list has no uniform content. But some might think a list looks better than an infobox. One way or another, the information is there.

So, you see, the argument is not one of substance, but one of taste. People who dislike infoboxes are certainly entitled to do so. And because it is a matter of taste, and not of substance, it will never be resolved, no matter how much we argue. De gustibus non est disputandem --Ravpapa (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions[edit]

  1. Should WP:CM, WP:OPERA, WP:CTM, etc now adopt the guidelines (or a version thereof) currently used by this project? The guidelines of the former two (CM, Opera) are similar to the old rejected text used by this project while CTM simply states that the project follows the lead of other guidelines on this issue (though I can deal with that issue, obviously, as the coordinator for CTM)
  2. (One more time.) What do we do with Template:Infobox composer/draft?

--Jubilee♫clipman 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 2¢ on 2: The only way forward, that isn't going to result in a repeat of this argument in the months/years ahead, is to do as seems to be the "consensus" (ie. not everyone is happy with it, but everyone is resigned to acknowledging that it beats the alternatives), and move the draft infobox to {{infobox classical composer}}. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any consensus to implement a composer infobox. Eusebeus (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What then, do you suggest that editors use, on articles about classical composers, where the primary contributors have already agreed that they do want to use an infobox? Should they continue using the "incorrect" musical artist infobox? This is the problem the draft seeks to resolve. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, no one has rejected {{Infobox person}}. However, that box is perhaps too generic for the needs of the articles where an infobox is desired so we do need to think carefully about the choice before us. Furthermore, the Musical Artist box is accepted in certain circumstances: Bradley Joseph is both an FA—so the "particular care clause" applies—and about a classical composer that crosses over to the pop mainstream and jazz—so the "wrong" box is actually correct there. Finally, Eusebeus is correct only insofar as very few here have actually and specifically either rejected or endorsed the draft box: there is no consensus because there is no strong expression of opinion either way. Hence my question... --Jubilee♫clipman 08:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The editor that added this draft infobox to the Bradley Joseph page on March 3, is that article's creator and primary contributor, Cricket02. Not knowing his motives for having swapped templates, we don't really know which template is 'correct' there. :/
(He hasn't joined this discussion since the straw poll, though. (He could be invited to comment specifically.) Possibly, as mentioned before, he and others are remaining at a distance so that they don't overwhelm the opposition through sheer numbers?) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wish they would come forward again! The debate needs both sides to be present and correct for it to go forward... If they are truly in such great numbers that the opposition would be confounded, then that would certainly disprove the "no consensus for a box" argument! I also note that several editors apparently avoid this project as well as Opera and CM because they feel stifled by them (see User:Themfromspace's and user:Calliopejen1's comments in the poll, for example (the latter very recent)) --Jubilee♫clipman 06:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he is mentioned, I will invite Cricket02. I'd feel uncomfortable personally inviting anyone else though, or adding pointers elsewhere, as I don't wish to be accused of canvassing. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For #1, I suggest that in a week or three (to give time for further refinements through normal editing of the advice page), you leave a Friendly Note for the other projects, and let them decide whether they want to consider updating their advice pages with any of the ideas we've worked out here (e.g., a clearer explanation of when to avoid infoboxes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with a composer-specific infobox is that it suggests that somehow it has been sanctioned by this project (as the principal concentration of CM editors). It has not and very credible objections have been raised by numerous parties. For those articles where there is consensus to have an infobox, I suggest, following Jubileeclipman, using available generica. Given however, the tenor of the discussion, it strikes me that a {{infobox classical composer}} is inappropriate. To this point, a straw poll may be useful to clarify the final decision: should we, yes or no, adopt a classical composers infobox? My views may, of course, be wildly divergent from the majority perspective. Eusebeus (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Eusebius. My feeling is that what has been wrung out is that, in the case of substantial genuine demand for an infobox in discussion on a composer page, most people recognise that they would not have much chance of stopping it. That is a long way from having any consensus of what such a box should look like, or whether some format shoud be sanctioned. I don't want to be punched in the face, but that doesn't mean there is sense in my making the quasi-invitation 'If you're going to punch me in the face anyway, do it like this'. --Smerus (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm... I don't agree that it is like a victim of a beating choosing the weapon they are beaten up with, is it more a case "if you are going to do it, do it right" --Jubilee♫clipman 17:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but implicit in your comment is an acceptance that it is appropriate to do 'it' at all - an acceptance tht doesn't seem to have consensus. --Smerus (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rejection doesn't have consensus, either. However, not a few editors have made suggestions to make the box more acceptable to the project: that fact alone seems to suggest acceptance. Indeed, several changes have been made following those suggestions thus making the box as minimal and unobtrusive as possible. The reall issue here is what do we do next time Buzz Shearman's bandmates or whomever start placing infoboxes in classical musician articles. Infact: [8]... It has started again... Do we politely tell those people that we don't want a box anyway in CM articles or give them a least unacceptable alternative (whatever that is)? Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 18:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this project adopt {{infobox classical composer}}?[edit]

