Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 44

David Chan (violinist)
Just created this article, based on this afternoon's nice concert at Carnegie Hall. It's a little rough, but I need to get to sleep - perhaps others can neaten it. Thanks! He's really a good violinist. -- kosboot (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Krzysztof Penderecki
Hello. I am planning to make Krzysztof Penderecki an FA with the goal of making it a TFA on 23 November 2013, the composer's 80th anniversary of his birth. The discussion is at Talk:Krzysztof Penderecki. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mendelssohn Violin Concerto (Nathan Milstein album)
The reason it sounds familiar is that it was the world's first classical LP. I don't suppose anyone has access to a copyrightfree picture? ...Though I'm imagining the cover was probably a brown paper sleeve. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason this needs to be its own article instead of a couple of sentences in the article for the violin concerto and possibly for LP? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Melodia Chaconne, depends where one's interest lies I suppose. For example what do you consider is most notable out of en.wp's 100 or so classical album articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Classical albums by date
Category:Classical albums by date has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Goldberg Variations
Members may want to provide input at this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved by a couple of admins. DavidRF (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Help needed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernest So
A first-time editor could use some help as to establishing notability for this Chinese classical pianist and composer. Thanks for any assistance, or stance as to whether this figure can meet WP:N. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Classical crossover
cf. Billboard 2006 "On the Top Classical Crossover Albums chart, a trio of familiar acts dominates the top places. Andrea Bocelli's "Amore" (Sugar/ Decca) takes the top spot, followed by three albums by Il Divo (Syco/Columbia): "Ancora," "The Christmas .. etc. the term classical crossover is distinct enough in the record industry to have a chart. The subarticle Classical crossover mentions Pure (Hayley Westenra album) as an example, but Pure (Hayley Westenra album) doesn't have a genre tag Category:Classical crossover albums. Should there be this category? (category:Opera crossover singers does exist) In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it: I don't see why not. -- xensyria T 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will proceed with caution. Will err on the side of considering anything borderline as straight classical at the first run-through. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

CfD
Just alerting anyone interested to this discussion about the recently created Category:Compositions by key. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Should "recommended recordings" be added to Classical Music articles?
I was looking at the article on Mozart's piano concerto no. 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No._19_%28Mozart%29), trying to determine if a supposed recording of it by Wanda Landowska is real or mythical. But, alas, no listing of famous and/or recommended recordings. In fact, no discussion at all of recordings of the piece.

This is a serious omission. I suggest that all single-composition articles include such a section. For example, for Mozart's piano concerto no. 19, some of the entries would look like these:


 * George Szell (cond), Rudolf Serkin (pf), Columbia Symphony Orchestra - Columbia, 1961
 * Neville Marriner (cond), Alfred Brendel (pf), Academy of St. Martin's in the Fields - Philips, 1971
 * Alexander Schneider (cond), Peter Serkin (pf), English Chamber Orchestra - RCA, 1974
 * Murray Perahia (cond & pf), English Chamber Orchestra - Columbia, ca. 1984

Note that in this example, names are spelled out in full, the part taken by each performer is specified, and the year of the recording and the company that originally made it are given. Entries are in chronological order, oldest to newest.

Given that many important recordings have been released multiple times in both the LP and the CD eras, also that downloads are gradually displacing physical media as the primary distribution channel for classical music, inclusion of specific catalog numbers would be to no real purpose. Readers wanting to acquire this or that recording can turn to Amazon or any similar online source for details of which recordings are available in what form.

Undoubtedly, enthusiasts for obscure musicians of cult status will add references to their recordings, even though neither the musician nor the recordings are of significance in the larger scheme of things, thereby cluttering up such references. I can also imagine someone with exaggerated opinions looking at the example list I provided above and deleting (say) the reference to the Perahia recording "because he's a turkey" or for some other specious reason, when the truth is that they simply dislike Perahia's recordings. My advice is not to worry about such issues until they actually become a problem, rather than try to make up a lot of rules in advance. Better that such a list be too long than too short - maybe!

Floozybackloves (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Selected discography" sections are found in many articles. WP:RS and WP:DUE are the key guidelines here. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Should "recommended recordings" be added to Classical Music articles?  -- the answer is no. Either an attempt at a complete listing of (professional) recordings should be made, or nothing should be. Wikipedia should certainly not be recommending anything. For more popular works, there'd be nothing wrong with splitting it out onto its own page. But even going beyond people's opinions of "that one sucks" or "this obscure recording is the bomb" the issue is that there's no authoritative sources on just what constitutes the 'best' recordings -- for everyone who might remove Parahia's recording, someone else might want to add Derek Han's. Why those four in this instance, outside the fact they are on major labels (and I use that term objectively as none of them are really major in the subjective sense these days)? What about, say, the first one recorded? First digital? First surround? First on a period piano? Maybe even first as part of a complete set? Any of those are probably far more worth noting. Yes obviously a lot of reviewers and publications have their favorites, but given how subjective anything is, there's no good way of distilling it into any sort of shortened list. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please. Have you not noticed that Wikipedia articles incorporate images, sound files, and "Further reading" sections? Your other point is contrary to WP:RS and WP:DUE. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how images and sound files go against what I wrote. As for further reading, usually these are pretty comprehensive already given that most things don't have huge numbers of books written about them. As for going against RS? I fail to see how a comprehensive listing of recordings can possibly go against that. As for WP:DUE, it doesn't even seem to really apply to this situation. I'm not even arguing that every single recording ever should be listed, but if you consider that in pop music pretty much every artist with a page has their entire discography listed, even albums that will never get pages, I don't see listing every recording that at least could be considered to be decently distributed should not be listed in the same fashion for classical works.
 * Let's put this another way - consider that there are currently 90 listings on ArkivMusic for Mozart's PC17. Even if 40 of the them are the same recording repackaged (a decent estimate given how many have the same performer, though I'd wager high), that's still 50 separate recordings of the piece available at one of the largest classical music retailers. That doesn't even get into ones no longer available, never released on CD, etc. Why should only 4 of those 50 be listed? And if not only those 4, how many? How DO we determine which ones get listed? Maybe ones performed by artists with their own WP page (I would guess the large majority)? Still, a red link doesn't mean they don't deserve a WP page, so even then.
 * I'm actually quite curious how you think it should be determined. But one thing is for sure, the trend toward only older recordings and/or only major labels is a very bad one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Recommended" is probably a phrase to avoid here, but notable recordings would add to an article, though only (of course) if they have reliable independent sources naming them as such, and I believe some music encyclopaedias do include such lists. This would also limit the number included in the article, but wouldn't preclude a separate list of all known published recordings. -- xensyria T 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that describes exactly the current practice, or at least its intent, with which I agree. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Recommended" and "Noted" are words that imply a great deal of subjectivity. What I've seen that I like the most is:  Selected Recordings.  That relieves editors of the responsibility to find every recording, and if people feel strongly moved to add recordings, they are welcomed to do so. -- kosboot (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes (yet again).
Please see here - User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabett) has used Boxing Day to commission a bot to remove the request on composers pages not to add an infobox: and moreover this has been effected within four hours without any formal notification to the project (or anywhere else). I hardly think this stealth operation is in the spirit of WP. Is it to be taken up with administrators?--Smerus (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Late to the party: Not the first time he's acted under cover of the holidays. See the heading "Infoboxes" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Archive_35 Drhoehl (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy: for the record, and I've said this before, Wikipedia does not exist for the convenience of computers and their limited ability to parse text. Wikipedia exists as a servant to human beings. Those of us who object to pop-music-derived infoboxes are not bad-faith troglodytes; we're concerned that the data about classical composers are frequently equivocal and hence do not lend themselves to neat, definitive statements in data fields.


