Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 31

Archives Table of Contents

Cielomobile's Straw poll on infoboxes
I thought I'd create a straw poll to gauge where rough consensus lies. I know that straw polls are evil, but they can be useful too.

Completely against the use of all infoboxes in articles about opera singers

 * support - 1. For the articles in this project, they are redundant, distracting and trivial. All key information should be found in the first short paragraph. If it's not, fix it, don't slap an infobox on it. 2. Infoboxes are too open to innaccurate, misleading and/or over-simplified information, and add one more thing to 'police'. If the fields are reduced in number to avoid that, then they become redundant and trivial (see 1). 3. As Kleinzach said above, we should obviously leave them alone when the articles come under other bona fide projects (not simply umbrella projects like Biography) and where members of those projects have significantly contributed to the content of the articles. But these cases are relatively rare and can be handled on a case by case basis. Voceditenore 07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Per Voceditenore plus all the other arguments I've made over the past few months. --Folantin 07:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * support - My comment below is too long already, I don’t have to say anything here. - Jay 08:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we are going to vote on this...look, even suggested replacement infoboxes have been heavily criticised. A singer's Fach is only one system of classification, is a fairly subjective one, and can change over time: that's just one problem. When matters are unambiguous and clear-cut, infoboxes can be highly useful as a brief summary of statistical date (as for medicine articles). For more complex matters, the infobox compresses too much, leading to ambiguity, error and confusion. They just don't work: not for singers, not for composers. Moreschi Talk 10:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone above. --GuillaumeTell 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone above. -- Kleinzach 11:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support although if the main editor of an article feels strongly that one should remain, it should not be repeatedly removed. See comments below and on composer project page - they introduce inaccuracies, oversimplify, are redundant, and are insufficiently flexible to be applied to that most complex of subjects - a human being. Mak (talk)  12:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- I've said everything already at WP:Composers (were they canvassed?), at Edvard Grieg, at Steve Reich, at wherever else people have been forum shopping about this issue over the past two months. sigh.  Actually, while I think infoboxes can be useful for statistical and quantitative data, I'd be in favor of removing them from all biographical articles.  Though it would take away the amusement factor of seeing that Eichmann's "occupation" is "Nazi". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs)
 * Comment LOL! I don't remember my school careers officer discussing that as an option. I've half a mind to change Lord Byron's infobox to "Occupation:Democrat; Destination:Hell", which is how he filled in his details in a Swiss hotel register (if I remember right). --Folantin 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Willing to use a specific opera infobox, provided that it does not contain too many fields
An example infobox is here.
 * Support per my arguments in the above section. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Other

 * Please do not remove infoboxes. Badagnani 07:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? This is a discussion, not a vote. Several serious problems with infoboxes have been presented. Do you have a response to that? Moreschi Talk 10:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The first choice Completely against the use of all infoboxes rather loads the question. Shouldn't it be Against the use of infoboxes in opera articles? I can see a use for them in articles about cities or countries, for example, which tend to be very long. But really, this whole business is quite a distraction and waste of time considering that there were lengthy discussions on this recently. There is so much more valuable work to do writing articles and improving the actual content of the current ones. Slapping infoboxes on them in a drive for 'graphic uniformity' when Wikipedia is light years away from any kind of 'quality uniformity' seems an odd priority of time and energy. Just my two cents. I shall vote and then spend the rest of my time actually working on articles, not discussing infoboxes. Best, Voceditenore 07:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a big waste of time. Infoboxes work well for sports stars (that's assuming they have no other career) but not for opera-related subjects. I'm fed up of wasting time on this issue. As I've constantly repeated, there is no policy saying we must have infoboxes and no consensus was ever sought to introduce them. --Folantin 07:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cielomobile, here are my 2 cents, I don’t want to pick a fight or anything but I have to make you clear that we are exclusively talking about OPERA singers aka those who sings opera arias (90% of their times) using opera voices. Why do you have to invite people from popular music? We never stop them; by all mean... they can keep as many “boxes” as they want. I don’t bother to delete BACKSTREET BOYS infobox and as much as I don’t care if you want to call them “Bunch of great heldentenors” or labeling Britney Spears as a “Soprano” (they did, but someone removed it). We do not interfere in popular music singers and it is unfair for them to vote for our singers! Secondly, lets just cool down. BTW… may I know why you are so eager to place the infobox in opera singers’ articles? I don’t see you write much about them. So.. whats with all these arguments for? If somebody who has written many articles about opera singers raises an issue, it does make sense, but you? I hope you don’t find this as a personal attack, I am just curious. I like to suggest for you to drop the issue and let us in Opera project make our own decision. Chill man! Thanks.  – Jay 08:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, yes, we are referring to exclusively opera singers who almost always sing in an operatic voice. I designed a specific infobox for these singers, see User:Cielomobile/Infobox Opera singer.


 * Have I been acting uncivil? I have tried to maintain the utmost level of civility, forgive me if I have not been doing so, and please tell me where I have acted out-of-line. Anyway, I have been editing articles related to music theory and classical music more often than I have been editing articles related to popular music, at least as of recent (see all the work I did to the article on homophony, and I am just starting to do some work on Concerto for Orchestra (Bartók), which I'd like to bring up to FA quality). I have done some editing of opera articles like A Flowering Tree, one of the new John Adams operas, although not much. I do have very much of an interest in opera outside of Wikipedia (I have been singing musical theater for a while now and am just starting to branch out into opera, which I enjoy very much, though I do not feel I have as much of a talent for it). However, having come from a popular music background, I understand that sometimes, art music afficionados can sometimes be absorbed in their own world and not accept criticism from outside. Another editor mentioned the famed cabal; now while I don't that that's an issue here, I do think that there is a slight issue of feelings of ownership of all articles related to opera, as shown by all the calls like "don't bring the popular music people into this; it's not their place!" While popular music editors should not intervene in terms of technical aspects of opera that would be lost on them, this dispute is not a technical matter. All editors can understand the arguments I have put forth. I have limited the infobox to fields that are no more debatable for opera singers than they are for any person (name, picture, birth and death dates/places, fach, place of musical education, years active, and website). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Opera singer’s Fach huh? Wanna bet? Please select one singer and publish this question anywhere - bulletin board at your college or at work or any opera houses or the easiest, internet. You will get many Fach type for the singer, so, which one do you want to use? I myself may disagree with others point of view when come to this. Singer’s fach is a very subjective matter; ask around if you don’t believe me. -  Jay 10:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I have a problem with "popular" singer editors jumping in and making a decision about "opera" singer articles is that there are very few who edit articles about people from the 17th century. The range of information on such singers is much more varied than for contemporary singers, and different issues come into play. We may only have information about years active. Or about when they were in one particular city but not when they were in any others. We may know what roles Handel wrote for them, but have no clue about what their voice really sounded like or what their website is. I don't have a problem with anyone contributing to the conversation, but I do think it's unfair to ask popular music editors to understand even the issues around historical opera singers, and I think this constant insistence that a larger consensus of editors than the ones who are actually editing the articles be reached frustrating and thoroughly annoying. I have no opinion on how TV show articles be formatted, or what sources are acceptable, and I would see someone constantly soliciting my opinion on such matters to be wasting my time. I don't see the need for a "higher power" to be constantly sought simply to leave infoboxes off a few articles. Mak (talk)  12:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that infoboxes work much better for articles that have certain well-defined, quantifiable parameters. Take a look at any chemical or pharmacological article, for example; you'll see a chemical structure, and certain verifiable characteristics, such as boiling point, or half life, or whatever. Infoboxes about more subjective topics seem to be more problematic. -- Kyok o  13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think I've said that about half a dozen times by now. Mak (talk)  20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes: Canvassing of WP:VP, WT:WPBIO, WT:CM, and WT:MUSICIANS
Cielomobile has invited members of WT:WPBIO, WT:CM, and WT:MUSICIANS, also WP:VP, to vote on whether we should have infoboxes on opera articles. Two of these projects WT:WPBIO and WT:MUSICIANS (which concentrates on popular music), have been instrumental in trying to promote infoboxes throughout WP. -- Kleinzach 07:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that these notices falls under WP:CANVAS, as the message I left was neutral, I posted to a limited number of venues, and I posted to venues that would likely solicit views from both sides (WP:CM would likely solicit views supporting the anti-infoboxes position, and the other two would likely solicit views supporting the pro-infoboxes position). I also posted on Kleinzach's talk page to inform him of this, so I did act with transparency. If you feel that I should remove one of the notices on either WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Musicians to "even out" the bias of the audience, so to speak, I would be happy to do that. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The text of WP:CANVAS states: It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed . . . . You have attempted to contact a huge number of editors. WT:WPBIO has 329 active members, WT:MUSICIANS has 54. -- Kleinzach 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's one thing for other projects to enter the discussion - fine. But what is the significance of a straw poll when the 'voting' is open to anyone regardless of whether they are current members of this project or have contributed significantly to opera articles? How does that illuminate the issue of consensus within this project? I thought that was the original assertion being questioned by Cielomobile on this page. Best, Voceditenore 08:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will remove the notice from one of the two WikiProjects, to "even it out" against the classical music WikiProject. Which would you prefer? The biography WikiProject, as it contains more members? Or the musicians WikiProject, as it contains popular music-oriented members? By the way, the classical music has something like 83 members (as I counted it on the list of participants; I might be off by a few), which would be less more than the musicians WikiProject. I'll go ahead and first remove it from the biography WikiProject, but if the other would be preferable, I could do that.