A somewhat non-conventional suggestion. I've been thinking over this discussion, trying to decide just what to make of it, and I've concluded a big problem is that, working in a vacuum, we have plenty of argument but very little solid basis on which to evaluate (or re-evaluate) our positions. There's 'way too much text to wade through and confirm, but my impression is that no one has budged an inch from opinions held back at the beginning. After spillage of countless pixels of speculation, those who at the outset thought boxes were attractive, helpful resources giving readers quick access to an article's salient facts still think boxes are attractive, helpful resources giving readers quick access to the salient facts; those who considered them abominations still think they are abominations; those who did't really care one way or the other still don't care. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm thinking we might find something more concrete to be helpful. What if we were to agree to adopt the composers' infobox provisionally and suspend this discussion for, say, six months, agreeing to reconvene, assess our experience, and make a final decision beginning on October 1, based on hard evidence instead of guesswork? I'll confess I'd find such an approach comforting; I do not like infoboxes in principle, I still think the warning voiced by Cassandra opus33 has received insufficient consideration, and I worry that adoption of the "only with consensus on the article's discussion page" approach will simply replace recurrent large, generalized brouhahas about boxes with shotgun blasts of small, specific ones, but on the other hand I can see the virtues of a minimal box amounting to little more than a photo caption if its rejection leaves us open to regular application of something allowing for "associated acts" or designed on the basis that computer coding trumps article content. Might, then, the "try it for a while and see" approach be useful? Or should I prepare for a visit from those nice men in the white coats? Drhoehl (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Drhoehl's solution is the best yet proposed. Close the debate, promote the box provisionally to see if it helps or hinders this project's goals, then reconvene to discuss matters in six months. We need to do something (as several wise people have said, above) and the guideline rewrite may not yet be enough --Jubilee♫clipman 18:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very reasonable and practical to me. (This reminds me of the plan to test out flagged revisions (last time I read about it...)). If it is hurting things in 6 months, then yank it out and commit taxidermy upon it. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes[edit]

  • We try it provisionally as suggested by Drhoehl. We still need to ensure the box is being used appropriately, however, and that none of the inappropriate boxes are being used. Basically, our choice is either try out this box or accept that editors will add one of the others (as happened with Chopin during this debate and as has happened with Lang Lang (pianist), Hélène Grimaud and Krystian Zimerman, among others, without discussion). This isn't going to go away if we simply bury our heads in the sand folks! We need to take a proactive approach, at least for a while --Jubilee♫clipman 07:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I personally do not think infoboxes are appropriate or useful, and some cases ridiculous and misleading, especially for historical classical composers, I support this. You don't have to use it, but if you don't have a relatively innocuous alternative when resistance is met, you are asking for trouble and the totally inappropriate "musical artist" infobox. I think Quiddity has done an excellent job on it. Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

- because what happens when, six months later, and having abstained from intervening in the meantime, we find a huge variety of infoboxes, some 'approved', some adaptations of 'approved' and some of the old type listing everything down to where the person's grandmother was born - and then have to painfully start tidying them up? .........--Smerus (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe that "adaptations" would be created. What you see in the draft infobox is all that would be used. Anything else would be legitimately shot on sight (per the consensus here, of everyone involved, whether pro- or anti- infobox.) The concerns you express above are a straw man, as far as I can tell; please be assured that it is not a possible scenario. I urge you to reevaluate with that in mind. Base your thoughts on the draft-infobox as given, only. Be rational, not rhetorical! -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Quiddity. Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
then I will withdraw my comment, and events will prove, in the event that this proposal is adopted, whose prognostications are more correct. --Smerus (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

