Template talk:Infobox musical composition/Archive 1

It begins
So here it is, my first serious attempt at a template. It seemed there was no infobox for musical compositions that weren't pop songs, and that such a thing could be useful, so I made it. I'll probably try and work more on it, and add it to a few pages, but I'm no expert in music, so suggestions (and bold, wanton edits) are welcome! -Kieran (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

More parameters
I wonder if you might add some additional fields into this template, maybe plundering Infobox Song and Infobox Symphony for some ideas.

Some suggested fields: image; caption; performer; premiere; opus; length; language. Not all of these would be applicable, but could always be left blank.

In Air and Simple Gifts, we're currently using Infobox Song, which has its own drawbacks. An infobox directed more to a Musical Composition would be more appropriate, if it had the flexibility.

Bravo for starting this. TJRC (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

More paras
I was bold and added a few parameters from Infobox Bach composition. "Scoring" should lead not to the instruments of Bach, - where should we have a list of voices, instruments and their abbreviations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 February 2013

"Performed"
Isn't "premiered" preferable to "performed"? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Typically it's the premiere, but you don't say "premiere" for sacred music, and sometimes a later performance is also of interest, example Mendelssohn's performance of the St Matthew Passion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would favour the following format:
 * Notable performances Merkin Hall, 1972 (premiere); Royal Albert Hall, 1978 (English premiere)
 * "Notable" is better, as it doesn't give readers the misleading impression that the list pretends to be comprehensive. Do you agree? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right, but "Notable performances" is awfully long, and most often only one will be mentioned, then we need "Notable performance(s)". (For infobox opera, we got rid of the "(s)", after discussion and trying a bit.) - What do you think of keeping "performed" and adding "premiere" (or whatever applies) only on the right side of the parameter, as in your example? - Do you have a piece in mind where we could try it? - I don't think readers would really expect comprehensiveness for Beethoven's Fifth, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Recorded"
From a merge with infobox Brucker Symphonies, this template inherited first_recording. It was used in the history to present the year and the performers of the first recording. How can we incorporate that best? I suggest to broaden it to recorded, for cases where we don't know for sure if a recording is the "first", or where several are notable. I personally don't plan to use either parameter, but am ready to preserve the information contributed in the past and be open for the future. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Recorded" is far too broad: we don't want to include full discographies in the infobox, and there will inevitably be disagreement about which ones are notable or significant enough to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that you see how it could be abused. I see - as said above - that - as with premieres, discussed just above - sometimes we are not sure that a recording is the "First", or a later one may be the more notable. My intention is to get rid of the label "First recording" and replace it by the shorter "Recorded", keeping the other for compatibility with older version only. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct that if we are not sure a recording is the first we should probably exclude it from this parameter. However, as you say, I point out how your suggestion is far too likely to be abused. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see/want consistency with "Performed". Do you know a case where that is abused? Why do you think this would be? And if, you would be the first to monitor and revert, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unfair to both readers and editors to rely on a single person to "monitor and revert" all instances of abuse. Better to design a template that does not invite content that shouldn't be there, like discographies. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You changed the documentation, however at this point we need the name of the parameter, not the label. Do I really have to explain the difference? At present, people entering recorded would get nothing, they have to enter first_recording (or First_recording) which results in the shorter label "Recorded" in the presentation. That means, at present there is not what you perceive as an invitation to enter discographies. - The details of recording should be compatible with the former (deleted) template (infobox Bruckner symphonies) which was merged to this one. This includes information about notable performers, as an example of the documentation shows. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it need not be compatible with a deleted template - it should instead be internally consistent, matching what is used for "performed". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of "next composition"
I'd suggest that we'd add a new a parameter that works similarly to the album infobox, that links to the next symphony/string quartet/etc. like Last_album, This_album, and Next_album on the album infobox. I'd also suggest adding a parameter that gives us the option to make it say "Symphonies by Shostakovich" instead of "The Beatles chronology". McLennonSon (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of Timeline-event
The Timeline-event template used in the Composed, Performed and Published parameters is emitting a dash after the dates, which is redundant in most cases. I'm no expert in templates - what do you suggest? Meizy (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * : Sorry, I see your question only now, - please ask at the subtemplate, timeline-event, if the dash can be skipped when no location is given. Consider using just start date for this template when a location is not known or not worth mentioning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Background of title
As discussed at Talk:Mass in C major (Beethoven), a neutral background colour is desired for classical compositions. Can we have
 * a while default, as in infobox poem, example?
 * a different colour on request by parameter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the background. I don't see why it might need to be user-adjustable. Alakzi (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the "poem" version, but possibly the version of infobox Bach composition would connect those two better, and have composition and composer kind of "united", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Very pleasing! Do you read minds or are you that fast? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I could read minds. It'd have saved me from many unfortunate situations. Alakzi (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Key
Same discussion Talk:Mass in C major (Beethoven): the key is often a part of the identification of a piece. Wanted:
 * listing it in the title line if part of identification
 * listing it below if only additional information about a piece

