Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 7

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: I thought it might be a nice idea to include the occasional midi clip to illustrate musical points, and I uploaded a couple of midi files:  and . For an example of their use see Pentatonic_scale.
This kind of works, but as you will see it is a bit clunky and unattractive on the page - I think the problems arise because the upload facility is really designed for images. I would really like it if there was a way to do this which would :
a) Look nice on the page - a notehead gif link for instance in place of the filename.
b) If at all possible, have the file play directly when it's clicked on, rather than having to go to an image page and then click on the file.
Does anyone have any ideas how this might be done in a more elegant way? Many thanks.
--Stephen Burnett 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you probably want  or , which is better for inline examples. Or you could use  etc. The Listen template gives an in-browser link, which is nice for people who don't want to install new software, etc. Mak (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do indeed - many thanks for that. --Stephen Burnett 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I uploaded a midi file and it worked - but why it worked is a mystery to me. I agree - playing in the same window would be better. What seems to happen is that clicking on the midi file opens up whatever app you have registered to play midi files; in my case it's QuickTime, which seems to require a window to itself. It will need someone with a better understanding of how the Wiki/browser combination handles such things than I have to resolve it.--Stephen Burnett 08:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's something that needs to be worked on by someone with programming experience, like User:Gmaxwell. For a long time we had no in-browser support for .ogg, so I think we're doing pretty well! I think Greg (gmaxwell) is working on same-screen video and audio support, he just had me testing some examples. He's been working on getting the .ogg video working lately, so I think maybe we should cut him a little slack that it's not yet totally optimal :) But I would encourage you to go to his talk page and let him know what would be useful to you (nicely, of course). Cheers, Mak (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of midi examples