Talk:Mass in C major (Beethoven)

Suggest infobox
I suggest an infobox, showing at a glance time and location of the topic, - and that it is not the Prince, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to edit-war, Gerda, but I really think it's hurting the article. It is completely redundant and makes the article look like it was written by teenagers.  Opus33 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's please not talk about age ;) - Regarding infoboxes, the arbitrators give the principal editor(s) the privilege of style. (See? - I keep being surprised by the ruling but if applied it should be applied fairly.) - On top of that, even if you don't see it, the infobox offers things that the lead doesn't, for example a date that is fit for comparison and translation to other languages and date formats. I will not edit war but listen to more voices. They were heard for the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your courteous reply, Gerda. Do you have some sense of who is the principal editor?  Opus33 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I said "editor(s)" for a reason. In the DYK nomination I list you and me. - In the case of William Burges, where the editors also disagreed, community consensus was applied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * it's hurting the article Infoboxes Considered Harmful. :-) Alakzi (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Gerda that an infobox would be appropriate and a benefit to the article. I disagree Opus33...for far too long, various people, especially on classical music articles, have used those tired arguments to thwart useful infoboxes. The claims of redundancy and aesthetics smack of a subjective WP:IDONTLIKEIT resistence. Don't know how concisely stating essential information can be in any way hurtful...not like the article has screamed out "ouch". JackTheVicar (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The portrait of  Esterházy that leads the article absent the infobox makes it look like he wrote it. Very amateurish layout.  That said, are we stuck with infobox Mass?  As far as who the editor is, if each editor has roughly equal contributions, I do have a concern about this going into another round of "infobox/no infobox" debate. Is there some middle ground we can reach here?  The formatting could be made more elegant, perhaps using a slightly different infobox template to lose the blue stripe on the top of the infobox or something? )   Montanabw (talk)  22:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also prefer a neutral white background. Let's ask at the template talk of infobox musical composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also prefer to see the infobox, which Gerda proposes here, instead of the not representative picture of Nikolaus II Esterhazy, which is currently on the page. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The blue box is gone, thanks to Alakzi, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Gerda has a lot of support and I should switch my efforts to harm reduction. I think the top of the box is the most unprofessional part, it reads "Mass / by Ludwig van Beethoven", which inadvertently looks like the title of the article. (In fact, there is no reason at all to give the infobox series itself a title.) The use of the preposition "by" is redundant in context and does not reflect the usual practice of professional scholars who write about music. So I would suggest instead that the top line of the inbox read "Mass in C major" and the second line should read "Ludwig van Beethoven". Opus33 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * +1. Alakzi (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) I don't think I have the supporters but the infobox has ;) - (And wasn't it you who mentioned "hurt"?) - All for compromise, I added "in C major" to the title, accepting the duplication to "key". It will be a challenge for the template designers to show only one but keep the attribute-value-connection. It is more difficult to avoid "by", because the normal thing is to have the genre before the "by" (compare Don Giovanni and Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7), but to repeat "Mass" below "Mass" would seem not wanted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks better now, has title of article and no blue stripe. Good to go.  Montanabw (talk)  22:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Because of the full title ("Mass in C major"), there now no more confusion possible with Beethoven's other mass, the Missa solemnis. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the proper response for infoboxes where material is nuanced?
So, right now our infobox says the dedicatee was Prince Kinsky, and that the language of the text was Latin. Those who read the text will find out that there were two serial dedicatees (first Esterhazy, then Kinsky), and that Beethoven had a strong interest in a bilingual publication in Latin and German (moreover, we ought to add that the partial Vienna premiere in 1809 used a German text).

We could ponder what is the right procedure for the infobox:


 * 1) Keep it as is, taking a hit in accuracy in the service of simplicity.
 * 2) Augment the fields for Dedicatee and Language with full information. This bloats the infobox with less-important facts and defeats its purpose of giving a quick overview.
 * 3) Let the fields read Dedicatee: see main text, Language:  see main text
 * 4) Delete the fields Dedicatee and Language, under the view that infoboxes shouldn't try to get across nuances.

My own preference is for #3 or #4.

Opus33 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Good questions. Some ideas:
 * Dedicatee gets wrong as soon as there is more than one.
 * I will add Esterhazy, and invite you to add whatever you think needs to be added (such as years).
 * I will add German even though I know of no recent performance, - its interesting though and should be expanded in the article.
 * If we can't find an acceptable solution, it's fine to drop the parameter(s).
 * Late here, forgive briefness please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Missa solemnis
Should we mention in text and infobox that formally it is a Missa solemnis? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure if there is a citable published reference source. Opus33 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Translating "insuportablement ridicule et détestable"
The translation "unbearably ridiculous and detestable" of Prince Esterhazy's opinion, taken from Albrecht's book, appears to be more accurate than what we had before ("unbearable, ridiculous, and dreadful"). (The French original is "insuportablement ridicule et détestable".) At the very least, we ought to be taking into account that "insuportablement" is an adverb and would plausibly be translated by an English adverb. I've put in Albrecht's translation, which also include a bit more context, and also included the original French for those who wish to check. Opus33 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

==Query==

So, would someone like to explain to me why it is a good idea to have an infobox field that explains that the Mass in C Major is in C major? My own intuition is that this is treating our readers as if they were idiots. Opus33 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes try to pair values to parameters. We have parameters name, key and catalogue. In this case, name = Mass, key = C major, catalogue = Op. 86. Now someone came and put the key and the catalogue number under name, which makes some sense but is debatable. To my understanding, both are only making sure which mass it is, not really part of the work's name, so not needed in "name" once you are already in the right article. A program looking for works in C major would only look under catalogue, not in the name. I have no time for this right now, preparing the birthday of Sibelius. Related thoughts about infobox parameters for compositions were discussed in Talk:The Oceanides, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The version higher up had no duplication of the key. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, are we both happy not duplicating the key? I really don't like to quarrel.  Opus33 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This was a good version without duplication. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The value of the key parameter in the infobox contains (or did before you removed it) a link to C major, which the title does not. This is a service to our readers, who may indeed not know what "C Major" means, or who may know, but want to learn more (but should certainly not be regarded as "idiots" for that). The infobox also makes the parameter's value machine readable, which the title does not. This is a service to people who seek to reuse our content to increase access to "the sum of all knowledge", our mission, and to their readers. Hence I've restored it. I could be wrong, but have you not been involved in discussions where the machine-readability of infoboxes has been explained previously? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that OPus33 has now again removed the value, without reply to my response here, and with the edit summary "per brain". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes have standardized parameters; not all works contain the key in their title, thus the parameter is appropriate in most articles. It may seem redundant, but the link to the concept of C major is useful (just as the Black Stallion is, obviously, black, that parameter would also be appropriate for an infobox), and not because our readers are idiots, but perhaps because they are not music aficionados, merely curious, or are accessing the article from a phone, where the infobox comes up first. Also, for purposes of data, it is another way for an individual to locate similarly-situated works.  Montanabw (talk)  23:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with all three editors who suggest the infobox should contain the standard information on key. As well, information that is standardized makes it easiest for readers to move from oner article to another and to compare information. We potentially create confusion when we adjust that standard based on individual editor preferences. And as pointed out above while those with a music background might find the information on key to be unnecessary or redundant we never have a guarantee that out readers have this kind of specialized knowledge. There is agreement /consensus to leave "key" in the info box.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC))