Template talk:Infobox classical composer/Archive 1

Notes for converting Infobox musical artist to use this

Most fields are the same, so it's a fairly easy switch. A few fields are added; a few (agreed upon) are lost. Fields that need to be checked:

• Occupation - if it only contains a single value ("Composer") then remove this field from the article. If more than one, then change the field-title to "Occupations".
• Era - this field and value can be added - see /doc page for the suggested values to use.
• List of works - this field and value can be added

All other fields can be deleted. (specifically: Background, Origin, Instrument, Years_active, Label, URL, Notable_instruments)

Ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes (or me) for any future assistance. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox

Anyone mind if I convert this to use the meta template {{infobox}}. This is assuming that there is no significant change to its appearance of course. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do. I tried at one point, but never got back to it. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Version in the /sandbox and examples on /testcases. The only real difference seems to be the width, which is 22em. I believe this is the usual "recommended" infobox width. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is (with the typefaces my system uses) the "Historical era(s)" heading gets linewrapped at that width. If you can solve that, then everything else is good to go. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It gets wrapped my end, also. Pretty minor problem, IMO. Perhaps we need to think a little more about the title of that field, if it is an issue... (!) (See my question about plurals, also, though: getting rid of the brackets might shorten the title enough to resolve the issue.) --Jubilee♫clipman 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing the plural didn't change it. Solved with a non-breaking space ( ).

Other changes are good to go, MSGJ. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Parameters

Can I suggest some simplification of the names of the parameters?

• Using all lowercase is easier to type, i.e. "occupations" instead of "Occupations".
• "image" might be clearer than "Img".

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me --Jubilee♫clipman 21:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, if those tweaks synchronise it with our standards elsewhere. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Plurals

Tony1 mentioned the ugliness of e.g. "Historical era(s)". Any more on that? IIRC, Quiddity asked the infobox project and got some feedback: was it practicable? --Jubilee♫clipman 22:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

1 reply - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Plurals - I don't know which is preferable. Probably #3? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably. However, given that the vast majority of composers that the box will be applied to are listed in ony one era then singular "Historical era" is likely to be the default, IMO: I'd just run with that personally --Jubilee♫clipman 00:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Another parameter can be used to add an "s" for the plural. For example I just set it up so that |eras=yes produces this. But there is no automatic way to do this ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good compromise for now. We can probably thrash this out case-by-case, anyway, I suspect. Did you update the documentation to explain how to use that extra parameter? Do we need to update it, indeed? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure the documentation will need updating. Just wanted to run it by you first. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly works, so I would run with it personally --Jubilee♫clipman 14:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Experiment in a real article

Gavin Bryars: I replaced {{Infobox musical artist}}. Can't see anyone objecting to that and it looks good, IMO. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I got reverted... :( --Jubilee♫clipman 09:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this template is the result of extensive discussion at the classical composers project. It was deleted on the sly, without alerting anyone on the project of the intent to delete it. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I consulted with the deleting admin, User:Plastikspork, who restored it to my userspace, and suggested that I restore it pending further discussion at the project. That discussion has taken place, and I have restored it.

You can read the discussions regarding this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers.

--Ravpapa (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Moments later: Please remove the speedy deletion template quickly, as it now shows up on all pages using the template.Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dishonest comment in TfD summary box

The claim above that the 17 December 2011 TfD "decision was later reversed by deleting admin because of lack of notification of interested parties and discussion" is a lie (no diffs can be provided to substantiate it). The closing admin made no such judgement, nor action; they only recreated the template in userspace; and it was only then recreated in template-space by another editor. The bogus comment should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion between Ravpapa and Plastikspork (the closing admin) can be found on Plastikspork's talk page. Although Andy expresses himself rather too strongly, I would agree with him that the discussion is mischaracterised in the {{Tfd end}} comment. I have therefore amended it to something that I feel is rather more accurate - and hopefully neutral. Please feel free to discuss here if you can find a more appropriate comment. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox discussion at JS Bach

There is currently a discussion about using an Infobox on the JS Bach article. Although on a composer-specific page, the discussion is mentioning other composers and general issues to do with infoboxes (which could be helped with input from knowledgeable editors). GFHandel ♬  04:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Template:Infobox person

This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to {{Infobox person}}, a discussion which may also affect this template. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth

The doc now advises use of {{birth date and age}}, which requires a full date. However, as per WP:DOB the exact birth date should normally not be included in articles about living people unless it is widely published already, or has clearly been published with the approval of the person. Many editors seem to be automaically following this documetation and insertig full dates of birth where they should not. I have now included a warning about this and a suggestion to use {{birth year and age}} in the doc. DES ^(talk) 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Signature

Signature option would be an interesting addition. --Opus88888 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

In composer articles without this infobox, I notice it is common practice to include the signature when available. To encourage adoption of this template over the larger Template:Infobox_person, I concur on the inclusion of the fields: signature, signature_alt, and signature_size Seth Williamson (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Opus88888 and Sethwilliamson: After several months, no objection, so done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC).

I will also go for a signature as well.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)