Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 27

Biographical infoboxes/10th discussion
We are looking to solve (get input at the least) on a long standing debate on inclusion of  biographical infoboxes in some WikiProjects. Specifically the debate is in how far the reach of individual WikiProjects guidelines can be implemented.Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Background references: The following archives document past infobox discussions:


 * Composers Project:     (scroll down)
 * Opera Project:
 * Classical Music Project:
 * Also see:


 * Infobox musical artist:
 * Music Project:

Request that this RfC debate be moved to a subpage to free up the talkpage for other Composer project discussions. Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman 04:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I see this new section..but i dont see consensus at all in this old thread that Hyacinth is providing as hes source for consensus..the Biographical infoboxes  section  was added 3 March 2009 a year after the discussion  closed?? What is going on who and were has the ok for mass deletion of info box templates from composers articles come from.. ??? show me!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Biographical infoboxes which is on the project page, and all the various links. This has been discussed ad nauseum, which in Latin means "to the point of nausea". Thank you for your understanding. -- Klein zach  03:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no real consensus, just bullies spouting idiocies that would actually apply to far more than just classical music to try and justify it for only that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You agree then that there is no consensus..so why are infoboxs that people made being deleted ? ..This rule you quote was added without consensus as far as i can see to the project page..very misleading compared to every other project that you link to...you sure this rule of thumb should be there?.Because you have editors deleting infoboxs from FA articles!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 *  "every other project . . ." . Please check out the following: WikiProject Opera on biographical infoboxes, WikiProject Classical music on biographical infoboxes. -- Klein zach  23:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok you seem to not understand what i am saying ..these rules you keep quoting were added without consensus ., So no matter how many time you should me that you posted this rules all over does not provide proof of consensus  .. What the problem here is that this rule implies they should be deleted...no were does it say that work by editors that is done properly and neatly with a  nice format/layout should be deleted..lets just look at what you did for-instance here you removed the template and did not even take the time to add the info of who it was the year etc, you left a blank thumb. And in this  case you did not even try to get the name right. So you think the new editors reading the rule and that have  started deleting the infobox will take more time then you will ..i hope so! Anyways the 4 people that were deleting them have been told to stop and they have. I think i will talk to a few people see if we can start a new talk page  on this topic again as it is clearly not solved..Y are you not deleting the template on  Bradley Joseph one of your groups  FA articles for instance??? Anyways until this is worked out i don't think peoples should delete others editors work..If you want you can promote not adding a template, but deleting i will be watching for.Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Buzzzsherman: This is inaccurate.


 * (1) Re, see the Opera Project archive 15. This text was written jointly and agreed by the Opera Project editors.


 * (2) Re, this material was pre-existing and merely moved by me from other locations.


 * (3) Re Robert Nathaniel Dett, a composer given a writer's infobox, the birth and death dates are in the article. Nothing was removed.


 * (4) Re Juan Carlos Tolosa I cleaned up the article removing Spanish (Bruselas for Brussels etc.) see


 * Now I have taken my time to check through your points, will you please RTA. -- Klein zach  03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok i will but this is why i did not mention your name in the first place ...i am interested in this rule of thumb that is posted on the project talk page not your editing habits. I was trying to show you with your own edits what will happen if this continues!!
 * (1) Re, see the Opera Project archive 15 So the four of you made project wide decisions..I dont see consensus here who are the four of you to make this decisions?


 * (2) Re ,..So you agree that your posting this all over!! ok!


 * (3) Re Robert Nathaniel Dett,..You left a blank thumb no name nothing...yes this is wrong!!!


 * (4) Re Juan Carlos Tolosa I cleaned up the article removing Spanish (Bruselas for Brussels etc.) see ..not sure what your trying to show me here ..His name is not Brussels from 2009 and the article is still messed up