 * Fairly disgraceful, in my opinion. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the editors who work on these pages had been consulted, perhaps the outcome would have been different. My personal preference would have been to modify the comment to something like "Please note that WikiProject Classical Music has recommended against adding Infoboxes to composer biographies." (with a link to a guideline giving the reasons why). I don't see that this would in anyway violate the RfC. But there was no discussion and this large scale edit appears to have been done essentially on the say-so of one editor and another gullible one. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Good heavens! I believe that the comment removal is just plain disgraceful. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course a full scale reversion kills all the other helpful edits the bot made as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am doing a massive revert of all of the bot's removal of comments regarding the infobox to classical music/composer/opera articles in the next couple of days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of work - about 480 edits. Can we not get the bot operator to do an automatic mass revert?  I've put a comment on his talk page.  --Deskford (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also involved in manual reverting/restoring. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Same here. I am also taking the opportunity to add this comment to a few hundred composer articles lacking it. I've been meaning to do this for some time, so perhaps this wasn't an entirely useless exercise.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that Andy has posted at Talk:Cosima Wagner. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)I agree that reverting 480 edits is a lot of work, and I can do an automatic revert to not waste anyone else's time. I appreciate the note on my talk page, before I do the reversion however I'll leave a message on the bot request page asking the users who supported the task to comment here. Robert.Allen your point is a valid one, would others also agree that updating the comment, if it is to exist, with a more helpful comment would be better? The  helpful  one  00:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * By Jove, I think that will work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) A request lodged during the holiday season on the 2nd day of Christmas, discussed between 5 editors, not notifying the classical music project, taken on, after a discussion lasting 5 hours, by a bot using an approval from February 2009 which takes a bit of a stretch to seem applicable to this task – all this makes assuming good faith quite a challenge. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's been completed. Toccata quarta (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I assure you that my intentions were good and can only apologise for my oversight in failing to notify this WikiProject of the bot's actions. Fortunately the bot was only editing a comment which is hidden from readers which means that we should be able to have a discussion here towards putting a better, more friendly comment (AGF, don't bite the newbies and all) on the page. Thinking long-term however, the Visual Editor, an initiative to get a WYSIWYG editor on-wiki may or may not show these comments when editing the page, is that something that needs to be considered too? The  helpful  one  01:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, the article Tan Dun opposes infoboxes, yet has one. Toccata quarta (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So it does! The comment asking people not to add one was already in place when the infobox was added on 21 February 2012. Should we remove the infobox? --Deskford (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As there is no consensus for it on the talk page, I would remove it. Toccata quarta (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! It didn't contain any information that wasn't already in the article elsewhere. --Deskford (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please help my understanding: I think an info-box should ONLY contain information that is in an article elsewhere, in a way that helps accessibility and simplifies finding essential facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As others have said, it is often not possible to decide on '"essential facts" in the case of composers, e.g. Carlo Gesualdo. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We agree, that it is often not possible to decide. But a statement above read almost as if it was wanted that the info-box contained information that was not in the article, I wanted to clarify. - Of course we need a possibility in an info-box saying that a date/name/authorship - you name it - is uncertain/debated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The superior notice I came across is: "Before adding an infobox, please consult WikiProject Composers and seek consensus on this article's talk page." Hyacinth (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very disappointing to see that a note that is clearly the opposite of our editing policy and has isolates the project by way of demonstration inappropriate  ownership still being debate. Linking to a projects advice page that contradicts our policy and its-self is even worst. At some point the advice given by this project should be logical and represent our policy on the matter. We have many many many editors   that at this point no longer place  WikiProject Composer type template(s) on pages because they dont want this project aware of them - this is a very bad thing because the editors here are so good at what they do.  Moxy (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? WP:OWN is simply a different way of expressing the content of the guideline WP:CON. And in this case, the consensus is found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I ran across this by accident, but am appalled. Wikiprojects do not own articles and should not be doing anything like this. These comments will be removed. If you want to discuss appropriateness of infobox/no infobox on each individual article's talk page, that's what they're there for, but "Thou shalt not" comments are not appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Good Lord; please stop distorting WP:OWN! Please see my comment above, which shows that consensus has already been sought and achieved. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not a "distortion" of WP:OWN, this is a textbook case of WP:OWN. If you had one centralized discussion, and came to a "consensus" there (which I don't even see, by the way, but for the sake of argument let's presume you did), but you find that every time you take an infobox out people keep putting it back, that's a good indication that your local consensus does not match the global consensus, which is almost always in favor of an infobox in biographies. In such a case, the global consensus ultimately carries. That's not an indication to put a big "GO AWAY, THE PROJECT SAID NO!" sign on it, it's an indication to let people add them. Wikiprojects don't get to make binding content decisions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any global consensus that mandates infoboxes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Written down as such? I doubt it (though I try to avoid the MOS, generally speaking, so there might be something in there). In practice, though (and policy is just codified practice, it's not prescriptive), it's widespread and longstanding practice to put infoboxes in biographical articles. If people from outside the project are trying to do that, it's unhelpful for project members to be stonewalling them, and most unhelpful to be putting hidden text forbidding them. That is not the Wikiproject's call to make, it is the community's. I suspect that the hidden text was put in because people were adding infoboxes, indicating a desire from the community to have them there. Regardless, the previous RfC doesn't seem to have reached a strong consensus, was only lightly attended, and was some time ago. I propose a better-publicized RfC to gauge the feelings of the community as a whole, as clearly it is not as clear-cut as those here seem to believe. If the outcome of that RfC is a strong consensus to exclude infoboxes in these articles, the position will be much better-founded; if not, then it'll be settled too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please no, spare me from a rule mandating crapboxes. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone said anything about mandating infoboxes. (Who would we force to write them?) What I'd like to get more input on is whether infoboxes should be prohibited on a certain type of article. If there's strong community support from outside this group for doing that, you'll have a much stronger case for what you're doing. That would be the purpose of an RfC. I'd be happy to work with you on the wording of the RfC request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What do infoboxes offer? They hardly do anything other than duplicate the lead, or present information not important enough for it, thus contradicting WP:LEAD. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Who them? Some articles for composers and compositions do have infoboxes. Those that don't follow their local consensus. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I dont understand why this project does not understand one of our most basic editing guides Be bold - it does not say ask a project permission before editing a page.   This is a prime example of wp:OWN - Its one of  the example give at WP:Advice pages of how not to behave. At Manual of Style/Infoboxes no were does it say you must or must not have an infobox.........what it does say is each articles is different and consensus must be reached at each article.Moxy (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank god we finally got rid of this false hidden comment against infoboxes. It should be removed from any additional pages immediately. Those hidden comments were disruptive and misleading, informing editors on a prohibiton against infoboxes that doesn't exist. This project as, for years, disregarded community-wide consensus in favor of the consensus of a few select editors who dominate this project. Properly added infoboxes do not harm articles in any way, shape, or form. They only help readers such as myself obtain bare-bones information. The arguments against the infoboxes are silly; if material is incorrect or confusing it should be omitted, infoboxes do not "dumb down" articles nor should we force readers to read through articles to find basic facts. I feel a bit of the anti-infobox mentality here comes from a sense of pride, many of the editors who oppose infoboxes are hard working and create stellar articles. Infoboxes could encourage fact-skimming in lieu of a full reading. But we shouldn't force readers to read through our articles when they are looking for something basic. I am one of these readers who has been affected negatively by infoboxes. I look at many of our classical articles for basic facts and the lack of infoboxes on these articles is a hindrance to me as a reader.  Them From  Space  19:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The hidden messages were all added back, actually. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That`s very disappointing to hear since the message violates our polices on the matter - but then again so was the way they were removed (looks sneaky - even though its the right move). Perhaps a proper  RfC on the matter will help.Moxy (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not yet finished
Some of you may like to check out the "wonderful" conversation that has recently begun on my talk page. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is he edit-warring on Harry Partch? It doesn't seem like him. Mathsci (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Example infobox for composers
