Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 14

Personal attacks
I don't see any point in replying to personal attacks. I am not going to be making any myself. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a personal attack, its just me pointing out wherey our argument is flawed.

If the pro-boxers were real bona fide editors it would be different, but they are not. They're just lazy kids looking for instant gratification. They don't read the articles at all.

That's a personal ad hominem attack.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem is short for for argumentum ad hominem or argumentum ad personam explained by WP as  "replying . . . by attacking . . . a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim" . So, for example, calling someone a liar is ad hominem. Remarks about people in general or groups are not ad hominem. --Kleinzach (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. I know ad hominem means to attack or appeal to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.


 * I merely said a statement you gave was a lie which it was. Did I attack your character? Did I ever use the conclusion, you are a liar ergo you lie? No. I stated the facts and called you out on a statement which was not truthful. I addressed the substance of your argument. You made have tried to dismiss all pro-box views because they're lazy kids. That's a clear cut definition of ad hominem, it doesn't matter whether its people in general or groups. All that matters is what you argue. I hope you see that you are in the wrong here.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record: On 10 May 2008 I wrote '' " Three or four people can't overturn a consensus established by 30 or 40." ''. This referred to the consensus throughout the classical music projects. I also wrote '' " The debates that decided the guidelines here involved more than 20 editors." '' This referred to this particular project. While I did not specify exact figures, I believe these to be substantially correct. CenturionZ 1 should make a complete apology. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...wow. Amazing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:PRACTICAL, consensus is not gained by democracy (# for vs # against) but rather by the "strength and quality of the arguments themselves." Granted, I did use a poll below, but a poll is "often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one." Indeed, "[m]inority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority." In my opinion, the arguments against infoboxes are not strong, regardless of how many times they are repeated. In the end, it is unfortunate that the anti-infobox group may have chased away some editors from this project by refusing to agree to even a modest compromise. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a bit dramatic. I've been silent/ambivalent on this issue and I haven't been scared away.  What interests me is the addition of quality content with quality citations.  Infoboxes have nothing to do with quality content, its more of a cosmetic look-and-feel issue.  You guys can bicker and moan all you want, demand apologies, engage in wikipolitics to try leverage "modest compromises" to yes/no questions... or whatever.  Its not necessarily going to scare away editors who are much more interested in the actual article and could care less if there's a small box in the upper right corner.DavidRF (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, let's remain calm please; no need for acrimony over what is a risibly unimportant issue. I agree with Truth here that consensus is global, not local, so insofar as the sitewide practise is to use infoboxes, we need be open to compliance. However, as clearly demonstrated before, beyond the basics of birth and death info, the generica that infoboxes encourage are wholly unsuitable for composers. I am sure we all agree that if anyone wants to slap up infoboxes that provide ONLY the basics of birth & death, no-one here has a problem with it. Yes, it's redundant, but who cares. As for the suggestion that editors can be chased away from this project over an infobox - that strikes me as absurd. Eusebeus (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that -- I probably should have been more specific. When I said "chased away some editors" I was referring to Centy's comment down below that ended with "See you whenever. I've had enough." I'm guessing that Centy's sentiment may have less to do with infoboxes in particular and more to do with feeling bloodied from lack of progress toward consensus. You're right, we should all remain level-headed. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're right. Centy's been gone for a week now.  I take it back.  Hopefully, he'll return eventually.  DavidRF (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard Evidence - Infoboxes work
