Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 9

Userbox?
Just for fun I thought I'd mess around with making a userbox for the project. It looks like there were a couple proposed last year (scroll down), but they don't seem to have caught on, so I thought I'd try & make one that looked a bit less like the other music-related boxes...

Basically I just copied the box from the classical music project, & changed the color and clef (being a fan of the old clefs, and of violists, I chose alto). The current version is at this subpage on my userspace, and it looks like this:

As currently coded it would place the user in Category:WikiProject Composers participants, which doesn't seem much used at the moment, but that's easy enough to remove... If anyone actually wants to adopt this, it should probably be moved to the Template space or maybe a subpage here; if not, not. Suggestions or edits are welcome if anyone cares -- particularly on color, since I'm slightly colorblind. Thx, &mdash; Turangalila  talk  04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It seems that the composers box should have a picture of a composer (although choosing which one would be a fight).  It don't like the bust idea from last year, a portrait would be better.  Maybe Bach (Beethoven or Mozart would be my first instincts, as they are the easiest to recognize, but I don't want to be clichéd).  Asmeurer  ( talk   ♬  contribs ) 05:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the userbox and applaud just going for it. But I was thinking it might be nice to have an icon which says composer more than music in general.  It's only because I'm involved in so many music things that it'd be nice to have something specific to this project.  On the other hand, it's nice to see alto clef get its due.  --Myke Cuthbert 05:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I played around a bit more w/ the pic per suggestions (see above). Bach would be best IMO since almost everybody studied him, but it's tough to find a portrait of anybody that looks decent that small... The Mozart was the best I could find so far.  Feel free to go to my sandbox & tinker with it yerselves if you care to... &mdash; Turangalila   talk  14:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I like that one a lot better. For now, I'm not using userboxes, but if I do, this will definitely be one to grab.  (And yes, I assume, if you hate Mozart, you can substitute someone else for your own box.  We don't need a sitewide consensus from WP:Userboxes to do so!).  Thanks for your work, Turangalila  --Myke Cuthbert 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Bach (did you know there are two versions of the same Bach image on Wikipedia, one and the other ) would look good if you cropped it to just the head. Asmeurer ( talk   ♬  contribs ) 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As a graphic I liked Turangalila's alto clef. Maybe too obscure? Perhaps a hand on a music manuscript if we can get one? --Kleinzach 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