 * I am not one to be pushed over or have the wool pulled over my eyes ..when i speak up its because  i fell i am right ..so made best we just leave this conversation die and make a new discussion page about the topic!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that WP:CTM also opposes the addition of infoboxes to biographical articles. We are at present reveiwing our scope etc so there is no specific page to point you to; however, all the members are individually opposed to the boxes. The point is that all the information is meant to be in the lead anyway so there is no point of making a big bumper sticker to say the same stuff. --Jubilee♫ clipman 11:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, just to note that Melodia's point is inaccurate insofar as participants to this project have generally agreed in the past that we should not use infoboxes for composers. (I think we understand that Melodia disagrees, but if disagreeing with Melodia constitutes bullying, that sets the bar pretty low.) Feel free to conduct another straw poll here per WP:CCC. Eusebeus (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jubilee's response is EXACTLY why I called it that. I mean, "ll the information is meant to be in the lead anyway"? What the hell does that have to do with classical/opera/contemporary music specifically? If that were actually the reason, then there should be NO info boxes (or at least not on people in general). Then there's a idiotic crap like "X wasn't from Germany, because Germany didn't exist! See why infoboxes sucks?! ZOMG!". And while THIS time Kleinzach's message was relatively benign, very often there's quite a hostile message against those who would DARE add an infobox. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remain calm Melodia. This isn't personal—the original poster also questions the removal of the boxes, too, of course.  I just pointed everyone to part of the rationale behind the opposition to these boxes.  There are other reasons to oppose them which other editors can probably clarify more easily than I can (I wasn't involved in the original discussions because I am relativly new to WP).  --Jubilee♫ clipman  15:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By my count, there have been nine substantial discussions about biographical infoboxes since 2007. (That number doesn't include short topics here, or long discussions outside the WP:CM projects.) Everything that could have been said about this topic, has been said, and the result is always the same. -- Klein zach  16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Quote=Everything that could have been said about this topic, has been said, and the result is always the same" <--< Yes your right there is no consensus, but yet here we are dealing with it anyways because you felt free to implement deleting of info boxs. So i would say its your fault Kleinzach we are here.  The main reason i showed  up here in the first place is that your project keeps coming up on help pages etc..People asking for help as to y there work is being  deleted...And you can show me nothing to warrant your groups behavior it pushing this POV on infoboxs, "Quote = there is no specific page" WOW  so you agree this is not a rule? I repeat DO NOT DELETE valid contributions because you feel all high and mighty with your non-wiki approved rules ...So in reality  your project is causing work for other editors out side  your project (We are getting tired of it)...dont you wonder y your group is so small...you guys have a  reputation of BITE,  Even someone in your own little isolated  Wiki group thinks your wrong. As for Consensus you should read it (its a real wiki rule) you would see that what you guys did here is not consensus ..its a 1 hour open then closed  discussion that you guys did to make it seem like there was some sort of approval...People are getting tired of what you guys are doing and having to explain your actions to new editors.Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your tone is entirely inappropriate. Do not come to our project page and start shouting at us in ALLCAPS; only Melodia is allowed to do that. The infobox question has been discussed by participants of this project in the past and specific concerns were raised. If you can address those concerns substantively, then I think you will find a receptive audience. But your approach is unhelpful, verging on incomprehensibly rude. The issues raised here probably do apply to other parts of the encyclopedia, but we tend to this part of the garden and do not presume to tell other projects what to do. You may disagree with our policies and editing, but you are unlikely to convince people by adopting such an accusatory stance while doing nothing to counter the objections that have already been noted. Eusebeus (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * O well like the others tried to warn me..not to bother with this group.. you will only get fustrated (they were right). You guys have shown us nothing of this so called consensus. You link to pages that do not show consensus, so what would you like me to reply to? Your imaginary thoughts?? You guys just don’t get it.. You cant delete valid work.  If you wish to promote no infoboxs to new articles that is  fine but deleting them from old articles and leaving the pictures blank with no name no alttext no nothing is wrong!!! ...I wish you guys all the best and hope one day you will see the errors  of your ways. There is no ownership of projects as you describe and no consensus on infoboxs that you guys can provide me. So i see no need to address your concerns substantively, because you can’t even provide proof of this so called consensus. So just like many other editors that come across this project ..i will walk away. ..But pls be aware that you are affecting other projects with your isolated rules. Manual of Style (infoboxes) or Template:Infobox musical artist <--dont see anything here about your made up rule of no infoboxs. As for how i am typing..well I guess you can tell we are getting pissed that we have to deal with your editors deleting infoboxs from other project...Yes projects overlap .. Have fun!!! I know this will come up again since you guys are not doing right by editors.... PS..Dont be scared of bold text..its all ok it wont hurt you...   Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that there are no hard and fast "rules" in Wikipedia, and if there is a disagreement on whether an infobox belongs on a specific article or not, consensus should be reached on that article's talk page. While I do appreciate and follow some of the guidelines here at this project, I prefer to follow the "guidelines" from the various Music projects and Biography projects with regards to infoboxes, the scopes of which composers also fall into.  I personally have argued "consensus" in the past - like 2-3 equals consensus?  And just because this has been discussed "ad nauseum" to a few, doesn't mean it has been discussed "ad nauseum" to all and it also certainly doesn't mean it cannot be discussed ever again. And if I were a newcomer to this talkpage, I too would resent the rudeness of first responders always to this question.  ♫ Cricket02  (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cricket: "They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page." [Composers project - Guidelines (my emphasis).] Therefore, this project, like you, follows the consensus on article talk pages. My guess is that the Bradley Joseph article, for example, has been discussed either on its talk page—or elsewhere—and the consensus is that the infobox should remain.

Buzzzsherman: "Quote = there is no specific page" WOW so you agree this is not a rule? - Actually, it was me that said there was no specific page and I meant that the contemporary music project has no specific page. However, that project defers to other projects where points of style are in question: see our style-guidelines page, WikiProject Contemporary music/Style guidelines, and note the last three items on the list.

Everyone: I have thought long and hard about this, now, and there is a serious point here, to be fair. First, though, was consensus also reached that existing infoboxes should be removed? Furthermore, I can see how we can ask project members to avoid placing infoboxes but we cannot reasonably stop non-project members from adding them nor can we reasonably remove those added by non-project members, unless there has been consensus in the wider WP community. As I recall, all the debates in the wider community fell apart because editors such as A Knight Who Says Ni, Chris Cunningham/Thumperward and others opposed such changes in usage. The proposed change to include the words "non-classical", for example, reached no consensus. (I forgot: I was involved in that.) See here: Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_7 and all of that which follows in that archive. As far as I am aware, that is the only place that this issue has been discussed outside of WP Composers, WP Opera, WP Classical music and WP Contemporary music. Buzzzsherman, Melodia and Cricket are correct, I'm afraid: there is no consensus in the wider community on this issue and that is where the consensus actually counts. None of us own articles nor can we place restrictions on them without consensus from the rest of WP. It is now time to discuss this issue in a calm manner in the correct place, viz either WP:TfD or WP:RfC. If we don't get this Wikipedia-wide consensus, we will be continually questioned by that wider community, as above. It also occurs to me that demanding consensus on talkpages that infoboxes be included is actually against the WP policy on consensus: consensus on the application of guidelines and policies to articles in mainspace only needs to be reached on talkpages where wider WP policies and guidelines are in question not where project guidelines are in question. Project guidelines only cover project members: they do not apply to non-project members and never have. Sorry to be blunt and cut across everything that has been said on this issue in the various project pages, but the editors that raised objections here are completely correct I am afraid: "In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In any case, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community." A discussion on a rather obscure template talkpage doesn't really count as "adequate exposure to the community", I humbly suggest...

