| Revision as of 20:07, 23 March 2013 editPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,227 edits →Infobox proposal: c← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:30, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,387,091 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 3 page: Musicians.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=y}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{VA|topic=Art|level=3|class=B}} |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
{{Article history|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=17:23, Apr 23, 2005 |
|
|action1date=17:23, Apr 23, 2005 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Johann Sebastian Bach/archive1 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Johann Sebastian Bach/archive1 |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|action2date=18:02, 9 May 2006 |
|
|action2date=18:02, 9 May 2006 |
|
|action2link=Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/archive 2#Good Article nomination has failed |
|
|action2link=Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach/Archive 3#Good Article nomination has failed |
|
|action2result=failed |
|
|action2result=failed |
|
|action2oldid=52322526 |
|
|action2oldid=52322526 |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
|action3=GAN |
|
|action3=GAN |
|
|action3date=14:20, 28 May 2006 |
|
|action3date=14:20, 28 May 2006 |
|
|action3link=Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/archive 2#Misplaced Pages:Peer review |
|
|action3link=Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach/Archive 3#Misplaced Pages:Peer review |
|
|action3result=listed |
|
|action3result=listed |
|
|action3oldid=55570820 |
|
|action3oldid=55570820 |
| Line 44: |
Line 44: |
|
|action7oldid=482164335 |
|
|action7oldid=482164335 |
|
|
|
|
|
|topic = arts |
|
|topic = music |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Bach, Johann Sebastian|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=b|musician-priority=Top|core=yes|musician-work-group=yes|listas=Bach, Johann Sebastian}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|musician-priority=Top|core=yes|musician-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Composers|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Composers}} |
|
{{WikiProject Germany|class=b |
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pipe organ|importance=high}} |
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Lutheranism|importance=high}} |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=Top}} |
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Former countries|Prussia=Yes}} |
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes |
|
|
|
}} |
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pipe Organ|class=b|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Lutheranism|class=b|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=b|importance=Low|lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=b |
|
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes |
|
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes |
|
|
|importance=|Prussia=Yes|Prussia-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Arts|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|importance=Top}}}} |
|
|
{{Educational assignment|date=2009-12-03|link=Misplaced Pages:School and university projects#Union University (Fall 2009)}} |
|
|
== Edit request on 27 February 2013 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{High traffic|date=21 March 2019|site=Google|url=https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&ictx=2&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinkIaxnpThAhXxYN8KHWSaCUUQPQgH}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
i think johann sebastian bach was born on march 21st |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
and not on march 31st as wikipedia suggests |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
|
|counter = 17 |
|
] (]) 21:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 6 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(45d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Relevance of the Thomaskantor contract == |
|
:Take a look at the note by the birth dates. It would seem that J.S. Bach was born on March 21 based on use of the "old style" Julian calendar, which was in use in Protestant Germany at the time of his birth, but when matched with the modern-use Gregorian calendar, he was born on March 31. ] (]) 21:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Closed edit request per above response. —<span style="color:#808080">]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">]</span></sup> 22:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is an interesting NYU law school paper discussion of Bach’s contract as Thomaskantor here that may be worthwhile to integrate into and reference within that section. ] (]) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Bach as a Singer == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Footnote 101 is incorrect == |
|
Should singer not be added to all the other musical epithets at the beginning of the article? Wasn't it a choral scholarship he won in his youth? Did he not work as ''cantor'' for 27 years? He seems to have had been a singer more than he was a violist or violinist. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
The page numbers for footnote 101 is incorrect. It should be David, Mendel & Wolff 1998, pp. 251-252, not pg. 191–197. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Unsubstantiated claim at footnote 93 == |
|
