This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox orchestra template. |
|
![]() | Infoboxes | |||
|
![]() | Classical music | |||
|
This template has been set up as a result if the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music starting 16 March 2013. It is intended for symphony orchestras but may also be used for smaller ensembles if necessary. -- Klein zach 03:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
|type=
parameter would be needed.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)I see many orchestras which switched names in history, orchestras which existed only for a certain time, orchestras merged. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
|disbanded=
parameter. Perhaps a |merged_into=
or |successor=
would be useful; with a corresponding |constituents=
or |predecessor=
?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of |later_name=
is unclear.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I am opposed to any changes to the template made without discussion. These shouldn't be happening — as I have said here.
I'm also against using a 'native name' field. There was no support for this in the discussion leading up to the creation of the box. -- Klein zach 14:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the revert to a former state of the template, losing all improvements, I repeat what I said for Opera in a similar discussion: I suggest to collect possible parameters first, and then decide what is not needed. Most of them can be optional anyway. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement for prior discussion; especially for a draft template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that this "native name" field is to hold a Wikipedia editor's home-brew concoction rendering a foreign name in English? If so, put me on record as firmly opposing it. To the extent giving a translation is desirable, it should go in the text (in a sentence along the lines of "The orchestra's name can be roughly translated as The Philharmonic Orchestra of Lower Atlantis"), not in a box that by implication confers some sort of "official" status on it. That, of course, is a major objection many of us have to infoboxes in the first place: they tend to suggest black-and-white authority for information that is open to debate. I'll address the inevitable "but it's optional" rejoinder while I'm about it: "optional" fields of this sort are what the lawyers call an attractive nuisance, enticing those who are careless, misguided, or uninformed to engage in undesirable behavior. I also join in objecting to changes made without benefit of discussion. That way lies chaos, at the very least. Drhoehl ( talk) 16:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
|name=
is the same as the article name, and |native_name=
was the official name in the native language, which is almost certainly the name of the article on the WP for the local native language. I don't see how this would be controversial. clearly if someone is using these parameters as a place to put invented translations, then that is an improper use of the parameters, but not a fault of the template. we could add a tracking category, along with the parameter, so its usage could be monitored.
Frietjes (
talk)
17:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)why is |disbanded=
a
required field? are all orchestras suddenly disbanded?
Frietjes (
talk)
17:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Once again, there are changes being made on the fly without discussion. [1] [2] I have reverted. -- Klein zach 04:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Making changes "on the fly" is what Wikipedia is about. There is no requirement for you to pre=approve prior discussion. Your referral to me as "That editor' at it again!" in
your canvassing edit summary is not acceptable. The |short_name=
field is needed, as seen
in this diff, to prevent polluting the |name=
field with things which aren't part of the name. In the example edit given, the orchestra's name is "National Symphony Orchestra", not "National Symphony Orchestra (NSO)". There are multiple cases of such abbreviations being put in the name field, including many by you.
Furthermore in this edit and this one, you replaced another infobox which already has a separate parameter for the abbreviation. Your claim that you "haven't found one instance where this 'short name' field would be useful" is facile.
Infobox fields do not exist for you to to shoehorn into them arbitrary text. As with your futile removal of the native name fields, discussed above, you are creating unnecessary drama over a change which any neutral observer will recognise is reasonable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I made the comment above:
This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course).
There was no response to that, but I now see this infobox being used to replace others, in such a way that infobox content is lost.
For example this looses the music director; while this looses music director, pops conductor, assistant conductor, and founder; and this one discards past and present music directors (and the fact that it's USA based).