Just so you are clear: I concur fully that infoboxes are inappropriate for the biographical articles that we cover. The problem is that the rest of the WP community either rejects our arguments or is completely unaware of them. Kleinzach and I adding "per consensus at all classical music projects" or "see these discussions" only informs those who are interested or concerned enough to actually read the edit history. The actual infobox guideline doesn't exclude classical music articles nor does any other relevent policy or guideline I have yet found. If we continue to push this without WP-wide consent, we risk being blocked or otherwise repremanded. We must discuss this WP-wide, now. --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My main problem is that, while I agree guidelines are good, the justification is very off, and it's a bit...wrong...to not have it for one type of person, when another it's fine. As I said, there's NO inherent reason why, /specifically/ classical musicians should be devoid of them. It's kinda like keeping them off of, say, ONLY video games on Nintendo consoles but not other companies. Or ONLY on mammals, but not other animals. Now you're going off and trying to divide people into "project members" and "non-project members" and even going so far as to say that they shouldn't be removed when non-project add them? Huh? So if I were to go add one, it'd be ok to remove it, because I'm on the members list, but someone else who isn't adds one it's "not reasonable"? How in the holy hells does that make ANY sense? Am I really missing a part of my brain or did I fall into an alternate universe? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jubilee thank you for understanding what is going on..I like your suggestion why dont we add [rfctag|bio} and or [rfctag|media} and lets get the greater community involved...Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Melodia: no you are not missing a part of your brain! I simply pointed out that editors on these various projects can only expect other editors at these projects to follow the guidelines that said projects have drawn up for themselves.  We cannot force our guidelines on, say, Buzzzsherman because he isn't part of our project.  Indeed, we shouldn't impose our guidelines on each other either: that would be devisive and counter-productive.  The most we can reasonably do is remind project members of our guidelines and hope they follow them.  The rest of WP will go its own way without us until consensus is reached on this issue out there...


 * Buzzzsherman (is there a shortcut for your name? LOL!): yes I agree. We need to do something to resolve this once and for all in the "greater community".  If we don't we are merely fighting the wind... --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Claims of universality for bio-infoboxes
Every time this topic comes up special claims of universality are made for biographical infoboxes, that they are used "everywhere else in Wikipedia", that they are essential for all biographies. This is untrue. Scattered through all WP guidelines there are repeated explanations that these boxes are to be used appropriately, with discretion. So this is not a WP-wide problem. It's a project matter which we have the discretion to deal with here.