== It should be "Sebastian Bach" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
With "Johann Sebastian Bach" in the opening paragraph. Just like it's "Joseph Haydn" and then "Franz Joseph Haydn" in the paragraph. Nobody called him Johann. He was Sebastian. ] (]) 19:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
Hi--a first-timer here, be merciful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Doesn't matter. The majority of secondary reliable sources call him Johann Sebastian Bach, so Misplaced Pages does too. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 19:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
This sentence: "The structure of the Easter Oratorio, BWV 249, resembles The Crucifixion." has footnote 93, which links here: http://www.bach.org/bach101/other_vocal/easter_oratorio.html |
|
|
|
::The preeminent biography of Bach, Christoph Wolff's ''JS Bach, the learned musician'', calls him "Sebastian". ] ] 02:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yes, but the average person is more likely to know him as "Johann Sebastian Bach," so per ] the current title should be kept. ] (]) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
That's the first time I've run into that idea; and since I'm researching the Easter Oratorio now, I was eager to read the argument. The link does lead to text describing the Easter Oratorio, but nowhere in that text, as far as I can see, does the author make the claim that the structure of the piece resembles the Crucifixion. I'd be sorry to see the only sentence mentioning this piece be struck from the Bach article, but it ought to be either properly substantiated or replaced. Thanks.] (]) 11:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::The biography's title is "Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician"..... '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I agree with your assessment of the source; the sentence should be removed. However, I think that source ought to be mentioned in the ] article as external link. -- ] (]) 13:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{anchor|Birthday}} |
|
|
== Infobox proposal == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox person |
|
|
| name = Johann Sebastian Bach |
|
|
| image = Johann Sebastian Bach.jpg |
|
|
| caption = Portrait of Johann Sebastian Bach by ], 1748 |
|
|
| alt = Bust of an old man,dressed in a black jacket, wearing a white wig, holding a piece of music |
|
|
| birth_date = {{birth date|1685|03|21|df=y}}<br />({{OldStyleDate|31 March|1685|21 March}}) |
|
|
| birth_place = ], ] |
|
|
| death_date = {{death date and age|1750|07|28|1685|3|31|df=y}} |
|
|
| death_place = ] |
|
|
| occupation = {{Flatlist | |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| years_active = {{Plainlist| |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1703}}|end_date={{End date|1707}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1707}}|end_date={{End date|1708}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1708}}|end_date={{End date|1717}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1717}}|end_date={{End date|1723}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1723}}|end_date={{End date|1750}}|location=]}} ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| style = ] |
|
|
| denomination = ] |
|
|
| spouse = {{Plainlist | |
|
|
* ] (1707–1720) |
|
|
* ] (1721–1750) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| children = {{Plainlist | |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* {{nowrap|]}} |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| signature = Johann Sebastian Bach signature.svg |
|
|
| module = {{tl|Johann Sebastian Bach}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
I suggest an infobox, which includes a link to his navbox --] (]) 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Bach Italy France == |
|
:I do not. ] (]) 14:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bach did not travel to Italy or FRance. ] (]) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::No comment on whether there could/should be an infobox, but a link to a template's page when that template is <u>already transcluded on the article page</u> is completely inappropriate for any infobox. ] (]) 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Thanks. Fixed. Someone added that a couple weeks ago as part of an erroneous copyedit. I restored an earlier version of the sentence (other rewordings are possible of course). ] ] 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Support''' Infoboxes are very useful and provide a great overview of a topic. Many people often use them. ] ] 15:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::The infobox would add nothing to the article. It's useless. ] (]) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::: You are badly informed. The infobox would add the following classes to information in the article: vcard; fn; bday; birthplace; dday; deathdate; deathplace; role; vevent; dtstart; dtend; location; category. None of those are included in the article at present. All of those make the job of scraping information from the article much easier for third-party re-users. In addition, an infobox can be used by more sophisticated tools to extract and aggregate information in ways that you don't seem to be aware of - see for some of the possibilities. Additionally, we expect a brief summary overview of a topic at the top right of Misplaced Pages articles. |
|
|
::: Now, if you want to argue that the infobox doesn't look right to you; or takes up too much room; or that this sort of subject can lead to misleading summaries which are over-simplified, then you would at least have a credible argument. But the "add nothing/useless" argument was discredited five years ago, and rolling it out again does tend to insult our intelligence. --] (]) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I oppose infoboxes for the reasons that have been repeated many times in discussions like this one, as well as visual reasons, just to be clear. ] (]) 04:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: The box opposite would mislead the reader into thinking that Bach was equally important as a cantor, organist, and conductor as a composer. In any case giving pre-modern composers 'occupations' is anachronistic. The pro-boxers never seem to get the anachronism thing. Did none of them ever study history? --'']]'' 03:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: That's a valid argument, but falls short by ignoring the point that having the information does not always imply equivalent importance (however importance may be judged). What it does do is allow Google (or whoever) to answer a question like "Was Bach a singer?" quite quickly because they can make semantic relationships between "Was X a Y?" and "occupation=Y" even it is anachronistic. Once you establish that a "Cantor belongs to the set of types of singer", then the answer can be supplied automatically. Not only did some of us study history, we also studied linguistics and information processing. YMMV --] (]) 03:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::]: Ha! I think you need to read ]. This is quite amusing! You've now demonstrated that this infobox can actually be an infotrap, or should I say a ], leading the innocent reader to the wrong conclusion! '']]'' 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: You mean the right conclusion, surely. Bach was indisputably an accomplished singer from his youth. Nevertheless you may have a point if there are examples of cantors who were not singers, so I take your objection seriously. There will always need to be a balance between supplying information and over-simplification. The answer is to be smarter about how we supply information, not to suppress it. --] (]) 04:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Bach was a child singer. The cantor post was that of a (musical) schoolmaster. Did he perform as an adult? Was he a tenor or a bass? It would be interesting if you could provide some information — with sources. The current article doesn't explain anything much about Bach's singing, despite the (apparent) suggestion from the infobox that this was a notable aspect of his work. '']]'' 04:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment/mild oppose''' Avoiding infoboxes seems to be common practice for composers. Of the first five classical composers I checked at random (], ], ], ], ]), all followed the same infobox-less format. This appears to be something of a standard for these projects. ] states "It is the consensus of this WikiProject that the lead should not contain an infobox, per ], "without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page". Which in turn says “We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page.” So I'd lean towards oppose unless there was a good reason this article should be different. ] (]) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
**That may well be the consensus of a WikiProject, but the RfC called by members of the project concluded that "WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations", which is what you you cite, "but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per PumpkinSky & RexxS. An infobox such as that shown here would have enabled ] to quickly answer their own question, for example. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' as reductionist, unbalanced, and contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals. As has been previously noted, there is no technical reason why the metadata Rex supports above could not be provided in a less obtrusive manner. <small>Note: I've also changed the section header to better reflect the topic being discussed.</small> ] (]) 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
**Not only are infoboxes not "contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals"; their emission of metadata has been praised by the WMF's technical director. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
***You are mistaken: one of the WMF's key goals is to attract new editors in general and women in particular, and to increase accessibility for these groups. The complexity of wikimarkup - being confronted with a wall of template text upon hitting the edit button - is one of the most commonly cited reasons for both groups not becoming editors. ] (]) 01:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
**** But the counter-argument, Nikki, is that filling in a template with informative labels is much easier and more natural than writing the raw html to supply useful classes for re-users. I do accept though that new editors often find the edit box and wiki-markup a barrier, although my experience is that new women editors are just as capable of dealing with those barriers as men. We should be looking for better technological solutions like the visual editor and collapsible editing elements (so the ''editor'' doesn't see the content of templates until they expand them) to encourage new editors, not repressing our current technology because it's less than perfect. --] (]) 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
***** {{Diff|Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach|546165785|546160315|Per