Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 11

New articles section
I took the liberty of adding a "New articles" section to your main page, in line with other Wikiprojects that I've seen, so that these articles can be highlighted for others to review. I've kicked off with Guto Puw: seeing as he is to feature in the 2007 Proms, I thought there should be an article about him. Bencherlite 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the online New Grove as a reference
Hi all,

I have run into some resistance in using the online New Grove as a reference, since it's subscription-only (for example, here). As far as I know, using this encyclopedia in its online version is a long-accepted practice here; we do it since it's more convenient than going to the library to use the 29-volume hard copy, or purchasing one (or in my case, because the online version has an excellent search feature). Haven't we had this discussion somewhere before? Frankly I don't care if the article I'm referencing is "downgraded" to a "B" for whatever reason (I probably shouldn't have given it an "A" rating myself), but if people are not going to let us use the New Grove as a reference this could be a major problem for anyone who contributes content to the project--especially on composers--and in my opinion contributing well-referenced and cited content should always be our first priority. Opinions? Has this been discussed on a policy page which I have missed? Antandrus (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds rather daft. People who can't access the online version can go and look in the print version if need be (the info should be pretty easy to find in an alphabetically arranged reference work). I've noticed there has been some incredible silliness over citations at FA, GA and the related reviews just lately and, sadly, it seems to be spreading. --Folantin 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's scholarly value in having impeccable citations. There's a good discussion at Talk:Francesco Corteccia.  Fireplace 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would like to express my agreement with Antandrus and Folantin. It would be very irrational, I think, to forbid use of the online New Grove in Wikipedia editing.  In my experience, New Grove articles are accurate, weigh conflicting evidence, cite their sources, and avoid subjective assertions -- a model of what we should be trying to do.  I also think it is better to use the online New Grove than the print edition, because the online edition contains the most recent, best efforts of the New Grove staff to get the facts right.


 * I also believe that it is just not pertinent that many WP readers cannot access the New Grove. In truth, all forms of scholarly citation have exactly the same potential problem.  For example, a top-notch article may have appeared in a low-circulation print journal that is subscribed to only by the best-funded university libraries.  That's accepted by scholars as one of the hazards of the business, and this is the reason why many scholars use interlibrary loan a great deal.  But publication in a hard-to-obtain journal would never be taken by professional scholars as a reason not to cite.


 * In sum, any effort to limit WP sourcing to items that any member of the public could obtain would cripple our enterprise. We need to be able to use the best sources in our work, because our goal is to write a maximally accurate encyclopedia.  If current WP rules can be construed as forbidding use of a source as valuable as the New Grove, then those rules need to be changed, pronto.  Thanks for listening, Opus33 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think everyone agrees with this... the discussion seems to be over the correct citation format. Fireplace 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But do reexamine Antrandrus's original posting, which contains a worry about "if people are not going to let us use the New Grove as a reference".  That was my concern.  Opus33 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I now understand the concern over in WP:WPO about instant assessments by WP:BIO. Having someone who hasn't heard of Grove do the assessment of an art music article is hardly going to come up with an accurate assessment of quality. --Peter cohen 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen this brought up about Grove as well. One thing that may help is to be sure to use the full citation to the online Grove (which Ant does, but just a reminder) and people may find GroveOnline useful for this (this template uses Grove's preferred style, but it can be modified if people think it's necessary). I think that all we can do is educate people who bring up this objection. Perhaps an FAQ page just on Grove? Or an essay on the necessity of subscription-only sources? Mak (talk)  23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fireplace: I think everyone agrees with this...: actually, I've seen confusion over "accessible sources" happening more and more--sometimes in music articles, but even more in baseball articles (my other guilty pleasure). There, I've had some newspaper sources removed as "unverifable--article is no longer available free on-line."  Agreed with others above that if someone is doing assessments of composers or music topics in general and doesn't know about Grove (or in the case of a GA or FA review doesn't go and consult it), then they're probably quite a bit out of their field.  The expense of these sources doesn't really enter into the picture: by taking the time to use all the available sources (free and otherwise) at the time of writing and review, we are creating a much better free product for the world to read. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with everybody on this. As far as opera goes, the online and print (1992) versions of Grove are not identical and both are worth referencing. - Kleinzach 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Edvard Grieg infobox
Sorry to have to call attention to the dead horse yet again, but editors are insisting that the consensus not to use a biographical infobox at Edvard Grieg be reinstantiated at that article's talk page. Fireplace 18:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing music topics
I have a list of missing topics related to music, including many composers. I wonder if any of you could have a good look at it? - Skysmith 10:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of the "gaps" seem due to misspellings (or foreign spellings) of composers' names. For instance, we certainly have articles on Alexander Dargomyzhsky and Grażyna Bacewicz. --Folantin 11:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I used the spellings I found in the original sources (in this case, mostly Caxton) - Skysmith
 * I've found a couple more current articles that probably match the meaning, and have added them to the list –MDCollins (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the entries is 'State Opera House', however there are lots of state opera houses. It's not clear what this should refer to. -- Kleinzach 12:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I probably placed it in the wrong context. I meant that it could be an article about State Opera Houses in general, what's their position (and funding) in the local cultural landscape and things like that. However, I'm not qualified to write that myself - Skysmith 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger
The Chopin Project has been inactive for some time now. I propose that this project merge whatever content from that page relevant into this project, given that it is the most directly similar active project. John Carter 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WPComposers or WP:CM? In either case, I think WP:Chopin should be closed. Of the two listed participants, one hasn't contributed to Wiki[edia this year, and the other has on ly contributed to say that they are now an ex-wikipedian. --Peter cohen 18:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Isaac Albéniz
It would be good if someone who knows more about Albéniz than I do could have a look at the article, which seems bizarrely unbalanced to me. Most of it is devoted to one work of his ("Chants d'Espagne", not Iberia), it is very confusingly arranged, there is no list of works, or even a partial list, and so on. --GuillaumeTell 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

John Philip Sousa
I placed your project tag on this article. Rlevse 13:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture Afds
People here may be interested in the AfD on Grieg's music in popular culture, and a a number of similar ... In popular culture AfDs. DGG (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky question
Okay - so I can see why Compositional style of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky might be its own article - it's really long, so should be separated from Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. But my question is - does the new article get the same cats as the old one? I mean "Compositional style..." isn't a Category:Russian composer, right? Or how does that work? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Surprised nobody answered, to throw my opinion in (not exactly useful, but perhaps better than nothing :-) ), it should definitely not be added to any composer categories. The people who would find it useful will find it easily through the main article. Le  the  17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use issue for sound excerpts
Would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions for improvement on whether I've followed guidelines/policy for fair use of composer sound excerpts at this Fair use Review. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 23:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Elimination of the majority of microformats/semantics a technological backwards step
The rejection of the infobox concept has a serious downside to the extended use of Wikipedia knowledge by outside computer-based entities. The microformats project relies mostly on information derived from the standardised markup that infoboxes were designed for. Among the subjective participants of the artistic community, do not people still want to be able to search for things in more extensive ways, however not perfect they may be? Its a shame that a group of people can get together and tamper with the resource that wikipedia could be. The semantic web may be a foreign concept to some, but it is being helped in part by Wikipedia contributing concise pieces of structured information to it.

Neither of the major argument on the talk page are convincing to me. 1. Infoboxes don't look crappy, if you think they do then style them, or take them out with your Monobook.css, don't impose your artistic tastes on the wider community. 2. That they are technically incorrect, leading to misassertions, which are somehow better described in free flowing text. A scan of major composers (and in other related projects) which are apparently hard to describe concisely are actually extremely minor issues. Not knowing someone's birth date or place should not be reason for destroying every infobox. Likewise, it is not the wikipedia, or consensus way, to lay down and die lest there is something incorrect such as the musical period or genre, they are specific issues, not general ones. If the community outside of wikipedia refers to someone as being in a particular genre, style or period, then it is not the place of wikipedia editors to put their Original Research thoughts in. On the other hand, if it truly if so debatable in a particular situation, then put both in the infobox, and describe the truth in text. No harm done.