Project-based guidelines are a fundamental feature of Wikipedia. (See Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects which has 94 pages listed.) Composer project editors are best placed to decide whether these boxes are appropriate for composer biographies. Buzzzsherman thinks we should conform to the style of the Michael Jackson, Pink Floyd and Mariah Carey material that he works on. Why? Do the CM editors try to impose their style of editing on other groups of editors? -- Klein zach  02:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's kind of the point: we are imposing our style by removing the infoboxes. I quite agree that they are not appropriate but we need to think of the wider implications here and step outside of our projects once in a while.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Composers project guidelines only apply to Composers Project articles. We have been scrupulous about that. If a composer is also a famous chess player and has a chess player bio-box, as required by the Chess project, that would of course be respected. -- Klein zach  02:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What we are saying is that it is not ok to remove other peoples work. Yes project guidelines are great but there just that "guidelines". WP:COMMON is what should be applied here, do you  think its ok to delete editors work when they have no clue what your doing in this project? The average person will make an article base on what they see as examples, not guidelines. So as a result of this,  most editors  will see infoboxs with many big bios. I would also argue that most would believe that with out one an article looks unfinished. But that what i think and what i think does not matter. What does matter is that there is a problem here for no reason. Your group does not like the infoboxs that's  fine, when "you guys" make an article there will be no infoboxs. But, when you see an infobox arleady in an article you should not delete it.Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "What we are saying is that it is not ok to remove other peoples work". That is what is called 'editing' on Wikipedia. We try to improve the articles by developing, changing, and also deleting content. That's the normal process. -- Klein  zach  09:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You just dont get it...lets wait see what others say!!...??Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Kleinzach is gently pointing you to WP:BRD --Jubilee♫ clipman 18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see your point, KZ, but it isn't just Composer project members—nor even just CM-related project members—that edit composer articles. Further to Buzz's comment above: there is also WP:IAR...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:IAR is controversial right now, but also see Disinfoboxes for some more background. -- Klein zach  15:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... that's true, given the whole "let's delete every bit of unsourced info on sight" attitude being advocated right now... I also note that Disinfoboxes was created by Nrswanson and edited by Thumperward.  The essay is, however,  particluarly petinant I would say.  Perhaps the basic ideas and concerns contained therein should be incorporated into Manual of Style (infoboxes)?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, if members of this project have reached consensus to deprecate the use of infoboxes for musical composers then the case will need to be presented at WT:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes. As most composers are also musical artists then there is a clear conflict with the use of the Infobox Musical artist and/or Infobox Person. The guidelines at WP:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes state: "So, if you are intending to apply one of the templates to an article about a scientist, academic, or classical composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page." I don't see how a project can "ban" the use of such boxes without engendering the sort of conflict that has apparently resulted in 10 RfCs.  I note that several editors have pointed out that infoboxes are useful to impart information to readers who may know little of the subject matter. It is my belief that much of the opposition to their use for composers arises from the feeling that Infobox Musical artist does not work well for composers. In that case the best solution would surely be to get a Infobox Musical Composer created. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that a related template was previously deleted four times (at least): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Archive_14 --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there has only been one RfC (the present one) and one discussion over at the Infobox Musical artist talk page. The other discussions were inhouse but were often well attended by non-project members (see below). Since the projects reject the use of the boxes in principle not just in practice (Melodia's position on the matter against the consensus being given due weight, of course), the creation of a new template would be pointless. Thanks for the pointers, though. Perhaps WT:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes is the place to sort this out once and for all. --Jubilee♫ clipman 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and wasn't there further an interest in renaming musical artist to "non-classical' musical artist to make that clearer? That had widespread support from our project. (btw, JubC, nice one on the Beethoven infobox. Expect more ALLCAPS from Melodia though). Eusebeus (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The template talk discussion was that "non-classical" inclusion discussion. It was inconclusive, though the words actually remain in the template documentation.  YES INDEED, i EXPECT MUCH MORE FROM MELODIA...  (BTW, this RfC was pretty much my fault: see above.  Sorry about that!)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ok, it's never a bad idea to challenge existing assumptions (especially since it tends to reconfirm project principles) and I always enjoy hearing from Melodia about ZOMG YOU GUYS ARE SUCH MEAN BULLIES!! I am interested that no-one has raised any of Andy's arguments which, while from a discredited editor, were at least substantive in nature, instead of this mindless palavering about ownership.~ Eusebeus (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll dig around the archives and review Andy's arguments. We should cover all bases since this is now WP-wide.  Thanks for the reminder.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussions and primary editors
Clawing back somewhat from my comments above: it does appear that the wider community have been involved in this debate. Reviewing the archives, quite a number of editors not involved in the CM-related projects commented and most often appear to have concurred that infoboxes are not useful for classical composers, singers, instrumentalists etc. The main concern is that they are misleading, the Ludvig van Beethoven article being a case in point: his birth date is not known for sure and adding "musician" or "composer" as his Occupation is not helpful. Many, many other articles could be cited in support of this but editors wishing to comment here are strongly encouraged to review all those archives first. Thank you. --Jubilee♫ clipman 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * God dammit, that's EXACTLY my point. What the hell does Beethoven's ambiguous birthday have to do with him being a composer? Nothing at all. If the 'occupation' is a problem, it can easily be left out (though one can easily put "pianist and composer" for that, for that's what he WAS). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Clawing back further still: while it may be true that composer articles—and clasical music articles in general for that matter—are not exclusively edited by editors on the membership lists of one of the WP:CM-related projects, it is certainly true that these articles are primarily edited by such editors. Thus, since these editors agree that bioboxes are to be avoided in—indeed removed from—classical composer, singer, instrumentalist, etc articles, then there is indeed consensus for that avoidance and removal among those who are mainly involved in the maintenence of said articles. The project guidelines merely highlight that consensus. --Jubilee♫ clipman 19:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Melodia:

I'm not really sure that tells us anything we couldn't work out from the lead and most of it is rather fuzzy and therefore misleading at best. We would still need to add his sig later, anyway:



--Jubilee♫ clipman 19:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm done with this idiocy. If you really can't see the simple problem I'm addressing then there's no reason to waste energy. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict - reply to that message) As far as I can tell, you are simply saying that info boxes can be modified for each individual article. That would be fine if the editors here actually wanted to use the boxes.  The consensus is obviously overwhelmingly against that usage now that I review the archives in full.  Non-CM editors also agreed to the non-inclusion and the removal of the boxes as far as I can tell.  There are a few technical points that came up early on but these were forgotten:
 * (edit conflict - the message I was posting) A number of the previous discussions have focussed on issues outside of the "ownership" and "primary editors" etc issues above. The most important of these looked at either technical issues such as how bots respond to pages without infoboxes (if I understand these debates correctly)—here and here, for example—or the creation/deletion of more specific infoboxes for composers and other classical musicians—here and here, for example.  These issues need to be given due weight also.  Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The closing admin's comments at the previous TfD are worthy of review: here. That admin points to this comment which also needs serious consideration.  Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A fresh look

 * Since you dont see a problem in deleting other editors hard work and there choice of style... How about we look at it this way...i will use Robert Nathaniel Dett as an example for all bellow. On this article 3 wikiprojects are watching over this article with many no project editors. they are WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Canadian music, WikiProject Composers. So witch one  gets to pick the style (even though i believe the creator gets to pick layout /style). Well  lets look at the "Hierarchy" of all this ...