How to distinguish for the editor, and how to have the key-information the same as metadata in both cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We could add a parameter for hiding the key row, but I'd question its worth. Repetition is not inherently problematic. Alakzi (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What would we do about editors who think if they add the key on top that's all that's needed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Smack 'em with a candlestick. Alakzi (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Genre
Same discussion: the genre is often also the title, example "Symphony". Wanted:
 * listing it in the title line then
 * Question: should "by" then be omitted - and how? (but it was wanted under specific circumstances by Smerus and Softlavender, for example "chorale=by xyz", not chorale=xyz")


 * listing it below - with the composer - if only additional information about a piece, such as in operas (compare Carmen)

How to distinguish for the editor, and how to have the key-information the same as metadata in both cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Type?
I think of a parameter to show on top before the "by" [composer], comparable to infobox opera where it is {{{para|genre_header}}. I suggest "type" as something we don't have yet. Sometimes that will be a genre, sometimes the form, most often nothing because the title has it. We don't mind repetition or missing, see above. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, looks excellent to me, will propose ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Cover vs. Image
Re - i remember that in the old template "cover" was the name for the parameter now "image", - I think you may have removed a piece of compatibility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that edit only removed the output of a default caption if none was provided, sourrounding name with quote signs and appending "cover", as in: . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Only? That is part of the downward compatibility, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly, the template's functionality was reduced in that edit. Whether it was for the better may well be discussed. WP:BRD? Disinterested, Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

New idea: is there a way to check if any inclusion still uses "cover", and the default? (Inherited from copying initially from infobox album, I guess.) If so, even automatically replace by "image"? Would be nice to simplify if it doesn't hurt any article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Alakzi (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we could change the 11 and get rid of "cover", right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No infobox musical composition uses "cover" any more, and none used the default option of a title. It can be removed from the template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Name, type, catalogue, form, genre
Obviously different users have different understanding of some parameters, and confusions arise as some parameters can also be part of others.
 * name
 * Optional: the name, normally as it appears in the article title, without disambiguation, without a link, - links can appear in other parameters such as key, catalogue, form, genre.
 * type
 * Optional: anything additional to help the reader to understand what kind of music it is. Examples: Cantata, Motet, String quartet when this is not also the title. A link can go to an article covering the type for the composer, such as Motets (Bruckner).
 * catalogue
 * Optional: one or more catalogue numbers. These numbers are not part of the name.
 * form
 * Optional: anything additional to help the reader to understand the form, such as Sonata, Suite, Gradual
 * genre
 * Optional: additionally giving the genre of a composition, such as Orchestral music, Chamber music.

Please discuss, to make this part of the documentation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it makes more sense to allow for flexibility in implementation of the template. Also, this doesn't seem to resolve the potential confusion of "some parameters can also be part of others" - it remains unclear what "type" means, as you say above it could be either form or genre. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What is unclear in type being anything that can help the reader to understand the name better? It's optional, but almost needed when the title is something in a foreign language, or a line of poetry, which doesn't give away if the work is a song, a hymn, piano variations, a ballad, a symphonic cantata ... - example Lobgesang. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because "anything that can help the reader to understand the name better" can encompass half the parameters of this template, including catalogue, form, genre, and more. "Anything" is a catch-all. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we agree that an unclear title is better explained before we get to below the image caption, to not leave the reader in the dark for that long that a Requiem may be a setting of the Requiem mass, a choral setting of a German poem or an orchestral piece? Following the style of infobox opera, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't try to explain all titles using a single parameter - otherwise what is the point of having an infobox at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I seem to have a problem understanding. It's optional, not to explain all titles but those that don't explain themselves (Symphony No. 2, Mass No. 6, Wind Quintet), examples given. I believe that readers of Henze's Requiem would profit from an infobox telling them soon that it's not what they may expect from the title but an orchestra piece. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