 * To Voceditenore, I express me concerns over "ownership" of articles above. I do not feel that this WikiProject has exclusive rights over all articles related to opera. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My questioning of the value of the poll has nothing to do with "ownership". Above, Kleinzach wrote: "The Opera Project has already decided after long discussions not to use infoboxes. It's all in the archives and those of the Composers Project. I suggest we give the subject a rest for at least another year." To which you replied: "Well, I'm bringing it up again; consensus can change.". I assumed from that exchange (wrongly?) that you wanted to see if that was still the consensus amongst current members of the Opera Project. If you did mean it that way, then canvassing people who have nothing to do with the project to 'vote' (as opposed to discuss) sheds no light at all on the issue of what the project's consensus is, and is both distracting and potentially disruptive. But enough of this. I have two articles to write on opera houses. Best, Voceditenore 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I just wrote down below, I initially did not plan on bringing in people from other WikiProjects to influence the consensus. By "consensus can change," I meant consensus within the WikiProject. Anyway, I'm going to remove the straw poll, as it's creating an unnecessary fuss that I'd rather avoid. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 11:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing to do is for the Project to archive the poll, as Kleinzach suggested below. Removing it completely would involve deleting all the comments by the other editors who participated in it - a real no-no both here and on Wikipedia in general. See Avoiding common mistakes. Best, Voceditenore 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's what I meant, I would archive the straw poll, not just delete it completely. I'd actually like to archive this whole business, because consensus is not emerging for infoboxes, and it's just a waste of time now. We could all be putting this time and effort towards better pusuits (I'd like to get back to Concerto for Orchestra (Bartok)). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice removed from the biography WikiProject. There are now only messages at the village pump, which would not solicit any particular type of response, the musicians WikiProject, which would likely solicit a pro-infobox response, and the classical music WikiProject, which would likely solicit an anti-infobox response. If this is more than a friendly notice, I don't see how. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 09:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Canvassing states:  . . . a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. . . . Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article.' And in the same document, Forum_shopping (one of four forms of canvassing) is defined as repeatedly asking for outside opinions until you get an opinion you like. -- Kleinzach 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kleinzach, I'm really getting tired of the accusations of bad faith. I've put up with it, but this is just getting on my nerves now. Please stop. I posted a few small notices, all neutral, to audiences with presumably differing points of view. I'm not the only editor who came here of his own accord and thought that wider community discussion would be a good idea. I've now deleted my notice at the biography WikiProject, so there really can be no claim that I am seeking to bring more people that would side with me into the discussion, as the other places at which I posted were the classical music WikiProject and the musicians WikiProject, which have a similar number of participants, and the village pump, which is the right place to post new policy proposals (people post this kind of stuff there all the time, and I have never seen a complaint about it before—if there is a better place to ask for wider community discussion without soliciting a specific response, I wouldn't know where). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 09:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying the messages I left on Kleinzach's talk page here, which I left before he brought this up:


 * "I should let you know that I posted the following message at a few relevant WikiProjects:
 * There is currently a discussion taking place here regarding whether infoboxes should be used for opera singers. Please weigh in if you'd like. (Notes left at WP:VP, WT:WPBIO, WT:CM, and WT:MUSICIANS.)
 * I hope you don't view this as canvassing or votestacking, as I also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, the members of which will likely have views more in line with your own (members of the other WikiProjects are a toss-up, I think). I also hope that you don't harbor any ill feelings towards me; I know this is the second of two recent disputes we've had. Know that if consensus sides with you, I will not pursue the matter any further. Finally, I hope you didn't take my comment about arrogance as a personal attack (it was not meant to be construed as such, but rather an side-argument for the use of infoboxes, albeit not a great one...I now realize that it may have been a little out of place).


 * Cheers, and thank you for your civility in our disputes. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I would appreciate it if you would come to me first regarding those messages before making a public spectacle of me. As I wrote earlier, I think it falls under the "friendly notice" section of Canvassing. Like I wrote on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, I would be happy to remove one of the two notices left on talk pages that would more likely attract pro-infobox editors. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)"