I have been approached by Jubileeclipman with a view to closing and summarising this discussion. As there is over 200k of text here now, it may take some time to wade through all of this! However it seems there is still active discussion here, so my question is: do you need more time? I would not want to close down a useful conversation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a few days, perhaps, to decide whether the proposed box is acceptable to the project. Thanks, Martin --Jubilee♫clipman 17:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the proposed infobox[edit]

  • Strong objections to:
  1. the rash of common-term linking in the examples, and the linking of anything but the most specific geographical entity (since less specific entities are "chain" links in the specific link-target);
  2. the use of US spelling (are users able to change the field titles to the engvar of the article? Are they able to use singular or plural? Is there an explicit suggestion about these issues? Hate the use of "era(s)".
  3. Why is there a cultural skew towards the European christian ("Baptized")?
  4. The draft text needs a copy-edit.

If "Occupation(s)" is allowed as a field, how will you stop editors from inserting trivia. I've seen it in popular musicians' articles: that a great artist was a hotel cleaner (to put themselves through college), or a corporal in the US army (before their musical career). I really have seen this. Who cares? Why should it be emblazoned at the top, rather than pointed out right down in the biographical sections, where it might be in proportion? Tony (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is encouraged to edit. I've attempted to address a few.
  1. Overlinking reduced in docs.
  2. Re: engvar ("Baptized" is the only one, correct?) My bad, as a frequently-muddled British/Canadian. Possibly a technical fix exists for these situations? Re: plurals, Possibly a technical fix exists for these situations? I shall inquire.
  3. Because (I presume) that information is commonly what is available, when an accurate birth date is not known. Many historic classical composers happen to be from Europe at a time when Christianity was dominant. I included it in the template because it was used in this earlier attempt, and nobody has objected to it until now.
  4. Sofixit! (or at least explain the problem)
  5. Re: occupations. The template documentation give instructions on when to use this field. If it's not clear enough, improve it. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quiddity - "Baptised" is also possible and is more common in BrE. Tony - Date of baptism was included (2 years ago in the old box mentioned by Quiddity) because Beethoven's date of birth is unknown though his date of baptism is known. Perhaps a rethink is in order for that particular detail. To be fair, though, Quiddity has worked his back off to create a 'box that is as acceptable to this project as possible. Very minor changes could still be made, probably, but I suspect the 'box is now one of the best available anywhere on WP given the amount of questioning/tinkering/reworking/refactoring it has been subjected to throughout this RfC --Jubilee♫clipman 20:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I, too, have strong reservations about "occupation," but, if we must retain it, an idea occurs to me that might address the problem, at least to some degree. Would it help were the documentation to specify that an "occupation" should be listed only if it would suffice in its own right to demonstrate notability for an article? I'm thinking such guidance would allow for instances like Borodin the important chemist but exclude the insurance sales "day job" for Ives.
Regarding "baptism," I hadn't thought this was an issue, but how about substituting something like "Born no later than"? The guidance would need amendment to state something like "Use when only baptism or other alternative to birth date is available." Drhoehl (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Occupations, the docs currently say, "Principal occupations only, matching those given in lead. If just a composer, leave blank". I agree that we could add something about "notability" there, but I'm not feeling concisely eloquent at the moment. Tweak away, or suggest something for ratification. (Note: Currently, Charles Ives doesn't mention his insurance job in the lead, though that obviously might change.)
Re: Baptism, I agree with that suggestion, but am unsure precisely how to implement it. (Can we think of any specific article examples?) Also, I've changed the template to use BrE "Baptised" as a more sensible default, in the meantime. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have made this clearer but BrE vs AmE is a non-issue and a red-herring: see WP:ENGVAR, especially the first two sentences. Regarding the actual implementation of a specific field where the birth date is unknown but some sort of infant initiation into a religion, or whatever, is known (Ludwig van Beethoven is a prime example), perhaps we can just avoid "baptism" altogether by using only the month and year without the day? Would that cause problems for the age calculator? Is that last question even relevent? I'll see what I can do re making the occupations field clearer --Jubilee♫clipman 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the original objection was not to "baptizm" vs. "baptism" but rather to referencing a specifically Christian ritual, as opposed to a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or whatever one. Drhoehl (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope: see point 2, "the use of US spelling". The point was whether we could change the engvar to match the variety in the article. I see the point but personally believe that it is entirely moot. The point regarding Baptism vs, say Brit milah is well made, though. Regarding occupations, I have changed the hidden comment to read: "Use this field *only* if the person was also **notable** for contributions in another discipline. If notable as a composer only, leave blank". Is that better/worse? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the next point: "Why is there a cultural skew towards the European christian ("Baptized")?" Seems to me that calls into question the religious reference, not the linguistic one already raised in another point. Hence my perhaps clumsy attempt to accommodate the concern by finding other language, although to be honest I have doubts how often a "multicultural" label would be needed in practice. Drhoehl (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes, you are correct that point 3 addresses the religious issue and I was (perhaps not with the best of clarity) attempting to address both points. That said, I agree with you on the multicultural issue. Furthermore, the baptised/born_after/whatever field is perhaps not going to be used very often so it could, reasonably, be dropped as long as there is clear advice warning against using a disputed full birth date. Perhaps just go with MM|YYYY without DD in the birth date field, in such cases? The age calculator won't work anyway with out full dates, I suspect, so my minor objection to that idea is not really relevent --Jubilee♫clipman 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The various age calculator templates can work with just years, or with just years and months, to display a range. eg "{{Death year and age|2004|1900}}" results in "2004 (aged 103–104)". There's also this variant, {{Birth based on age as of date}}, which look like it might be useful for certain edge cases, perhaps here. I'll investigate more extensively in the morning. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. "Age as of" might help in some cases, indeed --Jubilee♫clipman 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Proposal from Eusebeus[edit]

It is proposed that, after lengthy debate, a full airing of views, and due consideration of this question from various perspectives, including many editors who have devoted extensive energies to improving classical music content over many years, this project:

  1. NOT adopt a composer-specific infobox; and
  2. Continue to discourage the use of any infobox for composers.

Eusebeus (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The arguments in favor (particularly Tony's, above) are very strong. Could we please stop spending time on this and go back to normal editing? Opus33 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you look for references to infoboxes at the strategy wiki, you will find numerous discussions, and in all these discussions infoboxes are viewed favorably. Primarily, these discussions are concerned with the potential of infoboxes for making structured information available for reuse in other contexts. Here are two examples: [9] and [10]. The trend there is to make infoboxes highly recommended, if not mandatory, at some point. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Ravpapa: that's better—certainly more civil—than the reply I was drafting! Another point: no one has actually tried to counter Tony's arguments, yet. Anyway, how many members of this project have actually been "spending time on this" since the initial flurry of activity? Not many... --Jubilee♫clipman 18:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If you wade through the copious discussion and changes of mind above, you'll see the following editors who regularly contribute to or create articles on classical music and musicians expressing a willingness to have an infobox like Quiddity's as 'backup':
User:Voceditenore, User:Folantin, User:GuillaumeTell, User:Antandrus, User:Viva-Verdi, User:Ravpapa, User:Jubileeclipman, User:Drhoehl.
Many of us have been editing on Wikipedia for over four years. Furthermore there are others who have expressed no strong preference either way (some with the proviso that there should be a suitable one), but did not participate in the later classical composer infobox development discussions here:
User:Deskford,User:Jashiin, User:Magicpiano, User:Centy
I don't think it's at all accurate to say that there is a consensus to "NOT adopt a composer-specific infobox". Voceditenore (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could add me to that first list as well, insofar as many of us agree with that, if we were to have an infobox, it should consist merely of date information; I have stated as much. That, however, is not the same as saying we should actually adopt one. I am confident that at the very least both Folantin and Antandrus would support my proposal. Eusebeus (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was unclear about what you meant by "adopt". I would not be favour of "adopting" it in the sense of recommending its usage and placing it on all the hitherto infobox-unscathed articles. But I think it could be possible to recommend against them but still have a "least bad" version for use when there is consensus on an article talk page to have one. Voceditenore (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good summary of my sentiments, too. It's all too easy for someone who doesn't normally work on classical music articles but with strong "general" opinions to come in and hijack the consensus process to obtain an end not clearly in line with the opinions of those who do (for a good example, have a look at the removal of red links from List of classical pianists). A minimal, glorified-photo-caption box, if it can be held to those proportions, could give those of us who oppose boxes generally a defensible fallback position to contain damage when such circumstances lead to application of a box to a classical music article. Of course, as some suggest, we may be venturing into a morass; hence, my favor of a trial period. Drhoehl (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course: the number of ways in which infoboxes can go wrong, reducing the quality of an article, far outweigh the perceived advantages. I have not seen convincing arguments against my points above. Tony (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you like to respond to my counter-arguments, above, placed just as you were placing these comments? Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 11:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the grounds that I have wearisomely expressed in some of the above sections. However, am happy with Voceditenore's version above -- --Smerus (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oppose #1 (as explained above) but support #2. There is no reason to drop the long-standing opposition to infoboxes. In fact, I encourage project members to take their views to as wide an audience s possible. It cannot possibly be only this group of projects that opposes these boxes? Given the strong feelings and cogent arguments expressed throughout the last 3 years by not a small number of members of these projects (past and present), I just cannot believe that they are a tiny minority. True, the avid infobox proponents are not in huge numbers, either, but they are extremely vociferous and widely heard. Giving up and lying down dead (as some appear resigned to do) is not the answer. If you want WP-wide consensus (not just local consensus) to avoid 'boxes in articles on classical musicians—and thus stop editors randomly dropping boxes into articles—you need to get out there and request that such guidelines as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) acknowledge such exclusion of 'boxes. The guidelines for these projects are not widely read (if at all) by editors not involved in these projects: someone has to point people to them when edits are reverted according to them. Thus, they are useless as a pre-emptive measure and only help post facto. Wider acknowledgement by WP in official documents would be a major step forward --Jubilee♫clipman 21:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strongly as being out-of-touch with the rest of Wikipedia. ThemFromSpace 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point 1 is irrelevant. Several people here seem to have forgotten that "the project" does not need to "adopt" a composer-specific infobox for one to be created: Any editor is permitted to boldly create templates, and "the project" has exactly zero authority to prohibit it. Wikipedia deals with undesirable templates at WP:TFD, not at WikiProject Composers. I strongly believe that the draft template would be retained at a TFD. The question is not "Shall we adopt it or permit its existence?" but "Do we want to advertise it or recommend it (with suitable caveats)?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, whether you like it or not, anyone can create an infobox template and a perfectly suitable one has been suggested. The opposition to it is irrational and in my opinion an in that of editors throughout Wikipedia provide a useful way of summarising salient points sf article information in maqchine parseable format. This is the 21st century and like it or not, indexing is performed by machine. Infoboxes are a useful aid in this process. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing proposal from Voceditenore[edit]

