Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates

message: I note that, elsewhere,  Mak is claiming that consensus against using infoboxes has been reached, That's certainly not my reading of the on-going debate. Andy Mabbett 08:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. There's consensus here to dump the boxen and potentially replace them with one dedicated to composers. That will not be something easy to do and will take a while: in the meantime, the infoboxes should go. Moreschi  Talk 10:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is consensus. Plus there's something more important than consensus: these boxes are causing massive violations of fundamental Wikipedia policies, such as factual accuracy and NPOV. I've lost count of the number of distortions of basic info I've seen in these things. There is no policy saying we must have infoboxes on articles. --Folantin 10:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are again conflating two issues. If there are problems with accuracy or PoV, then of course these should be addressed. That does not mean that there is consensus to cease using infoboxes at all. There is no consensus - QED. Andy Mabbett 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If consensus means anything, we have it here. Policy also trumps consensus. There is no more fundamental policy on WP than accuracy. These infoboxes have clearly violated that policy. Therefore they must go. QED. --Folantin 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are again conflating two issues. Andy Mabbett 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 15-5 seems pretty consentual to me (hell make it 16, because I pretty much agree -- wrong info = bad). There will almost never be 100% agreement for anything. If that was required, AFDs would be a joke, as it'd be so easy to put in a single !vote against everyone else, if that's all it took. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do we need infoboxes at all? It's important to have typographically attractive, well-illustrated pages that people want to read, but does that mean infoboxes are necessary or desirable? If you look at print enclyclopedias you'll find that boxes are used sparingly. I don't believe there is any major reference book that has summary boxes for every biography. --Kleinzach 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. No infobox, no problem. Factual accuracy is essential, infoboxes aren't. They merely repeat information already on the page in a distorted way. It will take an immense amount of time and effort to create an infobox flexible enough not to garble the facts. I think that time and effort would be better spent elsewhere. --Folantin 15:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox: No consensus (Apr 28- )

message: Okay, I've decided it might be fun to give a go at making a template.  It may take me a little while, since I'm just starting to learn the wiki syntax required, but I have been thinking about precisely the question Carcharoth asked two comments up, and last night I sketched a few possibly useful parameters, almost all of which would be optional, with instructions to delete the parameter if not applicable / too narrow / etc. Here's what I have so far:
*Required parameters:
** Name — obviously, for the top of the box; also optional parameters for [Birth_name =...] and [Also_known_as =...], to go below;
** Title — to go below name and above image.  Default value = "Composer", but one could substitute, say, "Songwriter" or "Composer-conductor" etc.
*Optional parameters:
** Image and Caption — as in other boxes;
** Lifespan — i.e. [Born =...] and [Died =...] as in the bio box, but w/ options to substitute [Baptized =...]  or  [Flourished =...]; 
** Idiom — my version of the dreaded "record store" category.  My thinking is that this would have:
*** a limited set of options, such as [Classical / Jazz / Folk / Popular / Musical theater / Experimental];
*** maybe coded to background colors, like the "Musical artist" box?  Default would be the "Classical" color; maybe skip for simplicity's sake...;
*** options for "Idiom2" and "Idiom3" for composers like Gershwin or Bernstein;
*** instructions to delete the parameter for (most) composers before 1900;
** Nationality — as narrow as "Viennese" or as broad as "European" (maybe a different parameter name?);
*** possibly to go above the pic as a modifier to [Title], so that the header might read (on two lines):  Aaron Copland / American Composer ;
** Historical era — e.g. "Renaissance", "Baroque", etc.;
** Stylistic school(s) or Movement(s) — e.g. "Franco-Flemish school", "Verismo", "Les Six", "Futurism", "Bebop", etc.;
** Principal genre(s) — e.g. "Opera" for Verdi; "Symphony, Song" for Mahler...delete for more wide-ranging composers;
** Other occupations — e.g. "Pianist" for Liszt, "Conductor" for Boulez, "Insurance agent" for Ives, etc.;
** Notable works — mainly for "one-(or two-)hit wonders", e.g. "Hansel and Gretel" for Humperdinck.
Thoughts? —Turangalila talk 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. It's got some good ideas, but even this is problematic. "Historical era" can be pretty subjective stuff: the divisions between, say, Rococo, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and Modern are by no means clear-cut even on the level of individual composers - many are notoriously hard to pigeonhole - and certainly not over the years: you have Elgar writing alongside Stravinsky, for example. POV, especially misleading POV, must be avoided at all costs. For "stylistic schools", how to you sum up, for example, Puccini? Pastiche verismo? Verismo with some nasty cynicism? How do you boil that down to the one or two words required for an infobox? These things are nuanced and really need fuller explanation to avoid confusion. Moreschi  Talk 19:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Moreschi said. I appreciate the effort, but it just isn't going to fly. Nationality, genre, style...all too often these are just too problematic to be reduced to any schema. We have plenty of controversies as it is; infoboxes would merely double the conflict. We could spend months tweaking these boxes then come across a composer who absolutely refused to fit the parameters. There is one obvious solution that is elegant, time-saving and conducive to accuracy: get rid of the boxes. --Folantin 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add (belatedly) one point. A good infobox (assuming it could be created) would of necessity be linked to articles explaining genres/periods/musical forms etc. If these articles didn't exist or were unsatisfactory then the infobox itself would not be viable. --Kleinzach 00:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Like it or not, infoboxes seem to be generally in the ascendancy on WP". And so what? When they contradict the most fundamental WP policies, they have to go. "Some users here may need to open their minds to the idea of 'joining 'em'". Well, the majority opinion here is to get rid of infoboxes, although some people seem to have a very hard time accepting that. "Redundancy is not always a mortal sin", but inaccuracy in an encyclopaedia is; none of the pro-infobox proponents here has addressed this essential issue in anything resembling an adequate way..." some of this discussion emits just the slightest bouquet of snobbery"...but they have resorted to ad hominem arguments and dreamed up a Hypothetical General Reader to back their arguments, claiming they have HGR's best interests at heart while showing a complete contempt for HGR's intelligence. --Folantin 07:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox proposal(s)

message: In hopes of visualising consensus, perhaps useful only to myself, I will try to summarise the positions of people in this debate. (Note that I'm using big-umbrella classical in this summary)
*User:Makemi (active in writing on (early music) classical composers) started it, doesn't want infoboxes for a variety of reasons, mainly having to do with accuracy and flexibility.
*Kat Walsh (sometimes active in writing on classical composers) agrees that infoboxes for people are generally a problem, would be willing to look at an improved infobox.
*User:M A Mason (active in writing on classical composers) agrees that infoboxes for people are problematic. Adds points about anachronism of flags in infoboxes.
*User:Gmaxwell (not particularly active in writing on composers that I can tell) agrees that infoboxes for people are problematic, people don't fit in little boxes, not flexible enough.
*User:Cricket02 (active in mostly contemporary classical composers) briefly disagrees, thinks infoboxes are valuable and informative, add "respectability" to articles.
*User:Antandrus (active in early-music classical composers) agrees that infoboxes are redundant and tend towards being amateurish, particularly because of inflexibility in the fields.
*User:Kleinzach (ringleader of Opera project, writer on various composers) agrees that "potted biographies" are "grotesque".
*User:Alton (active in writing on classical composers, largely Romantics) agrees that while infoboxes can be useful in some areas, they are not good for biographies because they are not sufficiently flexible to deal with all the variations which people present.
*User:Folantin (active in writing on classical composers (baroque?)) agrees that infoboxes are not useful for composers, and look unprofessional (Top Trumps:).
*User:Logologist (active on Chopin, doesn't look like many other composers, although other Polish old bios) doesnt' like infoboxes for people, per others.
*User:Moreschi (active on composer articles, mostly on the early side) thinks infoboxes for biographies are pretty rotten, and lets us know in no uncertain terms. 
*User:LiniShu (light editing on early composer articles), previously had (a few times) added "Needs infobox=Yes" parameter to WPBio template for composers articles (has never actually added an infobox to composer articles); would agree to respect consensus re not doing so. Asks that the debate be kept civil, and that interaction with WP:WPBIO be kept active/positive. Thinks creation of an improved Composers infobox provides a viable alternative solution, in addition to refraining from using them on articles where there is consensus not to use, but is not particularly "for" infoboxes.   Content here "tweaked" --Lini 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox:  Attempted summary by Makemi

message: I suggest you read WP:Consensus; and that you stop raising red herrings. Anyone may comment, regardless of which articles they do or do not edit. Persondata is not available to parsers other than those accessing raw wikicode, from database dumps so you suggestion is unhelpful. Andy Mabbett 18:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what articles people edit is very relevant to this discussion. This is trying to find consensus for one specific content area of Wikipedia. I have tried to gain consensus on individual articles, where all the vested contributors seem to agree with not having an infobox, only to have a mass-tagger come through, throw a wrench in the works, and claim that there must be a higher-order consensus on the WikiProject level. Now, when those who are actually involved in editing the articles concerned agree that for this specific content area infoboxes are inappropriate, or at least infoboxes in their current form are inappropriate, I think that should be respected. Otherwise what's the point of having a WikiProject consensus and specific area working groups? I don't pretend to know what the best style is for Science articles, and so I don't try to dictate their style to them, and I don't go off telling them not to use infoboxes where they find them useful. I think the same respect for knowing what is useful in a particular area and what is not should be afforded this WikiProject. Mak (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit summary was "consensus for WikiProject composers should be determined by those with and interest in (shock) composers": if you wish to re-write fundamental WP policies to enshrine that view, then this isn't the place to do it. When you've achieved consensus for that change, do please let us know here. Meanwhile, please also read WP:OWN and don't presume to talk about what interests you imagine that I or any other editor do or do not have. Andy Mabbett 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makemi, thank you for taking the time to do this; I think you characterized the positions well.  I agree with you that it represents consensus, among project members--people who write articles on composers.  The encyclopedia will be better without these infoboxes, boxes which, as currently employed, actually present misinfo. Antandrus  (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If somebody reads Wikipedia and reads nothing but the infoboxes, well, then I think it's better that he or she at least has read something about the person. That would still be rather funny, however. And there really is no way a box with the composer's name, portrait, birth date and other information that can be proven to be factual such as nationalities, could be harmful. Rather it serves as a good summary. Factual errors should be removed, of course, but still, there's a limit to which we can edit articles and make them factually accurate. I believe there are many cases in Wikipedia where a less detailed description is preferred instead of a more complex and correct one.--Wormsie 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...Wikipedia's entire reputation rests on its accuracy. If we abandon that in favour of brevity, we can forget about Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. Most of these infoboxes are either ill-suited or inaccurate - Shostakovitch a Romantic just like Weber? Because that's what one implied! Moreschi  Talk 16:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We haven't finally arrived at anything. Discussion is ongoing. Please stop pretending otherwise, Andy Mabbett 05:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So when is this discussion over? Nobody supporting infoboxes has dealt with the essential problem that they violate the basic WP policy: factual accuracy. All we've had are attempts to dismiss accuracy concerns as some kind of elitism or snobbery (apparently it doesn't matter about the quality of the information, what matters is that it's in a box; or so we're told by editors with a hotline to the Hypothetical General Reader). I'm sorry, but trying to change another policy in your favour  won't resolve this fundamental flaw. --Folantin 07:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly refrain from making false accusations. Andy Mabbett 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith and keep it civil. Cheers. --Folantin 07:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be acting in good faith; that doesn't make your accusations any less false, and pointing out their falsehood is not uncivil. Making false accusaitions is uncivil. Andy Mabbett 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't made any false accusations so this is a red herring. Please let's drop this and stick to the point. --Folantin 10:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have falsely alleged that I am "trying to change another policy in [my] favour". Andy Mabbett 10:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wasn't quite certain what you were referring to. I don't think it was an entirely unreasonable remark to make in the circumstances, but fair enough. I will gladly withdraw it in the interests of civility. --Folantin 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Afterthoughts, congratulations, and recriminations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: There is no conflict with WikiProject Biographies -- see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Infoboxes.  Fireplace 08:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's not "over"; and your suspicions are mis-founded. Again. Andy Mabbett 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Thank you for the link Fireplace. S.dedalus 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Discussion: It's over.