As I said above, I live by examples, so tried how an infobox for a composer might look like on Graham Waterhouse, adapting Infobox person. I miss parameters for publisher and label, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why? Infoboxes are outstandingly ugly and merely duplicate information contained in the lead. Coupled with WP:PDT, it is possible for an article to state an individual's date of birth four times. Kinda excessive, isn't it? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? You mean why I tried to visualize what remains abstract otherwise, at least to me? I like the function giving the age - just celebrated 50 ;) - To have key facts concentrated seems not excessive to me, rather helpful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a few parameters to the existing infobox Harry Partch, asking that someone who knows the subject better selects more relevant info, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Missing publisher and label"? How does that add to the understanding of the subject? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I inadvertently intruded on the the Wikiproject's holy ground some time ago and beat a hasty retreat. I'm delighted to see someone challenging the lockhold they have on "NO INFOBOXES." Yopienso (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not helpful. People here have spent many thousands of hours building articles on classical music, and have largely agreed that infoboxes add little to them.  If you have an argument otherwise, you may state it reasonably, but ratcheting up the rhetoric, throwing sarcasm at us, and expressing "delight" just make everything worse. Antandrus  (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So how come nobody has weighed in on the fact that the request on the Harry Partch article for discussion and consensus was met by summary removal of the request and the uninvited imposition of an infobox?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Harry Partch affair makes me sick. User:Beyond My Ken violated WP:3RR (see, , and  [he even made further reverts during the next few hours, as you can see at ]), and then went to my talk page, and threatened to report me for "disruptive editing" if I remove the infobox he added to the article. The subsequent discussion showed that the user in question is not interested in achieving consensus—in spite of his "I'm a peaceful person" user page—, as you can see at . Toccata quarta (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Waking up to this: I found an infobox on the article that indeed had only rudimentary information which I think is not helpful to a reader who will have to decided at that point, entering the article, if he will read more or not. I asked to add - for example more of his notable works, but somebody who knows his works better should do this. I - as a reader - would be helped then, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Beware of unintended consequences. Are you ready to determine J.S. Bach's most notable works? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't dream of adding one for every composer, only where it might help. "Notable works" is not the same as "most notable works". If filled at all for Bach (but why, it's in the lead?), I would say something (with links) like Brandenburg concertos, cantatas, Passions, organ preludes, ouvertures, Wohltemperiertes Klavier, Mass in B-minor, - differentiating him from a composer of operas, string quartets and symphonies. - For Parch, the works don't appear in the lead, it would be more useful in his case to see a few, - he has striking titles I would like to see right away! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Organ chorale preludes, surely, not to forget the violin and keyboard partitas. But this is the impossible "Desert Island Discs" question. At one point the Harry Partch article just had an internal link to the complete list of all his works lower down the article. The answer is quite subjective. For Ravel would it be the Bolero or Gaspard de la nuit? Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I didn't answer the desert island question, but think the reader would be helped by knowing what the composer stands for, Lieder for Hugo Wolf, for example, - much more needed for unknown people than those who everybody thinks he knows anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gerda is quite right (see above) that it is important "to have key facts concentrated". The way to do this is to write a well-crafted lead section. We now have a huge amount of experience showing that infoboxes fail at the task Gerda wants them to perform -- they inherently emphasize trivia, and they force editors to invent key "facts" when they aren't even facts (such as, which are the composer's greatest works). Opus33 (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeating: "most notable" is not the question, notable or characteristic is. I come from the Bach cantatas (see thread above): key, scoring, poets of lyrics and chorales, relationship to other works (based on/base for) seem no lead topics to me there. For a composer, "influenced by/influenced" seem no lead topics but useful to see connections. I installed an infobox and added to another to actually see what we are talking about, without "wanting" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. There are discussions of "greatest works" (which is essentially "reception") in the leads of FAs/GAs such as Edward Elgar, Gabriel Fauré, Gustav Mahler, Felix Mendelssohn, Bedřich Smetana and Karlheinz Stockhausen. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. How dare people make uninvited edits to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Example infobox)
I am waiting for a clarification from WT:INFOBOX but it is my understanding that - aside from aesthetic value (or lack of it), the true function of infoboxes is that they provide structured data for projects such as Wikidata, DBpedia, and other potential Semantic Web applications that will take advantage of Wikipedia. Most articles are just text--useless when being read by computers. But if it's marked up in a structured format (of which infoboxes provide a minimum), that makes the information harvestable for bigger projects. -- kosboot (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The true function of infoboxes at Wikipedia is to make pertinent details conveniently accessible to our readers. Some of the long-time editors of classical musical articles do not seem to realize their project is one very small part of a much larger project. It is not an enclave for snoots that expect every reader to read every carefully crafted word of a scholarly treatise; it's an encyclopedia that aims to serve a very broad public. Some of the public will appreciate long, detailed articles, and some want just the bare skeleton. The infobox is that bare skeleton. Yopienso (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an aside (I don't edit in this area, though I have some interest), the use of infoboxes is becoming a standard across much of wikipedia. For areas where people are seeking basic information, they are very helpful. Much has improved in the last few years in terms of design and syntax.  I think this project needs to move into the second decade of the 21st century in this respect; an infobox doesn't need to have all parameters included in every article, particularly if some are controversial or would lead to lengthy laundry lists (such as "notable works"), but that concern is an editing issue for the info box template itself, not whether the infobox itself should exist.  For example, I recently worked on an article that is outside my general area of interest or expertise, (Yogo sapphire) where another editor kindly entered the appropriate infobox for gems, and it contained a great deal of summary information that tightened up the text of the article itself, which went FA and was also TFA.   Montanabw (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You both fail to understand what the actual objection to these boxes is. Nobody objects to summarizing crucial information. However, summarizing such information in tabulated form in a box is helpful to readers only under certain conditions: there must be certain pieces of information that (a) can be reliably summarized in a few words, (b) are at least as easy to take in in the format of isolated tabulated words as in the format of prose text, (c) serve a significant role in characterizing basic aspects of the article topic, (d) occur predictably across a whole class of articles. Condition (d) is particularly important, because the whole idea of quickly finding information in a table relies on the fact that readers already know where and under what keyword to look for – if the reader first has to parse the box in order to understand what kinds of information it is going to offer him, then the box offers no advantage in reading speed over a piece of well-written prose. The consensus in this project is simply that for composer articles, no such set of information items exists that meets these conditions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The "consensus in this project" is of no import whatsoever. How many times must you all be told that before you accept it? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I find the infoboxes at classical composers articles rather confusing, determining the style/"era" was often incorrect and misleading, as far as I can remember. I think it is definitely better to offer a well written lead section mentioning all the specific explanations regarding their major works and stylistic character. It is better than oversimplified and often incorrect compartments labelled "classical", "romantic", "impressionist" etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But, for better or for worse, students are routinely required to pigeonhole them. The words "classical", "romantic", "impressionist" etc. do have a meaning, after all. Yopienso (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Infoboxes on WP are neither compulsory nor forbidden.
 * 2) The editors who align themselves with specific WikiProjects are likely to be amongst the most prolific, or indeed the most prolific, editors of topics covered by their project. They can not unreasonably be assumed to be amongst the better, or even best, informed on such topics in the overall Wikipedia community..
 * 3) If (to take an example at random) the editors on a WikiProject feel that Infoboxes are inappropriate (perhaps on the lines suggested by Fut.Perf. and Vejvančický above), they are likely to object if an individual or a pressure group including individuals, not associated with the Project, seek to change this consensus on an organised basis. And at the end of the day they may themselves seek to defend their attitudes and policies. This is in itself perhpas neither more, nor, less, reprehensible than the behaviour of those who seek to overthrow the consensus established by the Project. Such behaviour is called (among other things) human nature.
 * 4) Given 1) above, both 'having infoboxes' and 'not having infoboxes' are WP:POVish.
 * 5) But I submit that on the bases of continuity, good faith and other nice, warm and positive things, the views of WikiProjects should be accredited a certain moral authority over outsiders who wish to disrupt a consensus on the basis of a POV-interpretation of alleged Wikipedia 'principles'. It is true that the editors on a project may represent a minority of the Wikipedia community. But those who assail the views of such editors cannot prove that they themsleves represent a majority of this community. That is indeed why they typically justify their assaults by reference to supposed WP 'rules' or 'traditions' (or their intepretations of same), in lieu of reasoned argument or persuasion.