Articles aren't precious resources to handle carefully. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Ans e ll 10:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Correctly designed infoboxes are good. Badly-designed ones are bad. Infoboxes are best designed by collaboration between editors on the subject in question, and those who can design infoboxes. The worst results appear when someone who doesn't know a subject area well enough tries to apply an inappropriate infobox design. Carcharoth 10:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the eternal consequence of a bad infobox, and why aren't people fixing them? It is not very convincing to say that because the infobox was in some way badly designed, that it should be chucked out. And yes, I have read the extensive rants on the issue and havn't found any permanent technical reasons, all the reasons are subjective, and the complainants havn't done anything about it for the past few months since they were doing all the talking. Its all good to say something is bad, but if you dont point out the exact reasons and set about to fix them, then the destruction of the infoboxes is worth nothing because it will continue to bite the current limited set of artistic-biography project(s) as the odd one(s) out Ans e ll  11:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, could you explain when the technical advantages of infoboxes will be implemented? I've often wanted to generate a list of the articles using a particular field in an infobox, plus the data, but this obvious application never seems to have been implemented. For example, I'd like to run a query that lists all the articles using the "Employer" parameter of Template:Infobox Person, plus the values entered for that parameter. That would be useful. As for designing composer specific infoboxes, have you seen User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer? It took me five seconds to find that with a Google search. Did you try looking for that? Carcharoth 11:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did know about that, I also realised while reading the discussion of it, that it had gone nowhere for the past few months. 05:38, 3 June 2007 to be precise. There are websites devoted to parsing pages and providing realistic queries for people. The technical aspects of your question could be designed but I am not sure whether this site would help you at all, but it contains the basic ideas for asking semantic questions of wikipedia. Ans e ll  09:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sharply opposed to User:Ansell's position. If we need some standardized markup for making content more searchable, then by all means, let's do it--but  there's no need for this markup to be visible on the page.  The crucial point, which has been made repeatedly, is:  prominently displaying facts that were chosen in advance, rather than those that are important to the topic at hand, is a bad form of article organization.  Why is it so hard for people to understand this?  Opus33 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that, at least in part, people have actually been using the HTML structure to parse the information, although, the increasing use of proper microformats seems to be superceding that in technique terms. However, why should we force people to mark up the relevant parts of the text when they could do it all in one place in a structure they can use on multiple pages. If you want to make up an invisible infobox then feel free I say, you won't be harming anyone, and it will be an improvement over the current embargo on their existence by page owners. Ans e ll  08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't Persondata already an invisible form of adding people data? Also, just pointing people to external websites is not helpful. The geocoding is mostly inhouse, so why not the parsing and querying of biographical data? Carcharoth 09:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this quite a lot. Wikipedia is about accuracy. If we cannot be accurate, we're finished. Infoboxes applied to complex matters (such as composer bios) simply don't work. Incorrect date of birth included an in infobox is not a "minor" issue: it is an incredibly major issue that smacks of ignorance. Sacrificing accuracy to these allegedly magical microformats makes no sense. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in technowizardry or prettiness. If some very important matter such as genre cannot be accurately described in the infobox, then the infobox should be nuked. We cannot present inaccuracies in infoboxes and then expect people to parse out the truth from the main text. No infobox at all is better than misleading our readers. Moreschi Talk 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about getting to better accuracy through development. If a reader expects wikipedia to be a perfect source of knowledge at any one time they are poorly informed. You may be interested in this essay for a broader picture of the issue, as the broader community does not quite share the emphasis that you portray. You are sacrificing The Truth just by stating something you are not completely sure of, whether it is in text for personal interpretation, or in a box which supposedly only has one interpretation. Whichever way it goes, there are real world facts which make up the reason you are writing at all. Ans e ll  08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've stayed pretty neutral on this argument, but I wonder. Why are composers being singled out? I understand obviously what page we're talking about this, but wouldn't this affect ALL boxes for long dead people? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think composers have been singled out because the substantial opposition to the use of infoboxes was quite unusual. Infoboxes are inaccurate elsewhere across the project, but there is little sustained opposition. The concept of microformating is a good one - the problem arises that this is pushing square pegs into round holes. I agree with Opus' point - there is no need why the info cannot be tagged and embedded - it doesn't need to mar the page. Eusebeus 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just make an invisible info box that contains all the same things but doesn't make the page ugly? Thats only half of the opposition though. Ans e ll  08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would get rid of almost all bio-boxes if I could. The literacy problems of "outside computer-based entities" aren't our concern; we're supposed to write for humans. If microformats can be accomodated without infoboxes, all well and good. If they can't, then they need further development. --Folantin 16:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The literacy problems of computer based entities are actually a major issue to us and humans in general. How do you think Google became as smart as it is? It did it in part through meta-tags and imperfect linguistic analysis. It still has issues, but it does it in part because of efforts by humans to improve the system. On microformats, they are able to be accommodated without infoboxes, but why would you want them. The ugliness is only part of the issue. The search engines that utilise the data won't know if you just wanted to hide the information away because you were ashamed or sick of looking at it. They can be accommodated if people know what templates to put in what places, but the essential format of infoboxes offers another dimension of analysis in order to better categorise the blob of data that wikipedia is. Ans e ll  08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes infoboxes are useful, though. Either as a tabular summary (think of the lead section in tabular form), or as a place to stick boring data and taxonomy. See Earth and Hydrogen and Tiger for example. For people, though, it is difficult. Carcharoth 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's why I specified bio-boxes (biographical infoboxes). Individual humans tend not to fit into categories as neatly as chemical elements or animals. Sports stars maybe (so long as they have no other careers). --Folantin 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Humans may be diverse, but that doesn't disqualify them from classification. By its very nature, Wikipedia is describing real knowledge. If the facts don't exist, they shouldn't be here at all, whether in infoboxes or not. Pushing a bias against "boxing" because it is currently not in philosophical vogue won't help the project. And even if a sports person has another career, why should they not be "boxed" as a sportsperson. Why does the existence of two things destroy the one. Ans e ll  08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We return to this subject again and again, and each time opposition to the bio-infoboxes grows. A number of projects have firm guidelines against using them. A question for those of you who are wise in the ways of WP (which I'm not): Would it be possible to write some kind of WP-wide infobox opt-out policy? A policy which would obviate these discussions and also bring together all those on WP who are opposed to them (in both science and arts projects). -- Kleinzach 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would science's want to remove them? The inaccurateness and ugliness that forms the core of the reason they are not liked in artistic circles doesn't translate to science. Science has facts that it asserts as valid based on theory and it is not scared to state them as that. This is very much an artistic squabble, and won't successfully be pushed out to the broader community. Ans e ll  08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you actually checked this out? Which Science projects have embraced infoboxes? Please tell us. Quotation from WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes:  "Certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. . . .  for instance, scientist articles can have some heated debates on these. So, if you are tagging a scientist, academic, or "classical" composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page."  -- Kleinzach 08:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I said science, not scientists. The major issue still stands that people are either reluctant, or fully opposed to any form of ordering with relation to humans because of a personal philosophical position. Yet, they are still willing to write about them in paragraphs? Also, you wrote part of that sentence, so the fact that it exists in the current form doesn't totally justify it. Ans e ll  09:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't make misleading claims: I did not write the part about scientists. I changed composer to composer, musician or singer - a clarification to which nobody objected. I didn't write the part about scientists. -- Kleinzach 10:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats the real issue
Okay, there are differing opinions so far about what the real issue is, or whether it is a mixture of different issues. Ans e ll 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Ugly boxes on pages which aren't necessary as their purpose is more for computers, which don't distinguish based on visibility anyway.