your edit summary}} Fighting with women doesn't do much for the atmosphere, to be honest. There probably is something to be said for the argument that women in general are more likely to walk away from bullying - and there has been more than a bit of bullying in the infobox issues. I think in that sense Nikki's argument is quite strong. ] (]) 03:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*****Rex, expecting a new editor to deal with a large template as the first thing they see when they hit edit is not any more reasonable than asking them to use another method to supply classes...but why on earth should we expect newbies to be doing those tasks? (I do agree with you about the wiki-markup being no more or less intimidating because of my gender, but the publications appear to disagree with us on this point, and of course TK also has a very valid point). I also agree that we should be looking for technological solutions, which is what I said in my initial post - find a less obtrusive way of providing this data to reusers, rather than continuing to push a poor substitute. ] (]) 03:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
****** I don't think we disagree on the effect on new editors, Nikki: I accept that in full, but I just don't accept that women cope less well with wikimarkup than men. As I've trained dozens of new editors - both men and women - over the last year or so, I'm going to claim some insight, anecdotal at least. Sadly, it has taken us years to make progress on the visual editor and it's still got some distance to go, so we put up with wikimarkup, on the assumption that new editors don't have to use it because it can be tweaked later. I still see infoboxes and citation templates in the same light: article improvements from a technical perspective, but they have to be balanced against other valid issues. At present only infoboxes do the job we want for Google and other re-users, probably because the problem of creating a non-intrusive replacement is not trivial. If we ask a developer to provide us with a substitute, how do we answer them when they reply, "You already have something that does that job for you"? --] (]) 03:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
******* As a woman (and yes only a single example) I have to disagree. I'm not entirely unsavvy techwise, but I find templates to be difficult and intrusive in the edit window. If I have to fight about them, as I've spent much of the last year doing, then I'll withdraw my volunteer time spent writing here. This article can do with a great deal of maintenance and clean-up - i.e there are over 30 redundant links creating a great deal of unnecessary blue. Rather than fighting yet another infobox war, and I find this to be provocative at best, perhaps someone should work on bringing it back to GA status. If we're only concerned about the tidbits given to Google, then an entire section of the editor base is unneeded - and the women will leave first because to them this is not a video game to be played over and over. ] (]) 03:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*******Saying "something exists" has not been a barrier to saying "create something new" for the devs - cf. initiatives like Article Feedback. To my knowledge things like persondata, which also provide metadata, have never been objected to...because those, unlike this, are unobtrusive. Surely that template family could be improved/expanded to serve the purposes you require? ] (]) 12:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
********I believe I have previously referred you to the ]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
****I teach Misplaced Pages editing, to a variety of audiences, and estimate a 60% female attendance. I've yet to encounter a woman who couldn't understand and edit an infobox. However, your allegation is one worthy of further investigation. I invite you to make that point in an RfC proposing to remove all infoboxes form Misplaced Pages. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*****I invite you to re-read the above and respond to what I actually said. ] (]) 13:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
**I decided to sleep on it, but I woke this morning still troubled by the "infoboxes are contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals because their mark-up is complex and confronting (especially to women)" argument – which, in the absence of empirical or statistical evidence, has to be treated as (sorry to say) a guess. |
|
|
::Articles have many edit buttons, and I don't believe that new editors are likely to start with the one at the top (thus avoiding the infobox syntax); instead, they are more likely to click the edit button for a section (as a result of reading something they wish to update ''within the bulk of the article''). Evidence for that claim? Looking over the history for this article (and discounting vandalism, reverts, bots, and scripted edits), the vast majority of edits have edit summaries that start with a grey comment (the section heading). |
|
|
