This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I don't see any point in replying to personal attacks. I am not going to be making any myself. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 13:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | If the pro-boxers were real bona fide editors it would be different, but they are not. They're just lazy kids looking for instant gratification. They don't read the articles at all. | ” |
That's a personal ad hominem attack. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record: On 10 May 2008 I wrote " Three or four people can't overturn a consensus established by 30 or 40." . This referred to the consensus throughout the classical music projects. I also wrote " The debates that decided the guidelines here involved more than 20 editors." This referred to this particular project. While I did not specify exact figures, I believe these to be substantially correct. CenturionZ 1 should make a complete apology. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 00:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Franz Liszt - This famous case of nationalistic argument has had an unchanged infobox since LAST OCTOBER (apart from two changes to what picture appears in the infobox, which is equivalent to what picture appears at the head of an article without an infobox). Given how this article was supposed to be a demonstration of why infoboxes are bad: disruptive editing, misleading information etc. etc. how has this infobox remained so stable? Is it because all these reasons are just false. This article shows infoboxes work and they are fine. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any kind of compromise will work. We've just seen another example here. Opus33's innocuous Haydn box was quickly replaced by the recreated Infobox classical composer. That will always happen. If the box is on the page it will be edited - and edited in disregard or ignorance of the contents of the article. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sensing a possible consensus here. If Opus33's infobox was innocuous, as Kleinzach mentioned, I propose that the general rule be to allow a simple infobox with birth (or baptismal) date, birth place (if available), death date, and death place. Any other parameter (such as genre) would be handled on a case-by-case basis. It looks like Centy's infobox would allow these simple parameters, and it wouldn't have to be shared with pop musicians. Thoughts? -- TrustTruth ( talk) 17:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am now very sorry indeed that I proposed a modest form of composer infobox. CenturionZ immediately took this as an invitation to resurrect elaborate multi-field infoboxes, of exactly the kind that has repeatedly served as a magnet for thoughtless, ignorant editing. This unfortunate experience has persuaded me that there is no way to keep the inaccurate-infobox problem under control, except to keep the policy we've had before: no infoboxes at all for composer articles. I offer my sincere apologies to Kleinzach and other editors who've worked hard in the past to maintain this aspect of encyclopedia quality. Sincerely, Opus33 ( talk) 18:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Eusebeus, Folantin, Centy, TrustTruth, Melodia Chaconne, appear to be in favor of Eusebeus's compromise proposal of a very simple infobox (with "Baptised" and "Floruit" available for composers whose dates are in doubt). Opus33, Kleinzach, Myke Cuthbert appear to be against. Woohookitty, the admin who deleted the previous Composers infobox template appears to be neutral. Did I misrepresent anyone's position? That comes out to five in favor, three opposed, and one neutral. -- TrustTruth ( talk) 18:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, concerning consensus, I'd like to point out that there is a voice absent from the table: our readers. They are ill-served by inaccurate encyclopedia articles, and the track record (both long term, and the last 24 hours) shows that infoboxes are a major source of inaccuracy.
WP has millions of readers, who (for better or worse) often rely on it for information. This is why it needs to be treated seriously. So let's keep our priorities straight: emphasize accuracy, and avoid those infoboxes. Sincerely, Opus33 ( talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(P.S. You guys might want to nuke the infoboxes for Liszt and Gershwin.)
As I understand it, the opposition argument is that allowing an infobox opens up the possibility that inaccurate information could be added to the infobox. Is that correct? Then why don't we modify the Composers infobox template to only allow birth date, baptismal date, birth place, death date, and death place? It would also allow an image with a caption. That would accomplish allowing only the basics, and would prevent extraneous information being added. Surely we could gain consensus around that (see WP:PRACTICAL for consensus building standards). -- TrustTruth ( talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No. The very basics should be in the lede anyway. In which case all you're doing is duplicating two bits of info side-by-side, one in an ugly manner. We simply do not need infoboxes when all they do is either duplicate needlessly or mislead. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 20:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate the work you folks have put into the new trial infoboxes, I am against infoboxes for the following reasons: 1) the box competes against the article. Everything in the box is (or should be) covered with greater clarity and nuance in the article text. 2) The box says to a casual reader, "read me! You're in a hurry, but I have everything you need to know!" As a (former) educator all too aware of the ravages of attention deficit disorder among the very young, I want to avoid encouraging it. Casual visitors need to read the first paragraph at least. 3) Unless stripped down to nothing but the dates, the simplifications presented in the box inevitably look amateurish (for example: "genre: classical" just like in the CD shop, where everything is in bins labeled "country", "rap", "soul", etc.; all productions of a thousand years of music history are rubberstamped with this odious and unencyclopedic "genre" tag.) And by the way, my opposition to boxes has nothing to do with the subject being a "classical" musician: these problems apply, in a slightly different flavor, to all biography boxes, but unfortunately the consensus seems to be for them most everywhere else on Wikipedia.