 * 2) Boxes can never represent The Truth, so they shouldn't exist at all
 * 3) Boxes currently don't offer the flexibility that should be available, and as such could be developed as either visible or invisible if improved

How about: 4. Needing to use an external site to extract and analyse the data. If this was done on Wikipedia, and the results were visible and useful here, you might convert some of the opponents of infoboxes. At the very least, it would enable people to check which bits were wrong, and make corrections. Carcharoth 09:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how you can check what bits are wrong using external sites where you can't do it currently. There is a big fuss over each and every page that gets a box so there are many eyes looking at the data and they should be able to figure out what is right and wrong. Particularly as wikipedians are not supposed to be doing original research anyway, so it should all be based on reliable sources. Ans e ll  11:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood me. I'm talking about using infobox data to (for example) generate a list of birthdates of a selected group of people, and then cross-checking those birthdates against a list on a reliable source. The "checking which bits were wrong" should start and end on Wikipedia, only going to external sites to check the facts. It is the processing to get the data that should be done on Wikipedia, not on an external site. ie. (1) Click on a link on Wikipedia to get list; (2) Cross-check list with reliable source; (3) Confirm on Wikipedia that fact checking has been done and is OK. Carcharoth 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about:
 * 5. Ancillary information is always difficult to coordinate (to make consistent with main text). Wikipedia/WikiMedia have not yet developed the structures to enable this to be done successfully.
 * 6. No print encyclopedia has boxes attached to every article - it would be overkill - nor should WP. -- Kleinzach 10:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Ansell stops using straw man arguments and starts using WP:PERSONDATA? --Folantin 10:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Im not sure what the straw man arguments are, but PERSONDATA is not so much different to an infobox, do you accept they can be used? And as is stated below, wikipedia doesn't have to be limited to everything a paper encyclopedia does. What structures would you refer to, particularly in relation to your acceptance of PERSONDATA as being a basic and valid mechanism for the boxing up of data.
 * It is interesting that noone has responded to my original ideas though, it makes the argument seem very very shallow if people can't even agree on why it is they decided as a group to take away infoboxes in the first place. Ans e ll  11:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Persondata is invisible (which has disadvantages as well). The main reason is that it is difficult to do accurate infoboxes. Better to have no infobox, rather than a misleading one. Carcharoth 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stay out of the bizzare argument, but number 6 is irrelevent, since Wikipedia isn't paper. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Re 6, previous encyclopedias used boxes sparingly for basic publishing reasons that do also apply to WP. Many aspects of our work here are the same as print works. So I would suggest that WP:PAPER doesn't apply here.-- Kleinzach 11:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not strictly true. Many children's encyclopedias and school textbooks use boxes to help convey information. Some biographical encyclopedias use them as well, but more as "feature articles" to break up the monotony of page after page of the same format. All this argues in favour of diversity of presentation (ie. not having infoboxes on every page), and not dumbing down information to make it easier to present (accurate infoboxes or none). Carcharoth 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does information in infoboxes have to be regarded as dumbed down because it is not as verbose as textual content? Sentences don't necessarily get across more information, or even get it across better than concise summaries. Stating that this is necessarily the case isn't overly convincing. Vague references to the inevitable downfall that will come when infoboxes summarise information seems just like a temporary phobia to me. Ans e ll  11:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ansell, this discussion is going in circles, and I doubt it is going to come any sort of resolution that you would find satisfactory. So I would appreciate it if you just let it go for now, and then we can all spend our time in other, more productive ways. Sincerely, Opus33 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This discussion is unfocussed. Let's finish it now and archive it. -- Kleinzach 23:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will give up on the point for now. But if the phenomenon starts to spread I will bring it up again. Hopefully with a more focused description. Its a trouble that the advantages are clear to me, but I perceive them in different ways. :) Ans e ll  04:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)