::Perhaps it's the enlightened part of the world in which I live, but I find (what amounts to) an argument that new editors (and especially women) are less likely to be able to scroll past a well-structured listing of infobox parameter=value pairs (all in clear English) to be, frankly demeaning. In contrast, strong empirical evidence has been presented ("I've yet to encounter a woman who couldn't understand and edit an infobox" – from a teacher of Misplaced Pages editing). A many-more times difficult-to-surmount editing challenge is to get past the vast swathes of in-line referencing/citation syntax (for which WP has developed efficient and elegant alternatives); but watch all hell break loose when an attempt is made to implement those alternatives in music-related articles – in an attempt to simplify the editing challenge for new and casual editors. If you are to adopt a fight about what is "contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals", could I respectively suggest that you help those of us who are trying to drag music-related article referencing out of the nineteenth century? |
|
|
::Template {{tl|Infobox person}} is used on at least articles, so the ship on whether they are "contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals" has well-and-truly sailed, and is not a cogent argument to be applied to a single instance of debate here. |
|
|
::"Put parameter=value pairs in other mechanisms such as Persondata" argument has exactly the same problem as raised by others here – to do with the over-simplification and distortion of summary information (and you can safely forget the extension of Persondata to encompass composer-related fields). I am sympathetic to that point of view, but what I'm not sympathetic to is the "this is too hard to solve therefore we shouldn't even try" approach that is evident here. Misplaced Pages has numerous talented editors and programmers, and just because a problem is difficult doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted, nor does it mean that there isn't a solution. I propose that a workshop page is created and that all of us start to kick around the parameters, ideas, problems, and solutions that could make this work for all of WP's readers (and yes, that includes those who quickly want summary information). That doesn't mean that a solution will definitely be found (let alone implemented), but at least we can say that we gave it a significant shot (and the considered and patient input from those who understand the problems would be more than welcome). |
|
|
::It will be interesting in this case to see if the closer looks beyond the "as per" votes and instead tries to get to the consensus of substantive debate? ("Oppose Per obvious"?) In other words, "]". Anyhow, I've had more than my fair share of input now, so I'll leave it alone. Could someone please let me know if/when a serious attempt is made to see if a solution to this is possible (because I would love to be involved)? Cheers. |
|
|
::] ] 22:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You might consider ''looking'' for empirical evidence before stating that there is none. To give you a quick example, specifically cites infoboxes as impediments to new editors ("the ease of editing around wiki syntax drastically decreased as the complexity of the article increased and included infoboxes"). Sue Gardner has also technological barriers as a reason why women don't edit. Your evidence regarding section vs whole-article editing is inaccurate because most of the edits you examined were by experienced editors, not newbies. suggests section-edit buttons as currently designed are confusing to newbies, and a quick look at new and anon edits at Special:RecentChanges finds far fewer section edits than your statement suggests. As to "this is too hard to solve therefore we shouldn't even try" - we ''should'' try, but pushing a flawed model because we haven't yet developed something better doesn't qualify as "trying". Instead, I would encourage you to go ahead and create that workshop page. ] (]) 03:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I look forward to you taking up my suggestion to start an RfC proposing the removal of all infoboxes from Misplaced Pages. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Per Nikkimaria, and the many many many other previously made arguments against infoxboxed being imposed on this subject area. ] (]) 23:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. This infobox has the typical problems of infoboxes. (1) It gives very prominent representation to not-very-important data, such as the sequence of minor German cities Bach lived in while starting his career. (2) The shoehorning of information into the infobox format introduces factual distortions; in particular, a reader of the infobox might think that Bach had only four children (a spectacularly wrong conclusion, as you will learn if you read the article text). Unlike some editors above, I think we should ''not'' customize WP for readers who just want to browse for trivia -- we are a reference source, not a trivia outlet, and other WP policies emphasize this point.] (]) 00:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Did you notice that - in order not to make the infobox too long - it has at the bottom a link to the navbox which provides a timeline of his compositions and much more? It would be easy to add how many more children he had, --] (]) 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is true, Gerda -- but on the other hand, it makes the infobox longer and longer. Take a look any chemical element article to see the nightmare this can lead to. Also, please note that I mentioned the kids as an example of ''inaccuracy'', but it's also an example of ''trivia that should not be prominently displayed''. Both are problems for infoboxes. Yours truly, ] (]) 00:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And also above I see, its not just anymore about making the article easier for supposed two second page hoppers, but reducing so as to make it easier for "third-party re-users" to "scrape". ] (]) 00:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Why the scare-quotes? Do you have a problem with our content being re-used? Did you even look at from a Google talk dated 2008? Infoboxes have ''always'' had a function in presenting data in a fairly standard way as well as marking up ]s - both of which are used by third parties. --] (]) 02:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::"Did you even look at Intelligence in Misplaced Pages from a Google talk dated 2008". Read what you said there again. In all fairness. I have a problem with content being subverted for secondary use. ] (]) 00:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Per Opus33. The oversimplification mandated by the infobox concept seems particularly ill-advised for articles on artists of all sorts, including composers. The complex nature of "classical" music in particular resists this sort of Disneyfication. Dumbing down Misplaced Pages composer articles like this trivializes the article. Save it for the "Classical Music for Doofuses" websites.—] (]) 00:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per several, including Opus and JK. We have to take a stand somewhere against the dumbing-down of Misplaced Pages. Infoboxes compete against the article, and lazy eyes pick up their oversimplifications, trivia, and distortions. We're an encyclopedia, not a trivia site, and only the ''article itself'' can present the appropriate nuance. To casual readers: read the first paragraph. ] ] 01:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
**In the case of the causal reader referred to above, the opening paragraph does not mention Bach's two marriages. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
***Bach is not famous for having been married twice. Your argument is an excellent example of exactly why we should ''not'' have the infobox -- since it privileges the unimportant. ] ] 01:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
****Since my argument is not that Bach is "famous for having been married twice", your response appears to use the ''straw man'' fallacy. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Infoboxes are useful for biographical articles in a handful of categories—professional athletes for instance, whose uniform numbers and career statistics can be presented in quick-reference reductionist format without making a mockery of their life's work—but are generally detrimental in articles about artists. ] (]) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*blah blah blah infoboxes suck and should never be on composer articles because they are just so special and anyone who wants them is a lazy idiot. blah blah blah (etc.) (and in case you didn't get it, that was a parody of the arguments that people usually use. Over and over and over again. And again. Ad nausum) ] (]) 02:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Nikkimaria, Opus33, Jerome Kohl, Antandrus, and Ewulp, all of whom have made '''strong arguments against trivialising this article''' about one of the greatest and most important composers of all time. --'']]'' 03:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. I don't believe that an Infobox is trivialising or dumbing-down. It is about supplying information to a wide range of readers – something WP is in a unique position to do. I choose not to assume the worst about our readers; instead, I believe that each reader will get out of our articles what we can supply and what they want – and if a reader comes to the article to find obvious facts, then it is WP's duty to present such information in a consistent way across similar articles. BTW, the bulk of the article is still there for those who want to dig (and really dig sometimes because similar information for Bach, Handel, Mozart, Cage, etc. is always presented differently in the prosaic text). I have written a large amount of WP-database XML scraping software, and it is a refreshing change to find well-formatted infoboxes that allow me to acquire information consistently (so there really is a downstream argument in this debate). The wise approach here would not be to jettison the suggestion with trivialisations, but to work on improving the infobox layout so that it is both useful and unobtrusive. Such an approach might be to create collapsible sections (such as already happens with {{tl|Handel}}). I am dismayed about (what I can only describe as) the Luddite mentality that pervades composer and music pages (as I frequently see in referencing/citation discussions), and I live in hope that one day a refreshing and clean wind will breeze through – dragging these articles out of their current appearance (which can best be described as being from a nineteenth-century book). Discussing this in an intelligent, calm, considerate, and open-minded way would be a very good place to start. ] ] 04:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
**It would be most helpful to discuss this in a calm and considerate manner, yes. ] (]) 13:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per ] and the other "oppose" votes here. ] (]) 04:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
**WP:COMPOSERS is not binding here. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''', a piece of clutter which is contra ] policy for very good reasons many of which are given above. It is rather naughty to use Bach as a catspaw in trying to change this - it would be more polite and transparent to engage discussion at the project page.