Franz Liszt - This famous case of nationalistic argument has had an unchanged infobox since LAST OCTOBER (apart from two changes to what picture appears in the infobox, which is equivalent to what picture appears at the head of an article without an infobox). Given how this article was supposed to be a demonstration of why infoboxes are bad: disruptive editing, misleading information etc. etc. how has this infobox remained so stable? Is it because all these reasons are just false. This article shows infoboxes work and they are fine.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 13:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's remain calm here, folks. Infoboxes are fine as long as the information is limited to basic stuff like place and date of birth/death. It's when you start trying to fit composers into genres, nationalities, instruments, and employers that it gets tough. The effort to apply simple labels to many composers is a scholastic exercise that would be best to avoid. I have no problem with a basic box, however, that lists the naked bio details of birth and death - that's fine. Eusebeus (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. All parameters of infoboxes are optional.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 14:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The only compromise I would be prepared to accept would be along the lines suggested by Eusebeus (with "Baptised" and "Floruit" available for composers whose dates are in doubt). No other parameters should be allowed. (Incidentally, something surviving for a few months on Wikipedia is no proof of anything. I once had to delete a hoax article which had been allowed to remain for over two years). --Folantin (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * UGH!! There you go again. WHY IN THE WORLD are you singling composers out here? The DOB issue could happen with ANYONE, you can't claim it's a part of the argument at ALL unless you claim that anyone not of more current times can't have them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me? --Folantin (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he's talking to Eusebeus - he mentioned composers.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am unsure what User:Melodia means; I would further remind the editor that plastering the page with ALLCAPS is unnecessary, needlessly provocative and unlikely to advance the debate. If that comment is indeed directed at me, I was referring to composers because this is the composers project. Date of birth/death issues are secondary to the paramount concern here, which is the round peg/square holes we encountered last time around: is Mendelssohn a late classical or early romantic composer? What label best fits Virgil Thompson?, etc.... I think the urge to provide facile classification via infoboxes is a problem across Wikipedia as a whole. I only tend this part of the garden, however, and my comment is limited accordingly. Eusebeus (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I was talking to Folantin, as evidenced where I put my comment. I can't believe you can't understand what I'm saying. It's very simple. Composers are not unique, almost any complaint about the infoboxes can be applied to any historical person. The issue of a single date for a birthday not always being completely accurate was brought up, but on other pages the issue is obviously taken care of, so why are you people constantly trying to elevate composers above others in regards to such issues? I do agree that genre/time period can very often be vague, but there's no reason they can't be put into two or even three (like Beethoven: Classical-Early Romantic, etc.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "No, I was talking to Folantin". Charming. My first comment on this page is greeted by "There you go again". "I can't believe you can't understand what I'm saying". Maybe it's because you talk like a caveman (UGH!) and use arguments which amount to no more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for why composers have been "singled out" then I'll simply repeat what Eusebeus said: this is the composers project but "I think the urge to provide facile classification via infoboxes is a problem across Wikipedia as a whole. I only tend this part of the garden, however...". --Folantin (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well ooga booga then. I give up. If you can't see that the fact that we're on the composer project doesn't matter as far as the arguments you and others are presenting, then there's nothing else to be said. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any kind of compromise will work. We've just seen another example here. Opus33's innocuous Haydn box was quickly replaced by the recreated Infobox classical composer. That will always happen. If the box is on the page it will be edited - and edited in disregard or ignorance of the contents of the article. --Kleinzach (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't twist the truth Kleinzach. I sense that you only consider Opus33's infobox innocuous because he isn't very pro-infobox. I replaced the innocuous infobox because Opus used the wholly inappropiate Template:Infobox musical artist with parameters such as associated acts. Plus this infobox is mainly used by Popular music articles so we cannot simply go in and edit the infobox when something arises.