 * First: so we have WikiProject Biography..( Hes a person Bio is first in the pecking order) This would be the parent project..They have not come to a conclusion if infoboxs should be there..so they let them stand!
 * Secondly: there's  WikiProject Canadian music..( Hes Canadian before hes a composer you agree?) (PS..This were i come from)..We have never had the question come up of infoboxs..so in-general we have them in most high profile bios of musicians. Because we follow the normal rules I mean-->(guidelines on this)..In fact  WikiProject Canadian music is a decedent of both  WikiProject Canada and   WikiProject music. Both of this projects have allowed there editors to use (i mean chose) if they want infoboxs.
 * Thirdly we have WikiProject Composers (I would assume you agree hes a person then a Canadian then a composer right!).. WikiProject Composers along with its sister projects like opera etc..You guys have chosen  not to use infoboxs. I agree 100% your project does not want them and no one is forcing you to do so!.

So my question to you is just on this one article who should chose the format? Keeping in mind as the hierarchy descends there a few and fewer members in each group.

I think its like this below...again this is not a rule but what i believe..
 * 1) Creator of box- The person that took the time to makes the infoboxs,,Its  at this point that a an editor has made the decision if  theres an infox (as he does have the right to add one if he /her wishes). Does not matter what WikiProject is involved the editor has this right as dictated by Template:Infobox musical artist.
 * 2) WikiProject Biography - allows infoboxs as per the norm ..So it stays in the article as the creator of the box  intended..however it must be accurate in its content. So if you see one simple mistake ..it should simply be corrected and not fully removed.
 * 3) WikiProject Canadian music - allows infoboxs as per the norm...The article in question is link with a photo from Music of Canada and he is listed in all related Canadian categories..So i would say WikiProject Canada is the main  WikiProject involved here, regardless of were the later editors come from.
 * 4) WikiProject Composers  - does not " wish" to use infoboxs (We all get that and understand) ...So y do you think your small group should gets the right to  deleted the infobox? If all the projects above this group have respected the right of the creator to add the box...what gives your group the right to remove it?? There is only a few of you here compared to the rest of the groups.