This all said, I would support a simple box, such as the one proposed by Centy with all parameters optional, if it is the majority view, for this reason: there is too great a risk of having something truly execrable forced on us once the project's dedicated template-makers, few of whom know anything about "classical" music, notice that composers have no boxes, and decide that we are obstructionist snobs and need to be boxed. There's lots of people out there who like consistency for its own sake and don't expect them to listen to us. We have a better chance of holding a defensive line if we put in a simple box.
Once again, thank you all for your work on this. It's painful seeing people fighting here, formerly one of the friendliest places in Wikipedia, and I personally promise not to speak unkindly to anyone, even if I disagree. Let peace begin with me. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have put this up for its 4th consecutive deletion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_classical_composer. Thank you. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 03:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen, you may have observed this discussion, in which a Euro aficionado managed, through canvassing, to spam the Haydn article with what is, in my view, a rather gaudy image of a commemorative gold coin. This similar trivia was added to the Eroica page, to the Schloss Esterhazy article (see Talk:Schloss Esterházy and elsewhere. Can I ask for some feedback on this from our project. What do we think of these images? I personally find them rather ugly, do not see why they are needed and would recommend their removal. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This is so funny (and generally inappropriate): a whole discussion is being done about my contributions and I was not invited to it. Please check my latest comments in User Talk:Opus33 and User Talk:Eusebeus. I have clearly said that I have changed my view (in your favor) and I am willing to do a huge compromise. Regardless, my contributions were again removed (not changed, just removed) without any warnings.
Anyway, I do feel is very important, just to mention, in one single line, in the "see also" section, that these composers (and now buildings) have been chosen as the main motif of a very important commemorative coin. This is the only thing I am asking now, and I promise I will not look for help from other Wikipedians or Administrators, I will leave it to the decision of this forum. Please note that I am not putting any external references, just intra-wikipedia links. Thanks! Miguel.mateo ( talk) 06:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I don't see any point in replying to personal attacks. I am not going to be making any myself. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 13:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | If the pro-boxers were real bona fide editors it would be different, but they are not. They're just lazy kids looking for instant gratification. They don't read the articles at all. | ” |
That's a personal ad hominem attack. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record: On 10 May 2008 I wrote " Three or four people can't overturn a consensus established by 30 or 40." . This referred to the consensus throughout the classical music projects. I also wrote " The debates that decided the guidelines here involved more than 20 editors." This referred to this particular project. While I did not specify exact figures, I believe these to be substantially correct. CenturionZ 1 should make a complete apology. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 00:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Franz Liszt - This famous case of nationalistic argument has had an unchanged infobox since LAST OCTOBER (apart from two changes to what picture appears in the infobox, which is equivalent to what picture appears at the head of an article without an infobox). Given how this article was supposed to be a demonstration of why infoboxes are bad: disruptive editing, misleading information etc. etc. how has this infobox remained so stable? Is it because all these reasons are just false. This article shows infoboxes work and they are fine. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any kind of compromise will work. We've just seen another example here. Opus33's innocuous Haydn box was quickly replaced by the recreated Infobox classical composer. That will always happen. If the box is on the page it will be edited - and edited in disregard or ignorance of the contents of the article. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sensing a possible consensus here. If Opus33's infobox was innocuous, as Kleinzach mentioned, I propose that the general rule be to allow a simple infobox with birth (or baptismal) date, birth place (if available), death date, and death place. Any other parameter (such as genre) would be handled on a case-by-case basis. It looks like Centy's infobox would allow these simple parameters, and it wouldn't have to be shared with pop musicians. Thoughts? -- TrustTruth ( talk) 17:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am now very sorry indeed that I proposed a modest form of composer infobox. CenturionZ immediately took this as an invitation to resurrect elaborate multi-field infoboxes, of exactly the kind that has repeatedly served as a magnet for thoughtless, ignorant editing. This unfortunate experience has persuaded me that there is no way to keep the inaccurate-infobox problem under control, except to keep the policy we've had before: no infoboxes at all for composer articles. I offer my sincere apologies to Kleinzach and other editors who've worked hard in the past to maintain this aspect of encyclopedia quality. Sincerely, Opus33 ( talk) 18:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Eusebeus, Folantin, Centy, TrustTruth, Melodia Chaconne, appear to be in favor of Eusebeus's compromise proposal of a very simple infobox (with "Baptised" and "Floruit" available for composers whose dates are in doubt). Opus33, Kleinzach, Myke Cuthbert appear to be against. Woohookitty, the admin who deleted the previous Composers infobox template appears to be neutral. Did I misrepresent anyone's position? That comes out to five in favor, three opposed, and one neutral. -- TrustTruth ( talk) 18:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, concerning consensus, I'd like to point out that there is a voice absent from the table: our readers. They are ill-served by inaccurate encyclopedia articles, and the track record (both long term, and the last 24 hours) shows that infoboxes are a major source of inaccuracy.