Editors working on a project normally have reasons, and often good reasons, for adopting or promoting specific policies. This applies in my view to the Classical Music project's views on infoboxes.--Smerus (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Such special pleading and "accrediting a certain moral authority over outsiders" is contrary to core Wikipedia values. The RfC called by this project reinforced that view. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Shut up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy Mabbett for providing a perfect example of the attitudes which I find unconstructive. Without event attempting to address the issues I have set out, he has made an appeal to core Wikipedia values (5P); these however do not in any way refer to what he calls 'special pleading' or to 'moral authority'. They moreover point out that Wikipedia 'is not a soapbox [...or...] an experiment in anarchy or democracy', and that 'Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule.' So it seems that we are in fact allowed some latitude against Wikipedean Puritanism. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars also include "no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited..." and "Find consensus" (links in original). They include nothing giving special privileges to arbitrary groups of editors. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules do indeed matter more than their literal wording. Your special pleading is contrary to them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, I'm sorry to say that, but when you talk about special pleading in this way, you yourself are an example of such behavior. See Help:Infobox: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. There's no rule that using infoboxes is mandatory. Why do you think the opposition is contrary to the principles and spirit of Wikipedia? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please cite a case of me using special pleading, or strike your unfounded accusation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Message to Andy Mabbett : "no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited..." and "Find consensus" (links in original). Or did somebody already say that?--Smerus (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a point? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I missed a day of discussion and find it rather overwhelming, more than I can read now. Do I get it right that the use of infoboxes is not mandatory and not prohibited? Can we return to look at the two composers with an infobox, as samples? Can we agree that composers and performers are persons who produce something notable, like writers (Franz Kafka) and painters (Vincent van Gogh)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think one of the reasons for the opposition to infoboxes may be that the Wikiproject members see the composers only as composers, not as human beings, and Wikipedia's general public as classical music fans rather than people--often, students--who just want to place the composer in time or space or want to know very basic information about the composer. Yopienso (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of the use of infoboxes in much of any biographical articles, as I think the idea of trying to cram little details of something so complex as a human life into a box is a basically wrong approach. (I will grant I see some exceptions; for example, holders of political offices having their terms in office listed seems to work well.) Having said that, I've certainly never been bothered enough by the presence of infoboxes to fight over it. I've removed some infoboxes from classical music articles; this was not on principle, but because the infoboxes in question were unsuitable, using popular music terms that aren't used in classical music. What does get my dander up is this attempt to enforce a policy that doesn't exist. There is no policy mandating or even encouraging infoboxes. They are allowed but not required. Why people are so obsessed with adding them has always been beyond me; composers just don't have that many common characteristics besides birth and death date to make meaningful fields in a box. I'm not going to fight about it, as I said, but I do wish people would enforce actual policies, not made-up ones. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, HL. Besides having birth and death dates, all composers have birthplaces and nationality, education or training, marital status (sometimes including sequence of spouses), do or do not have issue, may or may not have famous family members, major works for which they are famously known and kinds of music--orchestral, solo, etc., as well as periods, may have famous teachers or students, usually have been influenced by and have influenced others, etc. An infobox also provides a standard place for an appropriate--perhaps iconic--image of the composer right at the beginning of the article. There are plenty of fields the general reader is interested in. And yes, in an encyclopedia, reducing a human life to a neat little box is not only acceptable but useful. (But not demeaning--no one objects to reducing the composer to a 2" by 3" flat image, for example.) Yopienso (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How? How is it useful to reduce a life to a few stats? I'm afraid I see no serious advantage to reducing it that way. When I read an encyclopedia (such as when I read World Book as a kid) I don't expect to see little neat and tidy boxes, I expect to see prose that tells me these in meaningful detail. And as for your fields, I find them far too complicated to reduce to little blurbs. Teachers? Does it count if they were at the same conservatory, or does it have to be individual study? Students, same problem. Known for what music? Umm, according to whom? True, some, such as Verdi, have a certain genre, but not all do. (And frankly, preventing the absurd genre wars of pop music articles from showing up in classical music ones might be the best argument for banning infoboxes ever.) Yes, birthplace, birth date, death date, but those are easily accessible in the lede and need no infobox. And nationality? That's also very complex sometimes. (The encyclopedia as a whole ought to get away from its obsession with immediately tagging people by nationality. But I digress.) And as for an image, that's not a worthwhile argument, as one can have images without an an infobox. I'm afraid your comments have only left me less inclined to support infoboxes, not more. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's useful to reduce a life to a few stats when that's all the encyclopedia user wants. Encyclopedia articles are not full biographies, and many persons who consult encyclopedias want only the barest outline of facts, not a well-rounded prose portrait.
 * Portraits themselves are only very limited representations. Look at the one of Bach--has he no legs? did he always wear a wig? what did he look like without it? did he ever smile? I am not faulting the portrait; it's perfect! I'm just saying we don't need front and back drawings or dental x-rays to be happy with the physical representation in an encyclopedia; I mention this to bring out the fact that it's likewise fine to have a bare-bones summary of a composer's life in an infobox. "Sometimes less is more"--sometimes less information is more helpful.
 * There's nothing complicated about birth, death, spouses, famous relatives (Yes, you could argue "How famous?" but, like every detail at WP, that would just have to be weighed and decided. Obviously the Bach family had famous relatives, but the JS Bach article doesn't link to them in the lead, which mentions only his father and brother. People aren't born knowing the facts about the Bachs; we can reasonably assume a fair percentage of people who turn to WP to find out something about JS don't know about his family. This is just an example I'm giving of the usefulness of an infobox. I'm guessing the members of the CMWP are so knowledgeable its hard for them to imagine that what they consider common knowledge is considered esoteric by many people.), teachers and students. Why do you complicate that with whether they were at the same conservatory?
 * It's fine if my arguments turn you more strongly against infoboxes. My aim isn't to shout down an opposing view, but to examine the issue. Yes, I would much prefer to see my suggestions implemented, but the bottom line here is consensus after reasoned discussion. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not mandatory and not prohibited, that's what I said above. Did you actually look at the two composers, the writer and the painter? - I don't think common characteristics should go in a box, but personal characteristics, that can be a teacher, a work, a genre, occupation(s), you name it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Naive suggestion: In order to resolve this, might we say that those who want to use infoboxes can, and those that don't, don't need to.  If someone puts an infobox in an article it won't be removed. -- kosboot (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that means that they are automatically included whenever one person adds one. What if it's wholly unsuitable, as some I've seen have been? It has to be removable.
 * Gerda Arendt, yes, personal characteristics, but for it to be an infobox, it has to have certain common fields. So I guess I mean not common characteristics so much as common types of characteristics. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this jousting since that bot made that first edit and I wonder if one remembers that every composer article falls within the scope of other WikiProjects which have no restrictions against infoboxes, much on the contrary. The issue here now seems to veer towards what to include in them, which by the way is a much more productive way of making progress. Krenakarore TK 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this for a few days (it is hard to keep up with the sheer volume of stuff going on here though), and my first instinct throughout all this has been to suggest that while the previous consensus by the WikiProject should be taken into consideration, it should also be noted that the RfC closing indicates that individual consensus should be reached on individual articles. Of course, I hesitate to suggest this because from watching the amount of division in this discussion, it would probably spark mass talk page flooding on several articles, which would certainly be not constructive. It would also be nice if both sides stopped making digs at each other, and be more civil. Trying to offend someone who has offended you doesn't help. One thing it seems to me both sides have neglected is the fact that not all articles falling under a certain WikiProject or category need to have a uniform appearance, i.e., there is nothing wrong with having an infobox on an article where it may be useful (let's say Johann Sebastian Bach as an arbitrary example), and not having one where it may not be as useful (let's say, Ferruccio Busoni as another random example). I do seem to recall reading some sort of guidline/advice/essay indicating this, but I'm not going to cite it because I don't remember it, and I don't feel like discussions should be throwing policy shortcuts left and right like this: the point of developing consensus is discussing ideas in a logical, cogent manner, as opposed to appealing to "guidelines" as a trump card.  Bramble  claw  x   03:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I came to music for the first time recently and automatically added an infobox to an article which did not have one...because it is uncontentious elsewhere that all articles will have one, if only for completeness. It seems to me that music are burying their head in the sand, refusing to accept something which at worst does no harm to an article, and at best improves the overall coverage of articles on wikipedia. I am seriously annoyed by objections to infoboxes on the grounds they are repetitious or a waste of space. wiki is not paper and we do not waste it by providing readers with alternative ways of gathering facts. To those who feel infoboxes have poor factual content...maybe they should be putting some effort into devising a better box rather than refusing to consider one. I was myself particularly impressed the first time I looked at an article on a mobile phone, where the infobox just beautifully fitted the small screen and presented the key points without having to search tiny text. Before this I had come round to infoboxes because some people were keen and i saw no harm (though in some circumstances they are very useful indeed). Now I think the encyclopedia has to have them universally.