This is a disservice to our readers, and should stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've been reminded that Kleinzach was clearly aware of the issue; as he acknowledged my comment elsewhere (though ignoring it here) on 19 March. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Note that Kleinzach has again canvassed one project, ignoring others which may be interested. He was warned about this only a day or two ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I confess that I didn't know about this page or info-box until very recently, and I ask for indulgence if I'm raising something already dealt with. But I'm working on the RPO article at the moment, and the absence of Sir Thomas from the box seems odd. Almost Hamlet without the Prince, with due respect to M. Dutoit. Could there be a "founder" field? Or even an ex-luminary one? Quite happy to pipe down if it's already been addressed. Tim riley ( talk) 20:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
| label6 = Founder(s) | data6 = {{{founders|}}}
Before this info-box was introduced the London Symphony Orchestra's logo was bounced from the previous info-box by User:Aspects. Is it permissible to use it in the new box? Tim riley ( talk) 20:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that we don't need to distinguish "present" and "past" principal conductors, if we attach a time (from ... to ...) also. I know at least one case where former conductors are more notable than the present one, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion here, although there was some at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Default type "Orchestra", about the introduction of the compulsory parameter |type=
which defaults to "
Orchestra". This parameter was introduced only 2 days ago, so it's reasonable to assume that almost none of the existing transclusions use it. Therefore the overwhelming majority of orchestra articles which have the word "orchestra" in their title are being lumbered with the unnecessary subheading "—
Orchestra —" (with an emdash, disregarding
MOS:DASH). Can we please stop insulting our readers and wasting screen space by making this parameter optional so it can be usefully employed where needed and not clutter the article where it's not? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I miss parameters in the template that appear in the documentation, and I miss a discussion here. I think that it would be good to know if an orchestra is a chamber orchestra or an early music orchestra, possible to in |type=
. If you don't want |founder=
could you at least add something like |people=
, for people associated with an orchestra other than the present conductor who may be of minor importance? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
06:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
A subheader can show both, that an article is about an orchestra if that is not clear from the title, and what kind of orchestra. A few orchestras names show that they are an orchestra, for example the
CBSO. Others don't. Please let's not assume that every reader knows that a "Philharmonic" is an orchestra. Some names don't imply orchestra, such as
Lautten Compagney. Some are in a language other than English, such as
Deutsche Radio Philharmonie Saarbrücken Kaiserslautern. In addition, I would - as a reader - be interested right on top what kind of orchestra, chamber, string, conductorless, Early music, festival, community, radio, you name it. I liked |type=
for both purposes. Are there other suggestions? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this infobox would benefit from an extra parameter for a logo. This already used in the Template:Infobox company. This would give editors the freedom to include both an lead image (e.g. a photo of the orchestra in concert) along with the official logo. Seem reasonable?
| logo = | logo_alt = | logo_caption = | image = | image_alt = | image_caption =
Cnbrb ( talk) 10:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
A RfC which may affect this infobox's |location=
parameter has been opened at
WT:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes. Please add your comments there. —
Ojorojo (
talk)
17:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox orchestra template. |
|
![]() | Infoboxes | |||
|
![]() | Classical music | |||
|
This template has been set up as a result if the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music starting 16 March 2013. It is intended for symphony orchestras but may also be used for smaller ensembles if necessary. -- Klein zach 03:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
|type=
parameter would be needed.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)I see many orchestras which switched names in history, orchestras which existed only for a certain time, orchestras merged. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
|disbanded=
parameter. Perhaps a |merged_into=
or |successor=
would be useful; with a corresponding |constituents=
or |predecessor=
?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of |later_name=
is unclear.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I am opposed to any changes to the template made without discussion. These shouldn't be happening — as I have said here.
I'm also against using a 'native name' field. There was no support for this in the discussion leading up to the creation of the box. -- Klein zach 14:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the revert to a former state of the template, losing all improvements, I repeat what I said for Opera in a similar discussion: I suggest to collect possible parameters first, and then decide what is not needed. Most of them can be optional anyway. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement for prior discussion; especially for a draft template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that this "native name" field is to hold a Wikipedia editor's home-brew concoction rendering a foreign name in English? If so, put me on record as firmly opposing it. To the extent giving a translation is desirable, it should go in the text (in a sentence along the lines of "The orchestra's name can be roughly translated as The Philharmonic Orchestra of Lower Atlantis"), not in a box that by implication confers some sort of "official" status on it. That, of course, is a major objection many of us have to infoboxes in the first place: they tend to suggest black-and-white authority for information that is open to debate. I'll address the inevitable "but it's optional" rejoinder while I'm about it: "optional" fields of this sort are what the lawyers call an attractive nuisance, enticing those who are careless, misguided, or uninformed to engage in undesirable behavior. I also join in objecting to changes made without benefit of discussion. That way lies chaos, at the very least. Drhoehl ( talk) 16:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
|name=
is the same as the article name, and |native_name=
was the official name in the native language, which is almost certainly the name of the article on the WP for the local native language. I don't see how this would be controversial. clearly if someone is using these parameters as a place to put invented translations, then that is an improper use of the parameters, but not a fault of the template. we could add a tracking category, along with the parameter, so its usage could be monitored.