The only augment i can see here is that hes famous for being a Composers, but i still would not see how WikiProject Composers would have the rights to this article...I say rights because you seem to believe that this is possible..Even though Wikipedia makes it clear there is no ownership of articles. So really all this in null and void since no group or person can claim rights of style on any article.Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a fresh look, that's a rehash. The Infobox at Robert Nathaniel Dett is the very definition of a Disinfobox.  There's no information in that box that is not in the first sentence of the article.  Then listen to your plan of action here.  Your solution seems to be that if you add more tags to an article that you could dilute the jurisdiction of this project.  All composers are people.  So add a WP:Biography tag.  All composer were born somewhere, so add a nationality tag.  Add enough tags and then you can ignore the overwhelming consensus that's been reached at WP:Composers...  And you claim that *you* are frustrated with us?  Come on. Editors in this project overwhelmingly don't want infoboxes.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?  Focus on adding real content to these articles rather than getting into a drawn out debate over a format dispute.DavidRF (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok did you not read above !! I agree you dont want boxes, My question is what gives you the right to delete them, Please read before you comment!..getting into a drawn out debate over a format dispute your editors are causing the debate.Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, your failure to read our extensive archives has caused this—along with my rather bulldozed attempts above to pacify you and others above, I admit, for which I again profusely apologise to all other editors here. --Jubilee♫ clipman 23:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)To correct one point: IIRC (it's there somewhere but I forget exactly where), the creator defines the style initially and other editors should intially follow that style until there have been substantial contributions beyond the creation and minor tidying up. Once the article is established further consensus is sought on the articles talk page and the consistency guidelines are applied.  I think we need to move on from the "ownership" question: you are correct that no one owns articles.  He is of course first a Canadian person, obviously, but his notability is as a composer: it is that fact that gives him an article on WP.  Composers are probably the project most interested in him and all composers for that matter (though Sibelius has a special place in the history of Finland so the Finnish project might well be particulary interested in him).  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is this--->So really all this in null and void since no group or person can claim rights of style on any article.Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)No: it isn't null and void since the consensus here is overwhelmingly to avoid and indeed to remove infoboxes. Hence your RfC, IIRC. --Jubilee♫ clipman 23:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have asked for admin assistance here..I like the rest of you would like to solve this ones and for all..Because you must admit its not solved if it keeps coming up right ..this would be the tenth time. I seem to have failed to get my point across and must only assume i am just wrong in my understanding of  Wikipedia..So lets end this with admins help see if its ok for you guys to own the articles. If yes i apologizes ...and you will never see me again..I just see mass sanctioned vandalism (i use this word loosely as the edits are all done in good faith), just wrongly executed i believe.Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not this again. I've just removed the infobox from Claude Debussy claiming he had "associated acts". Was he a circus performer? Lili and Nadia Boulanger are likewise "associated" as if they were the Andrews Sisters. Vincent d'Indy's claim to fame was as an "educator" apparently...So on the one hand we have arguments about encyclopaedic accuracy and appropriateness and on the other we have accusations of "ownership". Again. --Folantin (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again sorry about that i reverted the removal of the box...I will go through my edits and removed that kind of info (i did not add the info just resorted the box). But might be better to fix the box then just delete no?? Anywas i will fix what i have done.Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just leave it until this whole debate is settled, please. That would be better. --Folantin (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have stop ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested help from WikiProject Council
This is going to go round in circles otherwise. --Jubilee♫ clipman 23:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a further thought before an admin and/or a council member comes to our aid: I think the real issue here is consistency. Groups of related articles are meant to be consistent with each other, as far as I am aware, with regard to their formatting, style, etc. This is what these various projects are attempting to do. The removal of infoboxes is part of that process of creating and maintaning consistency: it has nothing to do with ownership. --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OOOO Well this has gone on long enough for me you guys tired me out LOL. Many notice boards have this up, they will comment if they like. I guess i am wrong about what is going on, just wish there was someway to let editors know this no infoboxs rule for this kind of bio. We must be able to add the info to the main guidelines no? I have reverted many infoboxs deletions, sorry about that. I will move on and apologizes for bring this up again. I wish you all the best and can only hope you wont delete my work. I will forward all inquires about y boxes were deleted to you guys  and hopefully out of that you guys  will get some new members to your project.....PS you guys dont have a portal..would you like one its gets members? Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Graceful withdrawl? Highly commendable!  Just so you know: according to this the Biography project appears to accept our rejection of infoboxes.  We are part of the wider CM-portal and mentioned there, BTW  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors
What's the other question? Are infoboxes so obviously valuable that every addition of an infobox must be cherished? No, of course not. There are people (e.g., people whose English skills are limited) who find them (extremely) valuable. There are people that find them (extremely) annoying. Neither group is "right" and neither group is "wrong", and neither group should be imposing its preference on all articles en masse. What should you be doing? You should be developing an actual consensus at each and every one of the individual articles in dispute, instead of trying to impose your preferred version of the article on the flimsy and erroneous claim of project-based authority. Try a little (or a lot) more WP:BRD, with the emphasis on the Discuss: if you don't like infoboxes, and someone adds one, then your removal needs to be accompanied by a discussion about why this infobox does not best serve this article's needs, without any irrelevant handwaving about what this or that project recommends:  Try explaining yourself, with phrases like, "I don't think this infobox adds anything to this particular article, and it makes it uglier and harder to edit." Conversely, if you know that there is opposition to adding an infobox to a specific article, then start a discussion when (or before!) you add one, explaining the benefit that you think it adds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the question again? Does a small group of editors, by virtue of self-identifying as a WikiProject, get magical powers that let them tell the non-members how to write and format articles within their self-identified scope?  No, of course not, and especially not on the basis of a non-authoritative page that begins by disdaining one-size-fits-all rules, advocating for individual editors to use their best judgement, and encouraging bold editing.  (BTW, the process for attempting to turn the project's advice into a real guideline is at WP:POLICY:  unless and until the whole community approves it, it's no more authoritative than an essay in your userspace.)
 * My position is: less emphasis on the "jurisdiction" of wikiprojects, more emphasis on the freedom of genuine article editors and creators. If somebody with a genuine interest in classical music creates or significantly expands an article about a composer, and wants to also put an infobox in, he should of course be free to do that, no matter what the majority of the wikiproject says. If, however, an article has been created and maintained by people who share a consensus that they don't want an infobox, and an outside editor with little or no prior involvement in the area then goes round and slaps infoboxes on just for the sake of it, as Buzzzsherman seems to have been doing, that is disrespectful against the work of the article creators. The decision about superficial details like infoboxes should be left to those who are responsible for contributing the actual content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note would just like to point out i have not added any infoboxs myself ..I only reverted the deleting of the boxs that contained pictures with some info in the boxs..I simply restored former editors work...Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue has peeved me for some time: I often see articles about our composers which lack infoboxes and I really wish to add them but I'm stopped by this project's guidelines. I avoid sponsoring content-related projects for issues such as this. This shouldn't be decided at the level of an individual wikiproject. Rather, the community at large should decide when and where infoboxes are placed and what sorts of articles are granted exceptions from this standardized, easy-to-use, and helpful feature. Since I believe that this project has no authority to decide this issue, I would support any action taken to encourage the reintroduction of infoboxes on our composers, whether this project supports it or not because I believe that there is a greater community consensus that they should be on biographical articles irrespective of which WikiProject "owns" them. We need our MOS to be universally comprehensive, not under the whim of every different WikiProject under the sky.  Them  From  Space  09:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point. To state that our objections are whimsy and persiflage ignores the reality that many members of this project are seasoned editors and well aware that consensus is global not local. As it is, most of us would probably not object to an infobox that contains the name and dates of birth and death (where known) of the subject. It is the additional information which is jarring to the standards of accuracy that we seek to assert. Since that basic information is provided in the lede and the mere presence of an infobox encourages people to try to add information (nationality, occupation, etc...) that simply doesn't fit with the vast majority of composers, we have determined they are better left off. Folantin's examples above provide clear and amusing instances of such perils. If you can demonstrate that an infobox limited to such elementary information is salutary to the corpus of articles we maintain, then you will no doubt find enthusiasm for their implementation. But without addressing the substance of the concerns that have been raised, this adds little to the state of the question. Eusebeus (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely a properly-constructed would negate that argument by not supporting the parameters that are not appropriate for the subject matter?  Happy ‑ melon  14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be too obvious, wouldn't it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble is it's difficult to devise an infobox that would stop somebody coming along and filling in the inappropriate parameters. I'm not against anyone trying to devise such a box as an experiment. (You would need "Famous as" rather than "Occupation"; "Born", with an alternative for "Baptised"; "Died"; and "Floruit" as an alternative for "Born/Died". Everything else is likely to be problematic). --Folantin (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And if we turned off the 'edit this page' button, then nobody would ever make the same kind of mistake in article text, either. "Somebody might make an honest mistake" isn't a good excuse for a sweeping ban on a method of presenting information.  The rule is the same for infoboxes and for image descriptions and for article text and for everything:  All errors, whether 'flatly wrong' or 'misleading oversimplification' or somewhere in between, should be removed.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with WhatAmIDoing above to the extent that is is very destructive to paint this issue as black or white, "infoboxes" or "no infoboxes". Every genre of article on Wikipedia is different, and every article within a genre is unique.  While it might be very easy to impose blanket rules, in either direction, that neither cuts to the heart of the problem, nor creates the best articles for Wikipedia, which is why such approaches are not supported by policy.  Each infobox template should be tailored to its subject matter, and each article deserves to be considered on its own merits.  To dogmatically assert that the 'ideal' infobox for composers is no infobox at all, in every case and with no exception, is easy to enforce but not constructive to Wikipedia.  Equally, trying to hammer the square peg of limited objective data into the round hole of an over-detailed infobox would be just as problematic.  It is saddening that my closing comment in the fourth TfD, now almost two years old, seems to have been ignored, and that there seems to be a continued reluctance to address this issue transparently.  To quote myself, "The use of shaky precedent and ancient consensus to supress discussion on this issue must stop".  Your discussion archives dating back over three years do not represent an acceptable consensus.  They are self-supporting, circular, and poorly-attended.  The arguments underlying the project's position are legitimate and can stand on their own merits.  To reiterate what I said in May 2008: "If I had the authority to do so, I would instruct WikiProject Composers to conduct a fresh, open and widely-publicised discussion over the merits and demerits of encapsulating pertinent and useful information in a bespoke infobox, customised to their requirements. As it is, I can only strongly recommend that they do so... in a discussion which considers the views of the wider community and the encyclopedia's readership as well as the WikiProject's own editors." Please close this festering wound by moving forward with such a discussion.  Happy ‑ melon  14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The way forward
Now that we have comments from four uninvolved editors, two of whom are long standing sysops, I think this group of projects now needs to have time to digest exactly what has been said and to decide the best way forward. Each of those editors has essentially reinforced the other in stating that we have no right imposing our style of editing on other editors, though we do have the right to request strongly that certain stylistic issues are considered in each individual article. So the questions:
 * Do we go to WP:POLICY and request a WP-wide change in policy for our specific articles?
 * Do we allow infoboxes for those articles we have neither created nor been much involved in maintaining while removing them from those we have created and/or heavily edited? What about the grey areas?
 * Do we seek consensus every time on article talk pages?
 * Or do we actually bite the bullet and create and maintain acceptable infoboxes for classical composers, singers, etc?