--] (]) 07:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
**WP:COMPOSERS is not binding here; and nor does a single project have control (this article is under the umbrella of many). <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Note''': A single project has been {{Diff|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers|prev|546101329|selectively canvassed}} about this debate. Readers are invited to guess which, before visiting that link. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
**Hmmm...perhaps the one with which this subject would be most strongly associated? Note also {{Diff|Template talk:Infobox classical composer|546186530|488847647|the other side}}. ] (]) 12:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
***{{tl|Infobox composer}} is hardly "the other side". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' Not always a fan of infoboxes on biographies but I feel this would be an improvement.♦ ] 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Worthless, reductionist techno-clutter with the usual ] problems with focus on trivia. Also, this is an encyclopaedia for humans, not a database for computers. --] (]) 15:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
** '''Note''': the above comment was changed after another editor had referred to it. It previously said "Oppose Per obvious plus other well-argued opposes." <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. I really thought about not getting involved in this, as I generally find the infobox wars more trouble than they're worth, but Antandrus's arguments have convinced me it's worth opposing. Aside from the "dumbing down" issue, itself undesirable in my opinion, the real issue for me is the emphasis on trivial details that Antandrus points out. This is sufficient reason to exclude the infobox. ] ] 04:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Opposed''' to adding an infobox in this particular article unless it contains <u>only</u> the dates and cities of his birth and death and the simple fact (not expressed as an "occupation") that he was a composer. Nothing else. ] (]) 09:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
**Noted that you don't want to include his name(!), portrait, or image of his signature. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' – per the excellent points made by Kleinzach, Opus33, Jerome Kohl, Antandrus, Ewulp and Folantin, which in my view boil down to showing that this "infobox" (yes, they are scarequotes) is unhelpful, possibly downright confusing, for the interested reader. -- ] (]) 11:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Name: John Bach == |
|
===Gerda's three comments=== |
|
|
I suggest that even if some seem not to welcome an infobox now, we can think about a future. I would like to find out if the general {{tl|person}} can be changed to suit our needs better, or if we have to create a more specialised one, example: {{para|occupation}}. Please keep in mind that the proposal is only a first approach, to be discussed. - Personal note: a friend died, let's be patient. --] (]) 08:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Russian, Mikola Gogol is called Nikolai Gogol. Johann Bach should also be called John Bach. ] (]) 11:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
==== Bach is a vital article ==== |
|
|
I believe that Bach is of wider interest than for only project composer, that's why I brought the topic here. Bach is a vital article, as other artists such as ] and ]. Readers and editors seem to be able to deal with infoboxes there. If editors are not trusted to understand the edit-mode of an infobox, there could be a helpful comment at its beginning. I am female, I didn't need it ;) --] (]) 08:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:........ '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 15:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
==== Bach as a composer ==== |
|
|
|
:That his name in translated into Russia to a word that is equivalent to "John" in English doesn't change that fact that he is known to English speakers as "Johann". Misplaced Pages goes by what is commonly used in English and does not attempt to translate names based on some systematic scheme. ] (]) 18:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Project composer has found solutions for infoboxes on composers for ], ] and others, after interesting discussions. A key feature was to stay factual and avoid parameters such as {{para|known_for}} and {{para|influenced}}. --] (]) 08:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Looking forward to the article on ] —] (]) 16:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
==== Single parameters ==== |
|
|
The proposal is only a suggestion, we can discuss which fields should be included, and what part of every single one should be shown. I didn't include works because they are covered well in the navbox, and a duplication seems not desirable. (Needless to say, if the navbox was transcluded in an infobox it would not have to be repeated at the bottom.) I was surprised that both Bach's wives have an article, good to know in "Women in history"-month, --] (]) 08:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''{{Diff|User:Voceditenore/TemporaryDrafts8||546239629|This}}''' is what the infobox would look like if you <u>transcluded</u> the navbox. Did you mean simply linking to it instead? If so, using {{tl|Johann Sebastian Bach}} with the curly brackets is a terrible way to link, it's counter-intuitive and counter the MOS. For inexperienced readers and editors, the curly brackets are quite mysterious. In any case, no, it wouldn't make the footer navboxes redundant. Believe it or not, many, many readers ignore the infobox and actually read the