WP has millions of readers, who (for better or worse) often rely on it for information. This is why it needs to be treated seriously. So let's keep our priorities straight: emphasize accuracy, and avoid those infoboxes. Sincerely, Opus33 ( talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(P.S. You guys might want to nuke the infoboxes for Liszt and Gershwin.)
As I understand it, the opposition argument is that allowing an infobox opens up the possibility that inaccurate information could be added to the infobox. Is that correct? Then why don't we modify the Composers infobox template to only allow birth date, baptismal date, birth place, death date, and death place? It would also allow an image with a caption. That would accomplish allowing only the basics, and would prevent extraneous information being added. Surely we could gain consensus around that (see WP:PRACTICAL for consensus building standards). -- TrustTruth ( talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No. The very basics should be in the lede anyway. In which case all you're doing is duplicating two bits of info side-by-side, one in an ugly manner. We simply do not need infoboxes when all they do is either duplicate needlessly or mislead. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 20:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate the work you folks have put into the new trial infoboxes, I am against infoboxes for the following reasons: 1) the box competes against the article. Everything in the box is (or should be) covered with greater clarity and nuance in the article text. 2) The box says to a casual reader, "read me! You're in a hurry, but I have everything you need to know!" As a (former) educator all too aware of the ravages of attention deficit disorder among the very young, I want to avoid encouraging it. Casual visitors need to read the first paragraph at least. 3) Unless stripped down to nothing but the dates, the simplifications presented in the box inevitably look amateurish (for example: "genre: classical" just like in the CD shop, where everything is in bins labeled "country", "rap", "soul", etc.; all productions of a thousand years of music history are rubberstamped with this odious and unencyclopedic "genre" tag.) And by the way, my opposition to boxes has nothing to do with the subject being a "classical" musician: these problems apply, in a slightly different flavor, to all biography boxes, but unfortunately the consensus seems to be for them most everywhere else on Wikipedia.
This all said, I would support a simple box, such as the one proposed by Centy with all parameters optional, if it is the majority view, for this reason: there is too great a risk of having something truly execrable forced on us once the project's dedicated template-makers, few of whom know anything about "classical" music, notice that composers have no boxes, and decide that we are obstructionist snobs and need to be boxed. There's lots of people out there who like consistency for its own sake and don't expect them to listen to us. We have a better chance of holding a defensive line if we put in a simple box.
Once again, thank you all for your work on this. It's painful seeing people fighting here, formerly one of the friendliest places in Wikipedia, and I personally promise not to speak unkindly to anyone, even if I disagree. Let peace begin with me. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have put this up for its 4th consecutive deletion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_classical_composer. Thank you. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 03:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen, you may have observed this discussion, in which a Euro aficionado managed, through canvassing, to spam the Haydn article with what is, in my view, a rather gaudy image of a commemorative gold coin. This similar trivia was added to the Eroica page, to the Schloss Esterhazy article (see Talk:Schloss Esterházy and elsewhere. Can I ask for some feedback on this from our project. What do we think of these images? I personally find them rather ugly, do not see why they are needed and would recommend their removal. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This is so funny (and generally inappropriate): a whole discussion is being done about my contributions and I was not invited to it. Please check my latest comments in User Talk:Opus33 and User Talk:Eusebeus. I have clearly said that I have changed my view (in your favor) and I am willing to do a huge compromise. Regardless, my contributions were again removed (not changed, just removed) without any warnings.
Anyway, I do feel is very important, just to mention, in one single line, in the "see also" section, that these composers (and now buildings) have been chosen as the main motif of a very important commemorative coin. This is the only thing I am asking now, and I promise I will not look for help from other Wikipedians or Administrators, I will leave it to the decision of this forum. Please note that I am not putting any external references, just intra-wikipedia links. Thanks! Miguel.mateo ( talk) 06:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)