Any other reasonable possiblities? --Jubilee♫ clipman 15:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, a minimal, reasonably "foolproof" infobox would contain the following parameters: "Famous as" rather than "Occupation"; "Born", with an alternative (and I mean alternative) for "Baptised"; "Died"; and "Floruit" as an alternative (and I mean alternative) for "Born/Died". Everything else is likely to be problematic. (Oh, and if projects don't get to impose their stylistic preferences, then they don't get to impose infoboxes either. It cuts both ways). --Folantin (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your last point is absolutely correct. Indeed, reading between the lines, all of the uninvolved editors above made that very point.  How about I draft a composer box in my userspace?  I'll have a look at the various rejects for ideas if they are still available in other editor's userspace (they are not available in mainspace for sure).  --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sure. --Folantin (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Two things - 1) If we proceed like that, we need to address (to bring up the line from Life of Brian) the "what's the point" question since it will merely repeat information that is literally in the first line of every article. Second, before you commit any time to to that, I suggest you wait to hear (or solicit the view) from some other stalwarts of our project: KZ, of course, but Antandrus, Opus, Tony, and Jashiin, for instance. Outside views - mostly consisting of sitewide policy platitudes that do nothing to address the substance of the long debate (and which I am sure we all agree with in principle) - hardly constitute a basis for action that will affect a change over 100s of articles. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that any "foolproof" infobox would also be redundant. It would be pointless but (possibly) harmless. This is just "damage limitation". Also, per the discussion above, no infobox can be obligatory. I too would like to see what Antandrus et al. have to say. And, yes, the "wider community" usually means the handful of "metapedian" editors who enjoy hanging round on noticeboards such as "Village pump". I don't think there is a "Wikipedia community", only communities. --Folantin (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (I'd also like to know what User:Disinfoboxman has to say but it looks like he's been silenced). --Folantin (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes "damage limitation". I've started anyway: User:Jubileeclipman/Infobox classical musician.  Those other members should of course voice their opinions, ASAP,  However, I am not sure we can so easily write off the comments from longstanding wikipedians like User:Happy-melon, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and User:WhatamIdoing, nor indeed those of slightly newer editors such as User:Themfromspace; nor can we ignore the opinions of project members such as User:Melodia and User:Cricket02.  To those names should be added User:A Knight Who Says Ni, User:Thumperward (who was equivocal on the issue, IIRC) and of course User:Buzzzsherman.  That's a fair list of plaintifs: too many for my liking.  This was inevitable, eventually: I have no doubt about that whatsoever.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My first choice is still no infobox. My second choice is an absolutely minimal, "foolproof" and non-compulsory infobox. I just don't have that much time to devote to Wiki-debates any more so I'm not sure how much of a part I'll play in this one. I will, of course, continue to remove any infobox which violates core policies such as WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (including undue weight). --Folantin (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your priorities: 1. Remove policy-violating infoboxes 2. No infobox at all on any composer—or indeed on any classical musician—article; 3. Non-obligatory info-box if we really have to. I'll create one and we can start bashing it about later! I'll continue to monitor this RfC; others can come and go as they see fit. I still feel this RfC discussion shoud be moved to a subpage of the talkpage, though: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox RfC 2010 would do. The bot would catch up, I guess? --Jubilee♫ clipman 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Antandrus is on a wikibreak. He'll wander in sooner or later no doubt. --Jubilee♫ clipman 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the biography project to comment. --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Asking them to comment and pointing them to a section that begins with the phrase "please review this 5MB of prior discussion" is not the point. Currently this discussion is no different to the 9 before it; it is equally hamstringed by the iron ball of past discussion; the hundred pages of text that says absolutely nothing except how determined people have been to suppress this issue for four years.  One new discussion.  Widely advertised.  With no reference to past 'consensus' or discussions.  Set out the advantages and disadvantages of infoboxes fresh and clean, and discuss their merits with a wide and balanced audience.  See what arguments stand in today's Wikipedia, and which are relics of years long past.  And build from that discussion a new consensus that you can base future actions on.   Happy ‑ melon  00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How many time have we heard this before? Another discussion? Without reference to previous ones? Removed as far as possible from the specifics of classical music?