On the page Missa solemnis (Bruckner) I had added originally Missa solemnis as a "form" of the general "type" Mass. But Nikki removed it. When I reverted it with the justification why I did so, she removed it again and put the link to the title. She did also the same for Bruckner's String Quartet, and a similar discussion occurred in past about the title and form of the infobox of Bruckner's Rondo in C minor and Intermezzo in D minor. I agree with you that no link should be added on the title of a specific work of a composer. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This goes to what Gerda was saying about titles that don't explain themselves: if the String Quartet was in fact a piano quintet it would make sense to say so, but we don't need to say that the String Quartet is a string quartet performed by a string quartet. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Name
I suggest the wording as above:
 * Optional: the name, normally as it appears in the article title, without disambiguation, without a link. The default is the article name. Catalogue numbers are not part of the name. A key can be understood as part of the name when it helps to disambiguate several compositions of the same type, such as Mass in C major.


 * In a case like Mozart's Sonata in C major for keyboard four-hands, K. 19d, "name" could be just "Sonata", leaving all others to the specific parameters, or "Sonata in C major", leaving the rest to the specific parameters. I understand below as also "Sonata, K. 19d", the rest to specific parameters. Well, why not? How would we word that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Type

 * Optional, not needed for works which explain themselves such as Symphony No. 2, Mass No. 6, Wind Quintet, but useful when the name of the article does not lead to immediate understanding of the type of a composition, for example lines of poetry and titles in languages other than English, explained by types such as Cantata, Motet, Hymn. A link can go to an article covering the type for the composer, such as Motets (Bruckner). There is no default; when the parameter is not entered the line below the name contains only "by composer". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As above, I disagree with both of these changes. Why would you understand a key as part of the name but not a catalogue number? Both can be used for identification of the specific work being discussed. And as above, headers shouldn't default to being catch-alls. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please name a piece which is better known by opus number than key to the average reader who likely has to be told what opus number means. Key: I would tend to exclude that also but compromised in the Beethoven discussion.
 * Type: "default to being catch-alls", not sure what you mean. Most compositions will not need it, but the few works with a name in an unspeakable language (Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt), or poetry we don't know if set as a song or a cantata or what (Remember not, Lord, our offences) will profit. - How would you word it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, what? I didn't say anything about "better known by opus number than key" - both should be available as identifiers, as appropriate to the situation. For example, Mozart wrote two Sonatas for Keyboard Four-hands in C major, and multiple Sonatas in C for Keyboard and Violin - we distinguish these by their catalogue numbers.
 * As said above, your description can potentially see that parameter include contents of multiple other parameters - it "catches all" of that content, and more besides. Thus, I think this expanded explanation creates more confusion than it solves. We could just say "optional", and perhaps your last sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that if it only says "optional", it's not too helpful. Examples? Links to examples? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can include examples, but we would need to make clear they are not limits. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Scoring
Is the parameter scoring meant to be used for full instrumentation like at Requiem (Verdi) or  at Gurre-Lieder? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It can be used, but something like "orchestra" of "large orchestra" would be enough, - while for other compositions - especially chamber music - the individual instruments give an idea of what you will hear --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted both, asking to discuss, and would oppose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Implementing merge from Infobox folk song
The result of the recent TfD was to merge Template:Infobox folk song to this template (see Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 17). Infobox musical composition already contains many of the same or similar parameters that could be adapted for an "Example 4 - Traditional folk song" similar to the existing subset examples for hymns, etc.