After lengthy debate, a full airing of views, and due consideration of this question from various perspectives, including many editors who have been improving and creating classical music content over many years, It is proposed that:

  1. Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles
  2. Should there be a consensus amongst the main contributors to a particular article to use an infobox, {{Infobox classical composer}} (drafted at Template:Infobox composer/draft) should be used.

Voceditenore (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is only a proposal for closing this RfC. How the above would/should be phrased in the project guidelines can be determined once it closes. My view is that attempting to draft guidleines at the same time, muddies the waters, turns off further participation, and detracts from coming to some kind of usable conclusion. Voceditenore (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the present guidelines, as drawn up above, explicitly state the project's objection to infoboxes, anyway, and gives specific reasons for the objection. They can be reworked at leisure and another time, though, I agree: no need to go into further details at this stage --Jubilee♫clipman 23:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - per my comments above in reply to Eusebeus' closing proposal --Jubilee♫clipman 21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the understanding that "does not recommend" means "recommends against" and is not intended as a mere statement of (perhaps somewhat disapproving) neutrality. Drhoehl (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support much better than the above, although I'd eventually like to see the project back off from this level of oversight. ThemFromSpace 23:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose insofar as the presence of such a box implies sanction, which is decidedly not the case. Individual instances can be assessed using the existing bio infobox according to the merits of the context. Eusebeus (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, WhatamIdoing is correct: "sanction", "acceptance", "adoption" etc are all irrelevent really: if Quiddity (or any one) chose to promote the draft box to mainspace, or even if someone created an entirely new box for composers, you all have no choice but to accept said 'box as any TfD against it would probably fail. (Just to be clear: I am fully aware of this and other previous TfD's. However, the issue have now moved to a whole new level. To respond to your own concerns voiced in the last TfD: the terms of this present infobox have been thoroughly considered and worked out in this present RfC, so there is no longer an issue there.) The real issue here is not whether we sanction the 'box but whether we accept it as a fact that no other reasonable choice exists. Hence, Voceditenore's closing proposal is the only possible solution, now I think on it. Am I wrong? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No you are correct, editors on this project may not like the use of infoboxes, but no good reasons have been provided to not use them to aid indexing and machine parseable indexing. If I decide to use an infobox in creating an infobox when creating an article abot David Gow (composer)[11], why shouldn't I? If members of this project choose to reject it, then fine, but I don't have to put the project template on the talk page, I could just use the Biography - musician template. I would seriously have thought that there were more important things to get on with. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I probably shouldn't challenge this, but, honestly, I just can't bring myself to let it pass. What you say may be true if your perspective is "articles exist for the convenience of computers, and humans must conform to the needs of the machines." If, on the other hand, your perspective is "articles exist for the benefit of human readers, and computers must be their servants," plenty of non-specious objections have been raised. Moreover, for the life of me I can't understand why it's such a great benefit for computers automatically to "parse" and "index" information that likely is fundamentally flawed, misleading, or incomplete. Seems to me, to lapse into a bit of computer-speak of my own for a moment, that the GIGO principle holds true here. And it also seems to me that you do a disservice to a lot of dedicated editors who are struggling to find a good solution to a problem by dismissing their efforts as trivia. Drhoehl (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out (I had to Google that) --Jubilee♫clipman 18:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Eusebeus. We're talking in circles, including Jezhotwells's indexing point (non-infobox software can handle this task). Opus33 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spirals" is probably more correct; whether inwards or outwards, I'm not sure yet --Jubilee♫clipman 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quiddity's infobox looks like it resolves the objections to specious information. It could contain a commented out note, as many infoboxes do, cf Template:Infobox writer. The note could refer editors to documentation and a note that it should only be used on existing articles by consensus amongst editors, perhaps some reference to this project. But bear in mind that articles on composers may be created by editors who have never heard of this project. Currently such editors looking for Template:Infobox composer are directed to the musical artist template which clearly does not meet the needs of composer articles and has no support amongst editors here. As to machine indexing, I am not aware of software that could parse an article such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, extract accurately birth and death date, birth place. birth place, place of death, the fact that he belongs to the cllsical period of music, and notable works. Information like this can produce good indexes that would take thousands of hours of manual work. More information on this at WP:WikiProject Microformats#What are microformats?. BTW, I note that the Mozart article is not in good shape and it seems a pity that the comments from the November 2008 assessment have not been addressed. It is also a pity that that article and Ludwig van Beethoven are languishing as B-class when surely they should have been worked on to make featured article status by now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...editors looking for Template:Infobox composer are directed to the musical artist template...". That fact has been nagging at my mind, also. Editors are taken there by #REDIRECT: it would not surprise me one bit if those editors thought that that 'box was the one to use for classical composers (despite the disclaimer in the lead). Re parsing: Quiddity already explained above that nothing else is anyway as near as efficient as an infobox (not even persondata) for parsing and indexing, etc, after he had discussed the matter with User:Pigsonthewing (aka Andy Mabbett). However, I suspect that his post got lost in the mass of words above. Thanks for the reminder. Re LvB and WAM: I agree, also, that their articles are suprisingly under-developed, given the composers that they cover. B-class?! And Wolfie is a Former FA... I'll see what I can do about them. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original questions[edit]

  • To what extent can WikiProjects expect non-members to follow the former's preference regarding these?
  • Can Infoboxes be removed/added en bloc by WikiProjects from/to articles that come under their banner?

Have these been throughly discussed and answered? It is hard to tell given the mass of text above. We can't really close up here until we have actually finished answering the main questions, IMO. I'll add one final question that seems to demand an answer, too, and that is implied by these former two:

  • Can WikiProjects require article-talkpage consensus for the inclusion/exclusion of infoboxes in articles that come under their banner?

Sorry if this is very late in the day to ask that these questions be clearly answered. However, I suspect they won't take very long to answer (especially the first two since they have been at the heart of the discussion from the start) --Jubilee♫clipman 03:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that those questions have been fully addressed at all. Editors are completely free to ignore this discussion, I only came across it by chance. Any wholesale removal of infoboxes would be a foolish move and likely to involve the editor's concerned in endless edit wars, which would be to noone's advantage. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of infoboxes to readers[edit]

In his eloquent criticism of infoboxes above, Tony pointed out that the value of infoboxes to readers is uncertain. In my reply, I wrote that there has indeed been no research in Wikipedia of the value of infoboxes to readers.

My reply is correct, as far as it goes. But, in fact, outside of Wikipedia there has been pretty extensive research into the use of formally structured presentation of text. I refer editors to Current findings from research on structured abstracts, and The segmented presentation of visually structured texts: Effects on text comprehension. These are only two of numerous sites reviewing research on the topic.