on Asmeurer's idea, that sounds cool, but I haven't the slightest idea how to do it (cropping the photo)...I guess someone would have to download it into photoshop & upload a new version to WP? If you're technically able have at it; and anybody w/ design or whatever ideas please feel free to treat my sandbox as your own... &mdash; Turangalila  talk  05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need only to have 1 userbox. You could give members a parameter to choose of which composer or picture to have in their userbox, eg,  or  .   C e n t y   15:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Discussion: It's over.
It's over. Composer project editors don't want infoboxes, the consensus is clear. Let's archive the (overly long) talk page and put this to rest. Eusebeus 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Composer project editors don't own pages about composers; there is no consensus; it's not over; and saying it is doesn't make it so. Andy Mabbett 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but it does appear to me that there is a clear consensus here. As per WP:CON no one person can declare consensus. Perhaps it is time to seek comment on WP:RFC? S.dedalus 00:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done some archiving. It's time we all went back to working on the encylopedia. Enough of these disruptions! This is not a chat room for people to show off their TLAs. This is a project for writing articles about composers, maybe even to encourage people to listen to their music. -- Kleinzach 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, at present it does not seem that I can help further in this matter because people are unwilling to come to a compromise. So, I will agree to disagree about the handling of infoboxes and of this discussion for the time being. In the meantime I will attempt to consolidate some broader Wikipedia guideline on this issue. However, if we are going to stop advocating infoboxes on composer pages won’t this bring us into conflict with the WP:WPBIO people? Respectfully, S.dedalus 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no conflict with WikiProject Biographies -- see WikiProject_Biography/Infoboxes. Fireplace 08:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's over. For what it's worth, I suspect this had less to do with Wikiproject Biography and more to do with this project or - to be more accurate - one of its four members and his ambition to put microformats (whatever the hell they are) on every other page of this encyclopaedia . This seems to be the source of a great deal of the recent conflict I've noticed on ANI involving other projects too. --Folantin 08:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not "over"; and your suspicions are mis-founded. Again. Andy Mabbett 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Andy - is it possible to preserve the (pleasing) appearance of the page Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and also introduce microformats to your satisfaction? -- roundhouse 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link Fireplace. S.dedalus 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another reversion by Andy Mabbett
After Eusebeus suggested "Let's archive the (overly long) talk page and put this to rest", I archived most of the accumulated discussions. Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett then immediately reverted the section Infoboxes again (above). Consistency is a virtue in editors, but in this case? -- Kleinzach 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You omit to mention that- before your archiving - I replied to Eusebeus by pointing out that his claim that the discussion was over was false. Do you really think it acceptable to archive an on-going discussion? That appears to be an attempt to stifle debate. Andy Mabbett 09:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Andy can have that debate all on his own, since no-one is interested in discussing this with him. AND he has been happily banned from making disruptive edits, so we don't even to worry about reverting his petty, point-plagued edits. Now let's clear this infobox rubbish from the talk page. If Andy keeps reverting it, take him back to ANI and we can ask for a ban from editing this page. Eusebeus 10:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Mr. Mabbett seems unable or unwilling to fix the myriad problems involved with bioboxes, which were so spectacularly demonstrated on the Paderewski page yesterday. So there is nothing left to discuss. Archive it. --Folantin 10:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is now re-archived. -- Kleinzach 10:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your - collective - refusal to discuss compromise or attempt to reach consensus is disappointing. Andy Mabbett 10:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. Mr Mabbett, you are being disruptive for no good reason whatsoever. Knock it off or you'll be blocked. Moreschi Talk 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So far as I'm aware, there is no policy of blocking people for pointing out lack od consensus, where none exists; or for pointing out that an on-going discussion has not ended. Andy Mabbett 11:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but we do block for disruption, and you've done nothing but that on this completely stale issue for weeks. Please stop it. Refusing to acknowledge consensus is disruptive. I'm off to remove any more infoboxes that are causing problems. Moreschi Talk 11:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdent
I must say your attitude to all this Andy is hilarious. Your definition of 'lack of consensus' is 'lack of consensus with me'. The whole point of a WikiProject is to bring editors together to come to a consensus. So when the consensus isn't what you want ie. no infoboxes, you use very predictable arguments:


 * Firstly, you claim the discussion has not ended, when you're the one whose won't let the discussion end. You do realise the discussion won't end till you back down or the whole WikiProject backs down. At the moment, it seems neither is going to happen.
 * Secondly, you clain there is no consensus. Again, unsurprising and you alone are not giving consensus.
 * Thirdly, you start claiming WikiProjects do not own an article and therefore have no right in removing infoboxes. That's like saying a group of people reaching consensus have no right to impose article guidelines. Interesting then how you, as an individual are imposing your guidelines.

Andy, why don't you try this idea - until consensus is met to bring back infoboxes, we do not have infoboxes. Not the other way around. You don't own the page, so stop pushing YOUR views. Democracy has spoken, a group of editors who outnumber you have reached a consensus and want to remove the infoboxes. What's makes your view much more important than theirs?  C e n t y   01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Your definition of 'lack of consensus' is 'lack of consensus with me'." If you're gong to start off by posting lies, you're the one who's going to be laughed at. My definition of consensus is that at WP:CONSENSUS.


 * "you're the one whose won't let the discussion end." - Apart form the fact that you're the first person to post here on this topic for three days; so what?


 * "you alone are not giving consensus" I refer you to my recent post (almost immediately hidden in the archives), listing all the other people who do not agree with the current claim of consensus.


 * "you start claiming WikiProjects do not own an article and therefore have no right in removing infoboxes." - No, I don't "start claiming" it; I merely point out that it's Wikipedia policy.


 * "That's like saying a group of people reaching consensus have no right to impose article guidelines." - no, it is not.


 * "Interesting then how you, as an individual are imposing your guidelines." - No, I am not.


 * "why don't you try this idea - until consensus is met to bring back infoboxes, we do not have infoboxes." - and until consensus is met to remove infoboxes, we keep infoboxes.