 * So I have simply replaced the infobox with one I have specifically made for Classical composers...one anyone can edit and one which will only affect classical composers so we don't annoy the other music WikiProjects by messing with their parameters. If a need for example arises to added a 'Baptized' parameter, we have free reign to do it. It's not edited in disregard or ignorance of the contents of the article. Kleinzach your comment is in disregard or ignorance of the wider picture. If we want an infobox we need to have our own, not use some other project's.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can probably tell from my talk page, I have also given up. I just hope you guys are ready when Andy Mabbett comes back from his block. I request however you do not delete Template:Infobox classical composer but I am doubtful my views count for anything once I'm gone.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 17:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensing a possible consensus here. If Opus33's infobox was innocuous, as Kleinzach mentioned, I propose that the general rule be to allow a simple infobox with birth (or baptismal) date, birth place (if available), death date, and death place. Any other parameter (such as genre) would be handled on a case-by-case basis. It looks like Centy's infobox would allow these simple parameters, and it wouldn't have to be shared with pop musicians. Thoughts? --TrustTruth (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A recantation
Hello, I am now very sorry indeed that I proposed a modest form of composer infobox. CenturionZ immediately took this as an invitation to resurrect elaborate multi-field infoboxes, of exactly the kind that has repeatedly served as a magnet for thoughtless, ignorant editing. This unfortunate experience has persuaded me that there is no way to keep the inaccurate-infobox problem under control, except to keep the policy we've had before: no infoboxes at all for composer articles. I offer my sincere apologies to Kleinzach and other editors who've worked hard in the past to maintain this aspect of encyclopedia quality. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus building
Eusebeus, Folantin, Centy, TrustTruth, Melodia Chaconne, appear to be in favor of Eusebeus's compromise proposal of a very simple infobox (with "Baptised" and "Floruit" available for composers whose dates are in doubt). Opus33, Kleinzach, Myke Cuthbert appear to be against. Woohookitty, the admin who deleted the previous Composers infobox template appears to be neutral. Did I misrepresent anyone's position? That comes out to five in favor, three opposed, and one neutral. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the reaction to my compromise and having read Opus33's recantation above (and seen just how bad the proposed new infobox was in the Haydn and Beethoven examples) I'm inclined to vote a straight no. No infobox, no problems. It's the simplest solution. (Nobody's ever come up with a solution for the Paderewski problem either). --Folantin (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay that makes four in favor, four against, one neutral. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure consensus = a simple vote, but this isn't the only place this has been discussed. The consensus at Project:Opera is firmly against the use of bio-boxes (see, for example, this comment by member User:Voceditenore ). --Folantin (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, concerning consensus, I'd like to point out that there is a voice absent from the table: our readers. They are ill-served by inaccurate encyclopedia articles, and the track record (both long term, and the last 24 hours) shows that infoboxes are a major source of inaccuracy.