Comparison of parameter names: those from Infobox folk song are in [brackets]; "same" and empty fields already appear in Template:Musical composition. Comments/suggestions? (pinging participants in the TfD:, , , , , , , , , —Ojorojo (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) 

Subset parameters

 * name title of the composition, using the common name
 * type appears with the composer above an image, such as Folk song
 * composer composer of the piece
 * image a suitable free image
 * image_size
 * border set to yes for a border
 * alt an alternative description of the image for readers who don't see it
 * caption description of the image
 * translation title in English, if the common name is in different language
 * native_name native title, if the common name is English
 * native_name_lang language of the native title/common title not in English
 * other_name other name(s) the work may be known by
 * catalogue list the catalogue with a link, such as Roud 99
 * genre genre of the piece, such as Christmas music
 * written more general if "composed" can't be said or is not known
 * text text source, such as a poem or "by A. Smith"
 * language language of the text
 * composed time and location of composition if known
 * published date(s) and location(s) of publishing
 * publisher company (or companies) which published the piece
 * first_recording artist and date of the first recording
 * misc for the use of Audio sample
 * This looks good. It should be easy enough commission a bot to make these changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't know info boxes well enough to give any solid advice. Probably the main difference is the things that are not known for a traditional folk song, so it should be easy to ignore those. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not much input so far and I'm unsure of the best way to proceed. This search shows 46 uses of Infobox folk song, so manually transferring the info to this infobox using the above parameters should be relatively easy. Then folk song can be deleted? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirecting is probably a better option, since it means you don't have to rename the template call itself. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , : With no further action on the merger, I began to remove Infobox folk song from five articles that had been added after the TfD was begun on March 17, 2018 (another twenty or so were also added during this time). The template creator  reverted my edits with the comment "it already used in more than 50 pages".. They are attempting to reopen the discussion (Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 2), but rather than wait, they are beginning to add Infobox folk song to new articles, which I reverted.  I haven't seen this type of problem before, but if it continues, I will explore alternatives, such as WP:ANI. Any suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reopen a TfD is not acceptable, he can go to WP:DRV Hhkohh (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If they don't take the matter to DRV, it might require going to ANI. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With no apparent further interest in this (DRV or additional edits/discussion), the last 30+ Infobox folk song have been removed from articles. As you noted, infobox folk song should be redirected to this Template:Infobox musical composition (I've removed the template documentation for folk song). At some point, something similar to the "Example 4" with subset parameters described above may be added to the documentation page when there is more interest. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Trad.
For compositions that are "Trad. Arr. by..." (for example, Radio 4 UK Theme), the presentation could be improved. Suggestions..? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * How about "type=Trad.", because that's no composer? - Suggest something for the arrangement. Until we have something, perhaps "type=Trad. Arr." "composer=Whoeverarrangedit":

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on naming countries in infoboxes
A RfC which may affect this infobox's performed, premiere_location, published, written, and composed parameters has been opened at WT:WikiProject Music. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing "native name" to "original name"
[This] makes no sense to refer to the original German-language version; and given that in nearly all cases where there is a "native name" it is very likely the original in a language different than English (as in the case I give), I'd suggest changing the parameter, at least as displayed, to "Original language name". What do you think? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure "original language" is the best solution - I'd expect people would get that confused with language (so in this case would have said "German"). "Original name" is more expansive than just language, eg working title. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, I clearly meant to write "name"... The title in the infobox should ideally be the same as the article; and in cases where the hymn is known enough in English usage then WP:COMMONNAME precludes us from moving to the German (or rarely, other languages) titles. "Original title" works too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * (ec) I don't know. The best solution in most of these cases might be to move to that name, rather than change the template. How about "Original title"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Protection
I've set template editor protection for this template. Changes to such a high-visibility template should be tested in Template:Infobox musical composition/sandbox and discussed before implementation. Please use the Edit template-protected template to request changes when consensus is achieved. The template documentation gives details or ask me if unsure. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Extension
I suggest adding these 3 lines to the template:


 * Instruments
 * Typical duration
 * Current artists

They are all optional parameters, of course. With one composition it can be useful to name the instrument in the box, for example with Octet (Schubert), while this is superfluous with other compositions, for example with a "Sonata for violin and piano" or a string quartet.

Duration: There is already a duration line; but it is directly related to "first recording".

There are compositions that only a relatively small number of instrumentalists or singers (can) perform. Then you should be able to name them in the box.