 * "You don't own the page" - which page?


 * "Democracy has spoken" - Wikipedia is not a democracy. You really should try to understand why that is and what it means.


 * "a group of editors who outnumber you have reached a consensus" - they may outnumber me; but they have not achieved consensus. Consensus is not voting.


 * "What's makes your view much more important than theirs?" - Nothing. Where have I said that it is? Do you think that their view is much more important than mine?


 * Andy Mabbett 10:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * they may outnumber me; but they have not achieved consensus. - Andy, that's not true and that's where your argument falls down. If they haven't reached consensus why is everyone active from the WikiProject disagreeing with you? Oh and No I'm not is a very poor response to the points I've raised.


 * Do you think that their view is much more important than mine? - Yes, they view of many outweighs the view of one. There are individuals who wish remove their biographies from Wikipedia. Do you think the view of the majority of people who use Wikipedia and want it remain?


 * Which page? - Every page you are reverting and claiming there's no consensus.


 * Look the reason I mention this is I know as soon as your infobox probation is lifted, you'll start reverting again. You don't have a good history when it comes to accepting guidelines laid down by WikiProjects. I'm not trying to annoy you, I just want you to realise that your arguments for infoboxes if flawed things should just stay the way they are now.  C e n t y   11:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "that's not true" - oh, but it is!


 * "why is everyone active from the WikiProject disagreeing with you?" Whether or not "everyone active from the WikiProject" disagrees with me is irrelevant, since they do not WP:OWN the articles, and since not everyone who has expressed an opinion disagrees with me; so there is no consensus. Please do try to understand what consensus means in Wikipedia.


 * "they (sic) view of many outweighs the view of one." - not here they don't. Perhaps it is your fundamental lack if understanding on this point which is causing you to fail to appreciate the lack of consensus?


 * "Do you think the view of the majority of people who use Wikipedia and want it remain?" - I can't parse that fragment.


 * "You don't have a good history when it comes to accepting guidelines laid down by WikiProjects." - Wikipedia projects may "lay down" guidelines, but that's all they are: guidelines. They don't trump policy.


 * "I just want you to realise that your arguments for infoboxes if flawed things should just stay the way they are now." - I can't parse that fragment, either.


 * Andy Mabbett 11:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

..."accepting guidelines laid down by WikiProjects"? IMO, composers are persons; therefore their articles are biographies, in which Wikiproject Biography's guidelines use infoboxes. Composers are also musicians; in which Wikiproject Musicians' guidelines also use infoboxes. I would say that consensus would need to be reached with those projects as well -- good luck with that. Anyway, guidelines are just that - guidelines - a suggestion - not a hard and fast rule. So if a major contributor and/or author of a composer biography chooses to use an infobox based on two established guidelines, they should be left alone -- or at least consensus reached for or against an infobox on the talk page of the particular composer in question. Cricket02 05:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion has finished. Please feel free to talk about it somewhere else. -- Kleinzach 07:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion has not finished, and you have no right to declare it so, This is the appropriate forum for the discussion, and any Wikipedia editor is entitled (and should be made welcome) to post here as art of it. Andy Mabbett 08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * and if you actually look at those guidelines you quote, you'll see that they specifically mention classical composers as a case to be careful on. This wikiproject is a sub-project of the Musicians' project, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to follow exactly what they do (and I'd note that this project actually has more members, for what that's worth). Andy, if you can come up with a specific infobox (or other means of adding the microformat markup, which seems to be your main concern, I'm still not entirely clear what the real problem with PERSONDATA is) which meets the substantive objections made within the discussions here, re-open the discussion.  Otherwise you are just going over old ground and not bringing anything new to the table.  No progress will be made that way.  David Underdown 11:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "adding the microformat markup, which seems to be your main concern" - No. Andy Mabbett 10:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Automatic bot tagging of operatic composers. Request for comments.
Hello from WikiProject Opera, I'm preparing a list of categories relevant to opera so that a bot can tag all pages that are members of those categories with the opera project tag. I'm intending to include the members of Category:Opera composers and all its subcategories. If this is going to cause great upset here, could you please let me know in the next couple of days. Thanks. --Peter cohen 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)