WP has millions of readers, who (for better or worse) often rely on it for information. This is why it needs to be treated seriously. So let's keep our priorities straight: emphasize accuracy, and avoid those infoboxes. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * TrustTruth, I would give up. Nothing's going to change, besides there really is no need for an infobox to present the same information that already appears in the first sentence (DOB, place of birth etc.) These most vocal editors here will never allow an infobox to present anything more than this trivial information (apparentally calling Haydn classical era is too risque and a major source of inaccuracy in the past 24 hours). It makes me see why I'm considered snobbish in my social group for liking classical music. As Melodia says, it amazing how editors for popular musicians, painters, poets, writers and scientists can agree that you can summarize a person's life neatly into an infobox and yet classical composers and musicians are a special elite breed who defy all categorization and niches. Hope you guys are all happy now – you've maintained the integrity of this elite corner of Wikipedia where we refuse to tow the incorrect views of everybody else because we can. See you whenever. I've had enough.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 19:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. You guys might want to nuke the infoboxes for Liszt and Gershwin.)

As I understand it, the opposition argument is that allowing an infobox opens up the possibility that inaccurate information could be added to the infobox. Is that correct? Then why don't we modify the Composers infobox template to only allow birth date, baptismal date, birth place, death date, and death place? It would also allow an image with a caption. That would accomplish allowing only the basics, and would prevent extraneous information being added. Surely we could gain consensus around that (see WP:PRACTICAL for consensus building standards). --TrustTruth (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, potentially harmless but rather pointless. It simply reproduces the information in the first sentence of the article. I simply don't understand the argument that we have to offer facts in box form. --Folantin (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is redundant -- that's part of my argument for their existence actually. In my view, they improve accessibility to the article subject by providing a summary of the basics -- an image (where available); the birth year and place (when verifiable of course!); the death year and place; and the death age. I can understand Opus33's concern for the millions of Wikipedia readers. Indeed, I believe that having even a simple infobox would make this article more accessible to the lay reader. Moreover, by using the Composer infobox template and eliminating controversial elements (i.e. don't even make genre / historical era an option) from day one, this WikiProject would have complete control over the template. This would refocus future discussions away from whether the infobox should exist, and on to why composers cannot necessarily be boxed into historical eras, for example (or patrons, or students, etc.). --TrustTruth (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "They improve accessibility to the article subject by providing a summary of the basics". The summary of the basics should be the lead paragraph(s). Plain prose can be tailored to the individuality of each composer in a way that infoboxes never can. For instance, what's more important about Beethoven: that he was a composer who went deaf or that he had Czerny as one of his pupils? I'd say every casual reader needs to know the former. How does an infobox tell them about this? Do we add a "deaf composer" parameter? Likewise, "Carlo Gesualdo, Prince of Venosa and Count of Conza, was an Italian music composer, lutenist and nobleman of the late Renaissance. He is famous for his intensely expressive madrigals, which use a chromatic language not heard again until the 19th century; and also for committing what are amongst the most notorious murders in musical history". How do we convey that in an infobox? Do we have a murderer option? In other words, infoboxes are exceptionally bad at conveying the most important basic information about composers. Instead of promoting accessibility, they seem to me to promote illiteracy. I cannot believe that anyone's standard of reading is so low they are incapable of dealing with a short, introductory paragraph or two. This is where my fundamental opposition to infoboxes comes from, along with their tendency to factual inaccuracy. --Folantin (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if we eliminate the template's ability to present anything but the very basics, then the factual inaccuracy issue would be (nearly -- I know not totally) moot. Doesn't that seem like a reasonable compromise? --TrustTruth (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No. The very basics should be in the lede anyway. In which case all you're doing is duplicating two bits of info side-by-side, one in an ugly manner. We simply do not need infoboxes when all they do is either duplicate needlessly or mislead. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we've compensated for the misleading risk by eliminating most of the lines on the template. And duplicating the info is part of the point. Also, if the infobox is ugly, it can be modified to be more aesthetically pleasing. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the work you folks have put into the new trial infoboxes, I am against infoboxes for the following reasons: 1) the box competes against the article.  Everything in the box is (or should be) covered with greater clarity and nuance in the article text.  2) The box says to a casual reader, "read me!  You're in a hurry, but I have everything you need to know!" As a (former) educator all too aware of the ravages of attention deficit disorder among the very young, I want to avoid encouraging it. Casual visitors need to read the first paragraph at least. 3) Unless stripped down to nothing but the dates, the simplifications presented in the box inevitably look amateurish (for example: "genre:  classical"  just like in the CD shop, where everything is in bins labeled "country", "rap", "soul", etc.; all productions of a thousand years of music history are rubberstamped with this odious and unencyclopedic "genre" tag.)  And by the way, my opposition to boxes has nothing to do with the subject being a "classical" musician:  these problems apply, in a slightly different flavor, to all biography boxes, but unfortunately the consensus seems to be for them most everywhere else on Wikipedia.

This all said, I would support a simple box, such as the one proposed by Centy with all parameters optional, if it is the majority view, for this reason: there is too great a risk of having something truly execrable forced on us once the project's dedicated template-makers, few of whom know anything about "classical" music, notice that composers have no boxes, and decide that we are obstructionist snobs and need to be boxed. There's lots of people out there who like consistency for its own sake and don't expect them to listen to us. We have a better chance of holding a defensive line if we put in a simple box.

Once again, thank you all for your work on this. It's painful seeing people fighting here, formerly one of the friendliest places in Wikipedia, and I personally promise not to speak unkindly to anyone, even if I disagree. Let peace begin with me. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the following are in favour of introducing bio-infoboxes for composers: Centy, TrustTruth, Melodia Chaconne (3). The following might be willing to see a limited box: Eusebeus, Antandrus (?) (2). The following are against introducing them: Opus33, Kleinzach, Myke Cuthbert, Folantin, Moreschi (5). (Please say if I have put anyone in the wrong group!)