If you want, take a look at this box: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klarinettenquintett_(Mozart) Gisel (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Instrumentation is already included. The documentation indicates that duration is already to be used for the duration of a typical performance. I don't agree that "current artists" would be a good addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can place any detail of instruments in instrumantal or scoring, by using hlist, IF needed, which often won't be. Eight instruments? Perhaps better in prose. Compare Piano Quartet No. 1 (Brahms), and almost any Bach cantata such as BWV 1. (Yes, different infobox, but parameter works the same.) For duration see Nikkimaria. As for the last, we should avoid any "current", which is always hard to maintain, and hardly encyclopedic, and by what standards? Include 20 artists (and which?) for Die schöne Müllerin, or any Beethoven piano sonata? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think those additions are needed (instrumentation & duration are already there) or beneficial (current artists). Your example at de:Klarinettenquintett (Mozart) serves as a reminder what infoboxes are not. Grüße ins Lipperland, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ... what infoboxes are not. And this one: Clarinet Quintet (Mozart) ?  Gisel (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

== Roud Folk Song Index and Child Ballads nr in the WP:LEAD of articles about songs ==

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Unused parameters
@Gonnym, I think some of the unused parameters and those that are used up to 10 times can also be removed? Most of these with rare uses came from Bach template and have other existing analogues or even not working anymore.

Current number of uses per this tool:

Solidest (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I really don't have a lot of topical knowledge here, I just helped a while back with the merging and the infobox code itself. If you think a parameter should be removed or replaced, and no one here objects, I don't have any problem implementing it. Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not seem that being used rarely is by itself a rationale for removal. Which specific used parameters do you believe should be removed and why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at them from a musician's point of view:
 * "comment" can and should be removed (it's the kind of thing that should be and already is reported in text, not in a non-standard way in an infobox)
 * what is labelled in the output as "2" and "3" are actually image captions. It should be converted to use the |caption= parameter, and then removed
 * "time" should be converted to duration (and the few instances which actually put the time signature simply removed)
 * "other names" should be converted to "other name" and then deleted
 * I haven't had time to look through the others yet. What I'll do is fix the above noted issues, and when I'm done, I'll let you know. There are probably some fair amount of low use parameters which should be kept, either A) because their use is legitimate in those few cases or B) their use is legitimate, and there are many other examples where it could be present. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "time" is not "duration, but meant as Time, - could be useful, but makes sense only for one-movement pieces, songs and such. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Looked through the parameters with 0-10 uses and here's the summary:

Remove as not used or broken: Remove as have analogues: Rename: Not sure:
 * italics (0 uses, seems to have been used for stylizing the title)
 * solo_voices (0 uses, "vocal" should be used instead)
 * instruments (0 uses, "instrumentation" should be used instead)
 * obbligato (0 uses)
 * Audio sample? (used 2 times as "yes" or "no", seems to be useless)
 * comment (too vague for the template - info should be kept in the article text)
 * choir (vocal)
 * solo (vocal)
 * known_as (other_name)
 * original (native_name)
 * libretto (text)
 * bible_text (text)
 * full_title_English -> full_title_translation (the same way as "title_English" was replaced to "translation")
 * ISWC (does it really needed to be in template?)
 * client ("dedicated" can be used instead?)
 * time (as it's used both as existing "duration" (2 times) and time signature (also 3 times)
 * cantata_cycle (used only once)

Solidest (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * (ec) I was bold and made comments in the table, - please check if clear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been even bolder, and filtered the table down to the problematic entries. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree with option A for list_title
 * Agree with moving ISWC to Wikidata
 * client is different from dedicated, it should not be replaced by that
 * If there are articles where time is used for duration, those should be removed
 * comment as presented is problematic, but it's very common to have an unlabeled parameter at the bottom of the template to contain information that's not represented in the standard parameters.
 * Several of these should be retained as aliases rather than removed entirely
 * audio sample is not a displayed parameter - it's used to set a cleanup category where an audio sample is not available. Suggest replacing this with a media request template on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it's a good idea to collect unused AKAs in the template code. Solidest (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not all are unused, and why not? Parameter aliases are very common in other templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Parameter aliases in general should be avoided and are part of a very old design paradigm used on en.wiki (and usually are results of past mergers that no one wanted to clean up). In short, they make maintaining the code harder and they can confuse editors. Gonnym (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have corrected (and re-checked already corrected) all the listed parameters and they are now not used anywhere and can be removed from the template: Audio sample?, bible_text, cantata_cycle, choir, comment, full_title_English, instruments, ISWC, italics, known_as, libretto, obbligato, original, solo, solo_voices.
 * The other parameters that have remaining values:
 * time — I moved half of the values to "duration". And it's still used 4 times with time signatures. Should be kept?
 * client — have not touched it. used 9 times. Should be kept?
 * list_title, is_list — used in 9 articles. To be honest, I prefer this was moved out of this template, as it's not really that useful to use it like this. or perhaps a new template similar to Infobox artist list could be created?. Or maybe even use the latter? Since articles like this contain rather general information like photo, title, genres, date ranges.
 * And another new case:
 * text_poet — used 74 times in Bach-related articles. The name is a little confusing, which could be perceived as AKA for "text". While it is rendered as "Cantanta text" comparing to plain "Text". Would it be a good idea to merge it into "Text"? Or if not, then maybe add "cantanta_text" as preffered parameter name in the template? Solidest (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