 * And one again the editors — of one of finest projects on Wikipedia (with high quality articles, written assessments to B-class level, stable category tree etc etc.) — are asked to stop working on the encyclopedia, and repeat again the same arguments, marched up and down the hill like the troops of the The Grand Old Duke of York.


 * The Grand Old Duke of York, He had ten thousand men; He marched them up to the top of the hill, And he marched them down again./ And when they were up, they were up, And when they were down, they were down, And when they were only half-way up, They were neither up nor down. – ''Ha! No consensus!'


 * -- Klein zach  03:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well... that's exactly why Buzz started this RfC: to review old discussions, solicit new opinions, see if consensus has changed, and move forward with a clear idea of the consensus on this in the wider community. Hence the wide advertising.  Have I missed something here?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Currently this discussion is no different to the 9 before it". Jubileeclipman has offered a compromise. I've offered a compromise. Happy Melon has just ignored this. --Folantin (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just gave up creating the box: 1. I can't figure out how it all works since half the code is hidden somewhere. (Infobox Musical artist has "alias" becoming "Also known as", various backgroud colours and "Notable instruments" transcluding as a box with the text below, all for no obvious reason... How on earth am I supposed to create a box if none of the stuff is clearly defined in the template?) 2. I don't actually want a box: this was just in case anyone did (which no one here does).  3. If someonr in the future actually wants one of these blessed things let them create it!  I'll speedy the subpage as is my right.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the onus of creating an acceptable infobox should be on those people who actually want one. --Folantin (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's no different to the 9 before it because it will not prevent an eleventh, or twelfth, or innumerable more cycles of this circus which everyone is, quite legitimately, sick and tired of. You complain, Kleinzach, that I'm asking you to present these points one more time. I'm asking solely so that you do not have to repeat them again, and again, and again.

I don't care whether composer articles have infoboxes or not. I really don't. I do care about the way this has been enforced for entirely the wrong reasons, by editors asserting, explicitly or subconsciously, ownership of articles and aggressively dismantling other editors' work. And yes, I do care about the way this debate is needlessly distracting some fantastic content editors from more productive activities.

I'm glad to see that the editors here are generally willing to compromise, but it's sad to see that interpreted as a 'defeat'. All you need to do is present the arguments clean and fresh, as Jubilee has done below, and get widespread comments on them from outside this tiny group of editors. Resist the temptation to spit back at any comment with "we've discussed this 123988 times before", and instead say what you argued all those times. And after a couple of weeks, see where you stand.

Or don't, don't have one clear re-evaluation, keep referring people to mountains of prior running discussion, and become progressively more and more jaded as you respond to the same issue again, and again, and again. Until you get hauled to RfC, ANI or ArbCom kicking and screaming, because you defended your years-old 'consensus' in a fashion that's against the letter of Wikipedia policy as well as the spirit. Lead a horse to water, and all that. Happy ‑ melon 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So you don't even bother responding to my assessment below... Fine: we really can't win.  I give up.  Go your way, we'll go ours.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC) ← Ignore that: sorry --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My response below, which I've been writing for the past ten minutes, just edit-conflicted with yours. Which is a great shame, because I'm now going to have to rewrite it in response to your abrupt change of heart.  So it will take at least another few minutes.  Happy ‑ melon  16:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies: I was somewhat exasprated! I haven't changed my mind, I was just rather bothered 1. by Eusebeus' comments below and 2. that you sought to respond to Kleinzach first.  I should have waited half an hour...  Sorry about that!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[The RfC was refactored: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC is the continuation of the above. --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)]