 * Although there are relatively few people involved compared to previous occasions, the end result seems to have been much the same. Also I believe no new ideas regarding either the design and appearance of the boxes, or their editing for accuracy, have emerged. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the simple infobox was a reasonable compromise and would hope that at some point discussion can "continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical" (WP:PRACTICAL). It appears we have reached an impasse, not a compromise or a consensus. --TrustTruth (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox classical composer
I have put this up for its 4th consecutive deletion Templates_for_deletion. Thank you. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See the result here: Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_12. The template was deleted but apparently not 'salted' (protected from recreation). -- Klein zach  09:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone here should read the closing admin's comments if you haven't. There's a lot more to it than just 'deleted' (and thankfully not salted, which would be a really REALLY hidious action if I ever saw one). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, There has also been some discussion on the closing admin's user page. Apparently Happy-melon believes there has only ever been one discussion (in 2007) about biographical infoboxes - despite six participants in the Tfd referring to multiple debates. -- Klein zach  11:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gold Coin Images in Composer & Related Articles
Gentlemen, you may have observed this discussion, in which a Euro aficionado managed, through canvassing, to spam the Haydn article with what is, in my view, a rather gaudy image of a commemorative gold coin. This similar trivia was added to the Eroica page, to the Schloss Esterhazy article (see Talk:Schloss Esterházy and elsewhere. Can I ask for some feedback on this from our project. What do we think of these images? I personally find them rather ugly, do not see why they are needed and would recommend their removal. Eusebeus (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the editor in question brought this up to some sort of administrative noticeboard here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents to get wiki-bigwigs to weigh in. He doesn't seem to be getting much support there.  But since the discussion moved there, are we supposed to defer to that discussion? DavidRF (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that venue has no special "authority" regarding content. Miguel is unfortunately trying to characterise this as a clash of personalities rather than a content dispute, which I believe is mistaken.  Feel free to weigh in on ANI.  I think Miguel has done a nice job on his articles -- for example Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria), which discusses the Haydn coin -- but this material doesn't quite fit in composer articles.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh. That handles "personal stuff" and not content stuff.  Got it.  I don't mind images like these when there is a lack of other images.  I've added the 100 kroner note image to the Kirsten Flagsted article simply because I didn't know of any other free images of her.  But there is no shortage or images for most of these "coin-worthy" composers.DavidRF (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think that such images would add to an article that had few or no other images, but this article doesn't qualify. Also the Fair Use reason for allowing the image of the coin on the coin page does not apply to the Haydn page. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I agree with Myke, DavidRF, Antandrus, and Eusebeus. Thanks to Antandrus for his apt remark about this not being a personal quarrel.  Opus33 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Myke, DavidRF, Antandrus, Eusebeus and Opus33. Best. -- Klein zach  00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is so funny (and generally inappropriate): a whole discussion is being done about my contributions and I was not invited to it. Please check my latest comments in User Talk:Opus33 and User Talk:Eusebeus. I have clearly said that I have changed my view (in your favor) and I am willing to do a huge compromise. Regardless, my contributions were again removed (not changed, just removed) without any warnings.

Anyway, I do feel is very important, just to mention, in one single line, in the "see also" section, that these composers (and now buildings) have been chosen as the main motif of a very important commemorative coin. This is the only thing I am asking now, and I promise I will not look for help from other Wikipedians or Administrators, I will leave it to the decision of this forum. Please note that I am not putting any external references, just intra-wikipedia links. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We weren't hiding from you Miguel. This Wikiproject governs several of the articles you have been editing.  The talk pages have links here.
 * These composers are too popular. I'm sorry, but we simply can't link to everything.   We can't mention all the collectibles that honor them the same way we can't mention all the books and movies that incorporate them into their stories or buildings that have been named after them or the times their music has been played at some important event or whatever.  We've allowed these types of links in the past and what happens is that the "See Also" section grows huge and takes over the article.  We've tried forking the "references in modern culture" sections into separate articles, but those end up being deleted as trivia.  Please keep the numismatics in the numismatics articles.  Thanks.  DavidRF (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)