The advantages of structured text, according to this research, are two: it improves reading comprehension and retention of humans, and it makes textual information more readily available for semantic analysis and reuse by computer programs. This second advantage has been discussed on the strategy wiki (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). One of the strategic objectives of Wikipedia over the next five years is to encourage reuse of information in articles, and the semantic analysis of structured textual elements like infoboxes is one of the important tools to facilitate this.

I must admit that I share the revulsion many of the editors here feel toward infoboxes: When you see yourself as continuing a tradition of the brilliant editors of the 11th edition of Britannica, or of the scintillating prose of Walter Willson Cobbett, the thought of turning your article into a PowerPoint presentation is gut-wrenching. This, in itself, is a potent argument against infoboxes. Nonetheless, the arguments in favor of infoboxes are not only arguments of taste, but of objectively measurable readability. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting links, Ravpapa. "Measurable readability" seems like a great idea. But I do have to add: readability of what? The "structured text" that is provided in WP's infoboxes imparts information about characteristically trivial aspects of their subject matter.
I think that beginning long articles with an abstract -- perhaps a "structured abstract" of the kind your first link describes -- would be a fine idea. Scientific journals do this, and it really contributes a lot, I think, to article organization. Opus33 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing remarks[edit]

Firstly many thanks to all the editors who participated in this RfC. After a rocky start it became a model of calmness and thoughtfulness. It also seems that you have done most of my work by working through this together and coming to a consensus on a lot of the issues. Indeed I was glad that it was unnecessary to do any kind of vote counting to determine the conclusions here.

A few general points first:

  • It was pointed out that there is no Wikipedia-wide policy on whether articles should have infoboxes. The featured article criteria do not mention infoboxes and as Voceditenore mentioned, the majority of featured articles within the scope of the composers project do not have infoboxes.
  • A significant number of editors who participated in the discussion (many of who are involved with the composers WikiProject) have misgivings about the use of infoboxes for articles about composers. A variety of reasons were given - the best description was probably that written by Tony1 at #What I loathe about infoboxes.
  • Several editors countered these arguments and suggested that some of the same points may be turned around to be considered benefits. Some pointed out that an advantage of having of infoboxes is that metadata can be easily emitted which is used by search engines, etc.
  • Some editors remain opposed to infoboxes in all cases, but many have relucantly come round to the idea that a suitable infobox is needed to prevent inappropriate ones being used.
  • A draft infobox has been developed by Quiddity at Template:Infobox composer/draft with a minimal set of fields and which enjoys broad support. However it remains the view of most participants that this will not be appropriate on all articles, and the decision needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.
  • There was some talk about the need for an infobox for contemporary composers, but a conclusion wasn't really reached so this may be a topic for a future discussion.

I feel the following conclusions are in order:

  • Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.
  • WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
  • The guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers has been rewritten according to consensus found in this discussion.
  • There is sufficient support for Template:Infobox classical composer to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
  • Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.

Moving forward, I intend to move Template:Infobox composer/draft to Template:Infobox classical composer and semi-protect it. I will add an edit notice to the template that requests editors do not add any fields or make substantial changes to the template unless they have been proposed on the talk page first and have consensus.

If I have overlooked some important aspect or serious misinterpreted something, please let me know. Otherwise I sincerely hope that you can continue to work together on this and improve these composer articles even more! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Silence is golden, but just in case you wanted feedback: Thanks for closing and summarizing. That all resonates well with me.
    Note for everyone else: I'll continue to watchlist the various pages, but let me know if there's a problem that I don't pick up on, and could potentially help with. Thanks all. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also concur with the conclusions and overall recommendations which unquestionably reflect the consensus and address all the major issues in full. Thanks Martin --Jubilee♫clipman 18:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I find it odd that an RFC can go on without involving the articles that it will apply to. I wouldn't have changed the outcome, but when discussions are carried-on in corners and eddies of Wikipedia and their outcome applies to several other articles, those articles should be informed of the discussion before closing, not afterwards. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This RFC was closed more than two years ago.
  • This RFC was (1) specifically about the WP:Advice pages the WikiProject Composers had written, and (2) announced at WikiProject Composers. When the dispute is about a project page, it doesn't make sense to spam all the article talk pages about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC&oldid=1086037321"