Frietjes (
talk)
17:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)why is |disbanded=
a
required field? are all orchestras suddenly disbanded?
Frietjes (
talk)
17:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Once again, there are changes being made on the fly without discussion. [1] [2] I have reverted. -- Klein zach 04:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Making changes "on the fly" is what Wikipedia is about. There is no requirement for you to pre=approve prior discussion. Your referral to me as "That editor' at it again!" in
your canvassing edit summary is not acceptable. The |short_name=
field is needed, as seen
in this diff, to prevent polluting the |name=
field with things which aren't part of the name. In the example edit given, the orchestra's name is "National Symphony Orchestra", not "National Symphony Orchestra (NSO)". There are multiple cases of such abbreviations being put in the name field, including many by you.
Furthermore in this edit and this one, you replaced another infobox which already has a separate parameter for the abbreviation. Your claim that you "haven't found one instance where this 'short name' field would be useful" is facile.
Infobox fields do not exist for you to to shoehorn into them arbitrary text. As with your futile removal of the native name fields, discussed above, you are creating unnecessary drama over a change which any neutral observer will recognise is reasonable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I made the comment above:
This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course).
There was no response to that, but I now see this infobox being used to replace others, in such a way that infobox content is lost.
For example this looses the music director; while this looses music director, pops conductor, assistant conductor, and founder; and this one discards past and present music directors (and the fact that it's USA based).
This is a disservice to our readers, and should stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've been reminded that Kleinzach was clearly aware of the issue; as he acknowledged my comment elsewhere (though ignoring it here) on 19 March. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Note that Kleinzach has again canvassed one project, ignoring others which may be interested. He was warned about this only a day or two ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I confess that I didn't know about this page or info-box until very recently, and I ask for indulgence if I'm raising something already dealt with. But I'm working on the RPO article at the moment, and the absence of Sir Thomas from the box seems odd. Almost Hamlet without the Prince, with due respect to M. Dutoit. Could there be a "founder" field? Or even an ex-luminary one? Quite happy to pipe down if it's already been addressed. Tim riley ( talk) 20:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
| label6 = Founder(s) | data6 = {{{founders|}}}
Before this info-box was introduced the London Symphony Orchestra's logo was bounced from the previous info-box by User:Aspects. Is it permissible to use it in the new box? Tim riley ( talk) 20:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that we don't need to distinguish "present" and "past" principal conductors, if we attach a time (from ... to ...) also. I know at least one case where former conductors are more notable than the present one, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion here, although there was some at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Default type "Orchestra", about the introduction of the compulsory parameter |type=
which defaults to "
Orchestra". This parameter was introduced only 2 days ago, so it's reasonable to assume that almost none of the existing transclusions use it. Therefore the overwhelming majority of orchestra articles which have the word "orchestra" in their title are being lumbered with the unnecessary subheading "—
Orchestra —" (with an emdash, disregarding
MOS:DASH). Can we please stop insulting our readers and wasting screen space by making this parameter optional so it can be usefully employed where needed and not clutter the article where it's not? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I miss parameters in the template that appear in the documentation, and I miss a discussion here. I think that it would be good to know if an orchestra is a chamber orchestra or an early music orchestra, possible to in |type=
. If you don't want |founder=
could you at least add something like |people=
, for people associated with an orchestra other than the present conductor who may be of minor importance? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
06:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
A subheader can show both, that an article is about an orchestra if that is not clear from the title, and what kind of orchestra. A few orchestras names show that they are an orchestra, for example the
CBSO. Others don't. Please let's not assume that every reader knows that a "Philharmonic" is an orchestra. Some names don't imply orchestra, such as
Lautten Compagney. Some are in a language other than English, such as
Deutsche Radio Philharmonie Saarbrücken Kaiserslautern. In addition, I would - as a reader - be interested right on top what kind of orchestra, chamber, string, conductorless, Early music, festival, community, radio, you name it. I liked |type=
for both purposes. Are there other suggestions? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this infobox would benefit from an extra parameter for a logo. This already used in the Template:Infobox company. This would give editors the freedom to include both an lead image (e.g. a photo of the orchestra in concert) along with the official logo. Seem reasonable?
| logo = | logo_alt = | logo_caption = | image = | image_alt = | image_caption =
Cnbrb ( talk) 10:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
A RfC which may affect this infobox's |location=
parameter has been opened at
WT:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes. Please add your comments there. —
Ojorojo (
talk)
17:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)