I was also particularly distressed by the hidden message falsely pretending a consensus had been reached on not having a box. Not only had there never been any attempt at creating a consensus, but the message actually refers to a project opinion about biography articles which is itself equivocal...and this was not a biography article! How can you justify inserting such a message? The aim of the message was clearly to scare away anyone who might want to insert a box, in the hope they will not bother mentioning on the talk page that there should be one. It is aimed at creating a FALSE consensus and stifling debate.

Frankly, the way music has been behaving over this, pretending some things are true when they are not, is a disgrace. It is this which particularly annoyed me and made me feel something needs to be done to stop this. Sandpiper (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * wiki is not paper and we do not waste it by providing readers with alternative ways of gathering facts.


 * wiki is not paper and we do not waste it by providing readers with alternative ways of gathering facts.


 * wiki is not paper and we do not waste it by providing readers with alternative ways of gathering facts.


 * Waste waste waste waste.


 * I hope you enjoyed this post. Please don't forget to check out the non-consensus found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How was that post in any way constructive? That looks more like a personal attack to me. I'm CTabling it, but if you can explain how that was helpful, you may remove the CTable.  Bramble  claw  x   16:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you see it that way. My post was not indented to appear as a response to yours, but was simply continuing the discussion, with my own take on the matter appearing in succession to yours. I have intended this post because it is now in response to yours, and this is the general rule on wikipedia. I would think someone who knows what a ctable is (I certainly dont) would understand posting etiquette. If you want to revert your own edit, that is up to you.
 * But incidentally, I just re-read your and my posts and dont really understand how you could have taken mine as referring to any one individual?Sandpiper (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sandpiper, I'm almost certain Brambleclawx was reacting to my post, and not to your. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As to whether it is constructive, I believe so. I cant for the life of me see why musical articles, let alone the subset of classical music articles, should have different rules applied to them than other subjects. It should not be within the purview of a project to set up a ring fence and depart from the general style of wikipedia. To do so is to harm the general development of the encyclopedia. This isnt really a subject which should be decided within the scope of a project, but if a project sets out to do this it also should be required to do so in a fair way. The efforts I have seen so far have simply been gerrymandering to eliminate opposition. You seem to regard my plain talking as unproductive: I think it is important to state clearly the issue. Sandpiper (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was striving to illustrate the absurdity of saying "duplications mean nothing, because Wikipedia has unlimited resources". If you believe that argument is valid, then so is what I wrote. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I am confused. As just mentioned, I never met a Ctable before, so it would appear its insertion into this debate caused some confusion by hiding the text brambleclaw replied to, so I though he meant me. Toccata, I understand your point. I seem to remember I had a similar reaction to an infobox first time I met one on a minimalist stub article. Box saying nothing. However, this does not mean we should not have stub articles. It means we should improve them so that there IS worthwhile content. As an example of why we should have infoboxes I suggest an examination of some word processor program. You will find multiple different ways of achieving the same aim, all kinds of handy aids to do something, three different ways of entering commands. Why do they do this? Because some people like one way, some another, so to help everyone they provide all alternatives. Thus with infoboxes. Your example is not the same because you simply presented the same facts in negligibly different ways. I mentioned above exactly how an infobox is different in the most striking way I have seen, on a mobile phone. There is a gradation of infoboxes depending on how complex an article is. Obviously there will be trivial examples, but why is this offensive? Sandpiper (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that infoboxes can be useful when one is dealing with numerous "lists of numbers" (see for instance the article Barack Obama). However, I maintain that, as far as classical music goes, such data can usually be neatly contained in the lead, and infoboxes can easily lead to confusion. One music aesthete (unfortunately I have forgotten his name) said that the greatest music is that which is amenable to countless interpretations. And truly, countless interpretations are at the heart of musicological thought. Was Brahms conservative, or progressive? What about Schoenberg? As User:Jerome Kohl recently remarked here, the distinction between "serialism" and "dodecaphony" is quite nebulous. Is Mahler's 5th Symphony in C-sharp minor? (The lead of the article Symphony No. 5 (Mahler) provides an answer to that, while an infobox hardly would.) Is Miloslav Kabeláč's Mystery of Time, Passacaglia for Large Orchestra, Op. 31 a passacaglia? (It is not.) There are many other examples of such problems. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies to Sandpiper. I was indeed responding to Toccata quartz's post, not yours. Sorry for the confusion. I intended to mean how I did not see how the seemingly unexplained quotation and repetition of someone else's post followed by "I hope you enjoyed this post" meant anything relevant to the discussion at hand. Though I see an explanation's been provided as to the intention of the post as well.  Bramble  claw  x   21:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was a bit puzzled. Toccata, perhaps you can expand on how infoboxes can be confusing? I dont see it. Your example says that some things are hard to categorise, which is of course true. I have spent some time working on 'the battle of Jutland', and extraordinarily one of the hardest issues is who won. Nonetheless, we are writing an encyclopedia and we cannot dodge difficult issues, we have to tackle them. We have to choose what to put. It may be controversial whether Brahms was conservative or progressive, but we do the research and see what the sources say. Worst comes to worst, we devise a short phrase explaining the controversy, and maybe a note to see the talk page discussion. The purpose of an infobox is to summarise what might be several paragraphs in the text going over this point. Thats what it is, a summary for people who need a summary and not details. Its purpose is to be decisive when decision must be made. That is part of what an encyclopedia must do, wikipedia ia unusual in that it seeks to be all things to all men, but one group needs this. In general though, these things are not controversial. Usually it is clear who won a battle. Usually a composer will already have been categorised to death in the literature. Sandpiper (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "We cannot dodge difficult issues, we have to tackle them." Leads already do that; there's no need to "find solutions within impractical boxes, just so we can marvel at our cleverness". Toccata quarta (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not so I can marvel at my cleverness, its so someone who needs to know an answer to the question who the hell Brahms was, can see a simply laid out box pop up on his phone while he is standing in the middle of the street before he has to answer his girlfriend. To be clear, you seem now to be acknowledging that it IS possible to come to a simple conclusion, 'Brahms was progressive', so this is not a valid objection to infoboxes. Sandpiper (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? The "solution" is what the article Johannes Brahms currently has: "Brahms is often considered both a traditionalist and an innovator. His music is firmly rooted in the structures and compositional techniques of the Baroque and Classical masters. He was a master of counterpoint, the complex and highly disciplined art for which Johann Sebastian Bach is famous, and of development, a compositional ethos pioneered by Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. Brahms aimed to honour the "purity" of these venerable "German" structures and advance them into a Romantic idiom, in the process creating bold new approaches to harmony and melody. While many contemporaries found his music too academic, his contribution and craftsmanship have been admired by subsequent figures as diverse as Arnold Schoenberg and Edward Elgar. The diligent, highly constructed nature of Brahms's works was a starting point and an inspiration for a generation of composers." Regarding quick questions: there is no quick answer to something complex. Some people may be obsessed with fast food and have a very short attention span, but that won't change reality. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject notes in articles
Pls see Village pump (policy) - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.Moxy (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment proposal
Since it's pretty clear that the last RfC hasn't settled the issue (nor will the current discussion), and its result was relatively inconclusive (an instruction to discuss the infobox on each article, which doesn't seem to be encouraged with the hidden markup, and would be the default practice anyway), I propose we file another RfC in hopes of wider involvement. To that end, I think it would be useful to publicize the RfC both on VPP (of course), but also to request participation from WikiProject Biography. This might get some ideas from those who work on biographies in general. I would propose posing the following questions to respondents: I think having clear answers to the feeling of the community at large on these two issues will help put this to bed. Any other thoughts? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Should it be standard practice to use infoboxes in classical music biographies, to remove them from classical music biographies, or to discuss each article individually? If to discuss individually, should a lack of strong consensus either way lead to the infobox being retained or removed?
 * Should the current practice of hidden text being placed in classical music biographies, which instructs editors not to add an infobox and/or to contact WikiProject Classical Music prior to doing so, be continued? If so, under what circumstances should such text be placed in an article?
 * I have no objections to this idea. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a very constructive proposal. I think it should be implemented.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This would be a good way to centralize discussion. Antandrus  (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Disinfobox (and perhaps WP:Disinfoboxes can be Useful) might be worth a look if any of you haven't already seen them. --GuillaumeTell 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC) (Just sticking my nose in.)
 * I support this; the RfC should be publicized as widely as possible (is there something even more public than VPP and Wikiprojects? maybe one of those notices on watchlists?).  Bramble  claw  x   17:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly right to raise this again. The last RfC was over 2 years ago, was neither conclusive nor directly germane to many of the issues raised at present, and few if any I think of those presently involved commented on it. Be careful please with the wording of a new RfC, because the present hidden text doesn't in fact 'instruct', it requests ('please do not'). Nor does it ask people to contact the project. (At least this is true for the articles I am aware of containing a hidden text on inforboxes, e.g. Wagner, Meyerbeer).

Also NB alternative wordings for a hidden text have been suggested, so you might want to test further in the RfC on the lines 'If a hidden text is OK, is it permissible to request not adding, or can it only refer to Project guidelines and ask that they be considered....' or whatever.

But there is a problem here; whatever is the conclusion (if any) on a 'standard practice', use or non-use of infoboxes will I'm afraid always be contested in individual articles and will have to be (un)settled on consensus. I don't therefore have any high hopes that an RfC will resolve or even clarify the situation.--Smerus (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The hidden comments have been referred to as an "instruction" by more than one person trying to justify the removal of infoboxes from articles in recent weeks; just as others have falsely claimed that the outcome of the RfC is a consensus in an of itself for such removal. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoever may have referred to it howsoever, it is not an 'instruction'. Consult any dictionary. Can we stick to the English language here and not use WP:POV interpretations? If the RfC is not phrased in a non-POV manner its purpose will be frustrated from the beginning.--Smerus (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My point was that such comments are seen and represented as instructions, by people pushing a PoV. Contrary to your inexplicably hostile edit summary, there's no lack of common sense, and no ranting, in me pointing that out; nor do I need a dictionary to tell me that my comment was clear, correct and appropriate. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that an RfC would be the proper way to move forward. The last one suffered from a bias by being discussed within this project's pages when the consensus needs to be broader than just this project. It should be hosted in a neutral place, outside of this Wikiproject, and advertised somewhere highly-seen, such as CENT.  Them From  Space  20:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be on CENT it would have to be phrased generally, not be specific to this Wikiproject, however. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems people are tending to agree with this, though commenting has died down a little these past few days. Has anyone started the RfC yet?  Bramble  claw  x   16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One way or another, this is going to continue to be debated. Fundamentally the problem is a conflict between project members who believe they have settled this and are acting accordingly, and outsiders who do not understand, or accept, variations from normal policy uniquely on music articles. If music wants such an exception, then it must argue the case for its exception to be included in wipedia policy. It has not done this, so has no right to impose it.Sandpiper (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, in that this is a debate that will likely keep going, and indeed, the music project ought to have wider agreement if it is to suggest against the use of infoboxes. I think that's why many here want the RfC (when and if it is done) to be as widely publicized as possible, in order to get opinion from not just those in the project. One of these issues between your "project members" and "outsiders" is also that outsiders tend to be looking for cut-and-dried answers, while many in the music project who are more familiar with the material understand better than it is difficult to definitively determine a composer's style/school or most notable works (this has been mentioned above). So of course, if only indisputable facts such as name and birt/deathday/location were in the infobox, there would be little point as that information is usually included in the first sentence or two of most biographies.  Bramble  claw  x   21:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. There is an enormous difference between success in popular music, and success in classical music. In popular music, sales are what counts; in classical music, the opinion of reliable sources—which are unlikely to have a unanimous take on "compositional greatness"—is far more important than the opinion of the public at large. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Er... that might be debatable. Just as there is a difference between popular music that is "good" in the sense of well written/performed and popular music with high sales/recognition/large fan base, there is also a difference between classical music that is "compositionally great", and classical music that is well known; all of these should require "reliable sources". I'm fairly certain there will not be unanimity amongst RS for whether pop songs/pop musicians are excellent writers of music, just as compositional greatness can be debated too. In short, I feel that you're trying to compare greatness and popularity, which are different aspects that are not always dependent on each other, neither of which by itself can define "success".  Bramble  claw  x   22:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is clearer: the article Michael Jackson has the following information in the lead: "Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. ... Jackson's 1982 album Thriller is the best-selling album of all time. His other records, including Off the Wall (1979), Bad (1987), Dangerous (1991), and HIStory (1995), also rank among the world's best-selling." The article Arnold Schoenberg, on the other hand, has the following: "Schoenberg's approach, both in terms of harmony and development, is among the major landmarks of 20th-century musical thought; at least three generations of composers in the European and American traditions have consciously extended his thinking or, in some cases, passionately reacted against it. ... Many of Schoenberg's practices, including the formalization of compositional method, and his habit of openly inviting audiences to think analytically, are echoed in avant-garde musical thought throughout the 20th century. His often polemical views of music history and aesthetics were crucial to many significant 20th-century musicologists and critics, including Theodor Adorno, Charles Rosen, and Carl Dahlhaus, as well as the pianists Artur Schnabel, Rudolf Serkin, Eduard Steuermann and Glenn Gould." As you can see, the first quotation deals with popularity among the public, while the other with influence on "experts". The lead of the article Ludwig van Beethoven does not mention Für Elise, nor does the lead of the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart mention Eine kleine Nachtmusik. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true. But the infobox for Michael Jackson also does not list his most "notable songs". I guess another thing that could be discussed during an RfC is what people want to see in a potential composer infobox. A photograph/painting would certainly be nice, but does not necessitate an infobox. Birthname, birthdate/place, deathdate/location would all be covered in the lead. Looking at the mentioned Michael Jackson infobox, genre (in the composer's case, style, I suppose) would be contested (the dodecaphonic and whatnot mentioned somewhere above here, and another example I can think of is Debussy's own rejection of the label of Impressionist). Occupation may be useful, as some composers were also musicians, teachers, etc. Instruments may be useful but may not apply to all composers (not really a valid argument against infoboxes, however, since not every field needs be filled out for every article). Years active would again be useful, may be contested for some composers, but I guess that's the case even for popular musicians. Labels does not apply for the most part, nor usually does associated acts. Would someone who advocates infoboxes kindly explain what they'd be hoping to find in an infobox so it can be assessed exactly how much an infobox would be useful, and how much it could be covered in the lead and thus redundant? Thanks,  Bramble  claw  x   03:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been extensively noted in the past, none of the fields you mention are universally applicable. Birthname? There a whole article on Mozart's name. Birthdate? For many, we don't know (e.g. Beethoven). Birthplace? Does it matter that Willy Clément and Renato Capecchi were born in Cairo, or Pauline Anna Milder-Hauptmann in Constantinople? As daily experience shows, the argument that available fields don't necessarily have to be filled if they are considered not applicable doesn't hold. Unfilled fields will attract edits which then have to be discussed at the article talk page or at the template talk page or at the project level. influence/nfluenced, awards, spouse and children anyone? I hear a continuos stream of white noise coming from various projects endlessly discussing the finer points of infoboxes. They seem to take up an awful lot of editorial energy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded.--Smerus (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded what? which point? For example, the article on Mozart's name answers the infobox issue immediately, in its first line it calls him Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, which obviously is the consensus popular version which would go in the box. The Beethoven article explains that his family took his birthday as 16 December, that is the consensus best answer to the question when was he born. I'm sure it matters to people in Cairo who was born there, and usually the birthplace gives an indication of someones background. It is a fact people like to know. Are you saying we mustnt tell them what they want to know? Your argument in part seems to be that it is too much trouble to decide some of these answers, so we shouldnt bother. If so, then why have wikipedia at all, its an enormous amount of work! Your argument seems to be that unless a reader is willing to wade through several paragraphs explaining a complex issue, then we must not tell him a simple answer. That is not how education works. Start simple, work up to depth. An infobox is a starting place. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia solely for scholars. It seems to me there is something of a circular argument going on here: because it is sometimes hard work to decide on the content of a box, we will not include anything which in any one case might be controversial. Then all that is left is so trivial it isnt worth having a box. Of course if you start with the premise that there is nothing which can be put in a box, then they become pointless. Sandpiper (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I was just saying it's an inaccurate duplicate of the lead. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nicely put. To which the response is that it is an alternative to the lead which presents information in a tabular rather than textual way. For some purposes, this is more useful. So why do we not use them? To me, the article on Jackson looks better than the article on Beethoven. Admittedly the Beethoven lead is too short, but the Jackson infobox immediately catches the eye with the basic facts about him. I am coming to the view that what we need are slightly longer leads with the infobox as the key facts summary. Many articles now are getting so long as to be useless for quick reference. Sandpiper (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think this has morphed into a nebulous discussion about "the philosophy and purpose of Wikipedia". Toccata quarta (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In what purposes would a tabular presentation be more useful, Sandpiper? I'm personally of the opinion that infoboxes are useful if they contain pertinent information not found in the lead; but if most of the fields such as notable works and genre would be disputed, and the rest of the basic info would already be contained within the first few sentences of the article anyway ("So-and-so was a composer born on this day in such-and-such city, and died on this day in such-and-such city), then I would not be convinced that infoboxes are needed. And to Michael Bednarek, if composers' names/birthdates are disputed to begin with, wouldn't the articles already be subjected to disputes anyway, of which the presence of infoboxes not make much difference since they reflect what is already mentioned in the article? And there is nothing wrong with people trying to fill in unfilled parameters, so long as they can provide reliable references, yes?  Bramble  claw  x   17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to note that there is a difference between composers' names/birthdates being disputed, and there being a consensus that composers' names/birthdates cannot be specifically determined. That consensus exists in the examples that Michael Bednarek has cited, but could not be maintained in an infobox which plumps for one option or another.--Smerus (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood.  Bramble  claw  x   20:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical composition
I was ready to use Template:Infobox musical composition but miss to add some basis parameters that I find in Template:Infobox Bach composition (under construction): key, number of movements, scoring, text, relation to other works ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Under construction: Infobox Bach cantata or composition
Because the facts about any given cantata appear throughout the article, I thought about an infobox, first just for cantata, then: it might be useful for other works by Bach as well. I tried it on one, BWV 40, comments welcome. It might be expanded to more details about the included chorales, for example, more variables might be needed if not only for cantatas. I suggest not to use a picture of Bach - he looks too old for most of his works, but show the building of the (likely) premiere, to give a feeling for the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For clicking convenience: the template there is Infobox Bach composition; there's also Infobox Bach cantata. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't comment on the use of an infobox itself, but I noticed that the location field seems a bit isolated – I originally was unsure about which location it referred to (at first glance). Maybe include it in the premiere field: 26 December 1723, Leipzig. As for the image, maybe use the original manuscript if available? Just my 2¢. Focus (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links, "Bach cantata" was the first attempt, I would like to look at the other one for now. The image is open to whatever the one likes who uses the template, score sounds lovely. The documentation should explain these things, but perhaps let's collect thoughts on the variables first. There will be pieces which were never premiered (or we don't know when/where), like the Mass in B minor, "location" is for those, could perhaps left blank (not appear) if location of the premiere is known and listed behind the date. I wonder if - instead of today's Leipzig and Weimar - we should link to the related passages in the composer's biography, perhaps with a redirect "Leipzig (Bach)", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My attitude towards infoboxes has changed. Where I was once negative about them, after it was explained to me that infoboxes are important because they create structured data for when Wikipedia is used as data (i.e. Wikidata, DBPedia, etc.), then I became all for them (and for more structured data on WP in general).  So sure, more of them is a good thing.  -- kosboot (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As I live on examples, I tried a motet also, BWV 226, with a score pic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Added - for variety: BWV 61 (Weimar) and BWV 62 (chorale cantate). In BWV 36, I felt the necessity to mention 36a, 36b, 36c - how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Starting with Bach cantatas is kind of difficult. For associated works, perhaps you can have a field "related works."  I think the real problem are the  chorales.  Sometimes Bach uses words of subsequent verses for the name of the chorale even though the music is known by the first verse (which is also usually but not always the name of the cantata).  In some cases we know the tunes are pre-extant, in others they're unknown or possibly composed by Bach.  Maybe two fields: "name of chorale" and "source of chorale"? -- kosboot (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is to be an image in a template, I think the standard 1749 portrait is probably the best. Unfortunately it's the only verified portrait. The modern Thomaskirche is a bit misleading for example: there's an older image from a painting made prior to remodelling in C-U III. The images that you use are fine in the main body with annotation. For example see BWV 105, my own effort: I now know how to extract higher resolution images of autograph scores from the Leipzig Bach archive, so would consider updating those images. Compare the high-resolution image of the autograph score of BWV 622 in OB. File:OMensch-autograph-BWV622.jpg Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Chorales: I think the box is not there to show which stanza of who's chorale was quoted or paraphrased in which movement (the text does that), but can link to used chorales or their authors.
 * Images: which older Thomas would you suggest? (I didn't take Nikolai because the remodelling was even more "off", compared to Bach's time.) Bach in 1749 is much too old for most cantatas ;) - also almost everybody knows that picture already. More score images would be great, infobox or not. I love BWV 105! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The image is here.File:Thomaskirche-1885.png BWV 105 is one of my favourites. I'm not honestly sure about info boxes. Incidentally, a new large volume has appeared on the Bach cantatas in French. I got a copy but have not really had time to compare it to Durr. Mathsci (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pic and pointing out the new book! I will use the pic and see what others think. - I have a history of reverting infoboxes myself ;) - But as said above: the bits on scoring and chorales (to name just two) are too much for a prose lead and too distant in an article. I will try to implement something like related works - which can be "base" or "base for", and wonder about key(s), because for some it's what the piece is known by (Missa in F major), for complex works there are many, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both 19th century pic and related works now on BWV 36, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this a lot! Brava! -- kosboot (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We've discuss infoboxes in classical music articles ad nauseam. I still think they are a terrible idea (Briefly: they put trivia up front, distract readers from what is important, force distortion of facts to fit template, and attract edits from people who don't know the topic) and I don't see any reason that a Bach infobox would be any different. Opus33 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you look? I added one more sample BWV 76. Repeating: for a complex work, such as a cantata, relevant information appears in different sections of the article, the scoring, Bible quotations, the poets of chorales, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could Gerda and others please stop using BWV 105 as an example? One editor has boasted about the image used, which I selected and uploaded myself. I have already mentioned the copyvio in BWV 39, with sleeve notes copy-pasted verbatim in quote marks into the article. That is poor quality editing and it is that kind of content that needs improving. I am against the infoboxes for cantatas since they dominate the article in an ugly and unhelpful way while not helping the reader in the slightest/ Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although not a fan of the infobox for cantatas, I uploaded a high resolution image of the opening sinfonia of BWV 152 from the Bach digital archive. Although the dezoomify tool on commons does not appear to work on the zoomified images there, the DFG viewer on the reference page produces a reasonably high resolution downloadable jpeg image. Autograph manuscripts are not always available unfortunately. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Bach composition
Gerda, I was not very happy with the infobox for BWV 105 that you just experimented with. The infobox was too large and I could not see the point of replacing the image of the original manuscript of the soprano/oboe aria with a photo of the modern Thomaskirche. Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The image was my mistake, I meant to show the autograph, it's too late my place ;) - The size: what would you drop? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I think it would be better to see an infobox in the context of the article I want to be more careful and discuss a revised version in my sandbox. Please also have a look at the beginning of a documentation of the template. My next question: I think the year of a chorale should show, since early Reformation or Baroque makes a difference, but how? a figure after its name (or the name of the poet, if there is no article yet)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a version to my sandbox. The one seen here shows alternatives by Mathsci.