List-articles that should probably not use this template
Perhaps we should use something other than this template for them, something like Infobox artist list or something else. Solidest (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * List of compositions by Aulis Sallinen
 * List of compositions by Carl Nielsen
 * List of compositions by Eugene Aynsley Goossens
 * List of compositions by Francis Poulenc
 * List of compositions by Jean Sibelius
 * List of compositions by Max Reger
 * List of compositions by Peter Maxwell Davies
 * Lost operas by Claudio Monteverdi
 * Song cycles (Killmayer)
 * Song cycles (Waterhouse)
 * String quartets (Waterhouse)
 * I am responsible for the last three, and if you look, you'll see that the template is used for several individual compositions, which are connected and would not easily "fill" a dedicated article - not the typical list articles. The others: why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * IMHO, and I'm sorry Gerda, but that's just too much. More than one infobox per article is not usually a good idea, and here, when, on top of that, the sections are relatively short enough that the information they summarise can easily be spotted in the existing text, and given that infoboxes take up most of the vertical space, there's no justification for having them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The main reason is to remove "list_title" parameter from the template, which is only used in these articles. As we discussed before, this thing just allows to use the template not directly with what it was created for - not for specific compositions, but for the list items. This can lead to some problems, like, for example, to importing issues with wikidata. Solidest (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the parameter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is this? That is an entirely useless cosmetic edit which should be avoided (see Bots/Dictionary). Please refrain from making bulk AWB edits like that in the future. And really the parameter should be "title", not "name", but that's another issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. I wanted to get rid of AKA, which is used much less often than name (by my count it is less than 200 times out of 2600 templates). But since you insist, I'll leave this one as is. Solidest (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @RandomCanadian, Btw, why do you think it should be "title" instead of "name"? Isn't it something that standardized here: Help:Designing infoboxes? And by the way, the current numbers for these parameters have been updated today via this tool: "title" is used 235 times, while "name" is used 2243 times. Solidest (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you ought to call a spade a spade. Musical compositions have titles (they're artistic objects, like books), not names (they're not people). Das wohltemperierte Klavier is the title, not the name, of two separate collections of preludes and fugues, composed by someone named, not titled, J.S. Bach. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2022
As was discussed here Template talk:Infobox musical composition/Archive 1. Parameters:  are not used anywhere and should be deleted from the template. Solidest (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the above parameters from the unknown parameter check. I recommend that editors keep an eye on to watch for articles that may have been missed. Discuss any remaining uses if necessary. In a week or two, please reactivate this edit request, and I (or another editor) will edit the template code to remove the code that displays the above parameters. In the meantime, any editor can modify the template's documentation to remove information about these parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Two weeks passed and I cleaned up all the module triggers in this category. Probably now the parameters can be removed completely. Solidest (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Solidest please update the sandbox with the edit you would like done, then reactivate the edit request and a parolling admin or template editor will sync it in. — xaosflux  Talk 18:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready. I also removed the parameter that we discussed below - list_title. And I added a more obvious AKA for the "Cantata text" field (it was text_poet, and I added cantata). It's probably worth double-checking the microformats there, since I'm not 100% sure about that. And probably should move text_poet, title, image_caption to deprecated AKAs, to gradually reduce them. Solidest (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)