article, all the way to the bottom. Even if they skim, they, and most editors, are expecting the navboxes to be at the foot of the page. To avoid confusion, you'd have to transclude all three Bach navboxes into the infobox, i.e. '''{{Diff|User:Voceditenore/TemporaryDrafts8||546238721|this}}'''. For people with short attention spans, no time, inability to read English, and/or roaming data-bots (the alleged reasons why we "need" infoboxes) how do those seas of links transcluded in (or linked from) the infobox enhance their knowledge, quickly, transparently, and without distortion? Even if you transcluded all of them, they still wouldn't tell the reader that Bach had more than 4 children, or contextualise the assertion that one of his "occupations" was "singer". ] (]) 10:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks, sorry that I used the wrong term, I meant link (I actually saw what transcluding leads to, by mistake.). Would you rather recommend to list works in an infobox? Any way to avoid their repetition (which is likely to cause errors)? - Number of children: normally I don't mention children at all, as too private information. Children with an article are a different story. --] (]) 22:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::A compromise infobox is still an infobox. ] (]) 00:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Gerda, I am opposed to adding an infobox in this article unless it contains <u>only</u> the dates and cities of his birth and death and the fact (not expressed as an "occupation") that he was a composer. ] (]) 08:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2024 == |
|
===Summary deletion and reversion of archive tags=== |
|
|
]: you have deleted my last message to this talk page. You have also reverted my closure (with archive tags). You are entitled to revert the closure, ''but'' not to delete the message. Kindly put it back, GFHandel. '''''Now.''''' '']]'' 01:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't think there's any need to be hostile with bold italics, particularly as the primary cause of this whole situation was the inappropriate closure by an involved editor, not the revert thereof. As GFHandel doesn't seem to be around now, I've gone ahead and restored the comment with a note that it refers to a now-reverted closure. Tweak as necessary. ] ] 04:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, ''"the primary cause of this whole situation"'' was the proposal on 21 March that started this discussion. Was the proposal in ]? I'll leave that question open. --'']]'' 05:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Your closure was inappropriate (not least for the reasons given by Heimstern Läufer); as is your questioning of Gerda's good faith. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 07:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Johann Sebastian Bach|answered=yes}} |
|
===Summary of now-reverted closure=== |
|
|
|
J.S> Bach was born on the 31 March 1685, not 21 March 1685. ] (]) 09:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
The proposal is rejected. Only a small minority of editors wish to see an bio-infobox for this article. This is one of a series of recent attempts to introduce boxes to articles where there is an existing and ongoing consensus not to use them. This kind of proposal wastes the time of ''all'' editors, pro or anti-box, who could be contributing productively and harmoniously to the improvement of the content of the encyclopaedia. I am now archiving this. Let's put Bach first, and forget about ]. Let's move on. '']]'' 00:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> Sincerely, ] (she/they) (]) 09:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:<small>The above summary was initially accompanied by an archiving of this discussion, but was reverted by ], saying "You cannot close. You are involved, and discussion is ongoing." ] ] 04:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
:{{a note}}<!-- Template:ESp --> marked the request as answered. The request can be reactivated by following the instructions on the banner. ] (]) 10:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I'd be interested to see the evidence for the claimed "''existing and ongoing consensus''". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 07:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
There is an interesting NYU law school paper discussion of Bach’s contract as Thomaskantor here that may be worthwhile to integrate into and reference within that section. Zatsugaku (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
With "Johann Sebastian Bach" in the opening paragraph. Just like it's "Joseph Haydn" and then "Franz Joseph Haydn" in the paragraph. Nobody called him Johann. He was Sebastian. Borges123xyz (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
faq page Frequently asked questions
Why does this article say Bach's birthday was March 31, when many other sources say it was March 21?
Due to the change from the Julian calendar ("Old Style") to the Gregorian calendar ("New Style"), both dates are valid: March 21 in Old Style dates, March 31 in New Style. Misplaced Pages uses New Style dates, but also includes the Old Style in small print – hence the "(OS 21 March)" notation. See Old Style and New Style dates for more details.
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 09:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: marked the request as answered. The request can be reactivated by following the instructions on the banner. NotAGenious (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