 * Various points. The accompanying text is not for BWV 105 but for BWV 152. (The English OUP translation of Dürr's book could be added to the refs.) If there is to be an infobox, it should be more concise with less lines, taking up less space. "Premier" is not a good term to use for a sacred work. But "First performsnce: Leipzig, 25 July 1723, 9th Sunday after Trinity," puts everything together. Also "Scoring: SATB and chorus with oboe, horn and strings", all in one line. I would include the librettist if known but not the biblical passages, because there can be several sources. No need for a key, since that can change between movements. As for movements, I would write "Chorale fantasia, 2 recitatives, 2 arias and chorale" in one line, possibly abbreviated. The template should not dominate the article and detail should be left for the text. When I feel better, I might improve BWV 140, BWV 78 or BWV 39 (why are 10 lines lifted from the source without paraphrase here for the description of the chorale fantasia?). Certainly far more can be said about the Chorale fantasia in BWV 140: there is no mention of the sublime alleluias in the last stanza! It doesn't hurt to have musical quotations in the articles, if there are multiple themes in counterpoint. Lilypond is our friend and BWV 140 certainly deserves it :-) Mathsci (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Various answers:
 * I only added the template to what was in the sandbox, ignore all the rest if you can. I would have added it here but it is long.
 * The template is meant to be for Bach's compositions in general, "first performance" is longer, but such things are exactly what should be discussed. For many pieces we don't know place and date of that first performance, for others not even the time of composition.
 * Key: for other compositions it is used, even for cantatas the key of the first movement sets a mood.
 * Movements: good idea to add the character of the movements also
 * No field is "required" ;)
 * Please compare the infoboxes of the other Wikipedias, German for example: it makes sense to have different lines for solo - choir - instruments, you see at one glance if a piece has no choir etc.
 * I didn't do much about BWV 140 and 39, your improvements are most welcome, I go slowly by the liturgical year, about one a week, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is far too large as I've said. There is more that one biblical source. Why not make a template for the cantatas which doesn't require all this duplication and is more compact? These articles are not lists, where we need to see things at a glance. I have contrsucted a mock-up of something that could be acceptable. (Annotations for voices or instruments are possible.) Mathsci (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Butting in here - I like most of the current infobox (the image is too large but totally adjustable). What I feel is less useful is the characterization of the movemnents.  If you intend to state them in compositional order (perhaps with numbers or text incipits), I would be ok with that.  Just saying the kinds of movements I think is useless:  most cantatas have such movements, so for me a generalization is pointless.  I would also be ok eliminating the field entirely as it makes a lot of work, and the details would be in the article body. -- kosboot (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We have now two versions, so "current" needs to specify which one is meant. By Bible I mean precisely, when Bach composed the text of the Luther Bible, not when a poet used Biblical sources, that would be endless ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For more examples, please see the documentation of the template. I take from the above that "First performed" is preferable to "Premiere", and agree, that the movements in sequence, with character, voice type, text incipits is in the article, no need for repetition. Repeating: all parameters are optional, I could do without "translation", for example, because there are always several, and the cantatas are known and performed in German worldwide. The question if the template should be for cantatas or all Bach compositions was raised in the beginning. At present "Infobox Bach cantata" is a redirect to the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just curious: are the abbreviations of voices {sop, alt, ten) being used here to save space, or are you planning to do this on all instances of the infobox? I don't think using abbreviations is very helpful in infoboxes, especially to those not familiar with musical abbreviations.  Bramble  claw  x   16:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Bach composition 4 January

 * The example shown above is not "mine", but I took some ideas, please look at BWV 40 or at the template for more examples, or "my" BWV 105:
 * A few parameters got shorter names in the display: Translation, Composed, Performed (avoiding premiere, open to list more than one performance).
 * I combined the date and location of performance to one line, but am reluctant to also combine "Occasion" because that is a field which will not apply for many compositions, but is highly important for the cantatas and precedes the performance.
 * The abbreviations (S A Tr ...) are on purpose different from the prose (the same familiar abbreviations as in the German Wikipedia and in publishers' listings), - if you click on an abbreviation you see what it stands for, and if you click on "Scoring" you see the full list.
 * All parameters are optional!

I am interested in samples for other genres besides cantatas, a motet and a mass, feel free! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bach composition 16 January
I moved the template so far shown here to the cantata BWV 105, it is also still in my sandbox. Thoughts please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to correct myself, the template is not in the article, but in the sandbox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have replied above. I think that using the general composition infobox is not a good idea. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean your comment of 2 January, "...These articles are not lists, where we need to see things at a glance. ...". These articles mean different things to different types of readers, some will be served by "at a glance", for example readers who need a screenreader. It is not about beautiful or ugly, but about accessability. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the first section of this thread. Mathsci (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)