Template talk:Infobox musical composition

Template-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

Please add "orchestrator" to the Infobox musical composition template. Ridgebackwolf (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I think the |composer= parameter works well for this; however, would like to hear other opinions if any. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Orchestrator refers only to a specific performance and should be filled in under Premiere. The "premiere_performers" parameter sort of fine for this purpose. Solidest (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

BWV size

In order to comply with our accessibility guidelines, could the custom font size applied to BWV numbers be removed? Per MOS:SMALLTEXT,

Avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size, such as most text within infoboxes, navboxes, and references sections. ... In no case should the resulting font size of any text drop below about 85% of the page's default font size.

Thanks, Graham (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Would you provide an example of the text that will be affected? It is below the quoted limit of 85%? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It's this line of the template code: | subheader = {{#if: {{{bwv|}}} | <div style="font-size: 85%;" class="summary">[[Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis|BWV]] {{{bwv}}}</div> | {{{subtitle|}}} }}. You can see an example of what the subheader looks like at Du wahrer Gott und Davids Sohn, BWV 23. The issue is that, as MOS:SMALLTEXT notes, "the general font size for infoboxes and navboxes is 88% of the page's default", so with the custom resizing in the above code, I believe it brings it down to about 74.8% of the standard article font size. Graham (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done no opposition so done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Update discussion: re-sorting + splitting parameters + adding new ones

Currently the parameters in the template are in a rather messy order, so I tried to group them into logical subgroups and make more sense to the order. I also linked the parameters to properties on wikidata, as there is a constant export from infobox or, conversely, some obvious parameters are missing, and thus it was important to see the white spots in the infobox. Changing the order is proposal #1. The new order is shown in the table.

status	{{Infobox musical composition}}	Wikidata property
dup	name / title
	native_name + native_name_lang
	subtitle
	image + border + alt	image (P18)
	image_size + image_upright
dup	caption / image_caption
	composer	composer (P86)
	translation
	full_title
	other_name
characteristics
	type
	form	form of creative work (P7937)
	genre	genre (P136)
	style
	–	movement (P135)
	key	tonality (P826)
new	tempo	tempo marking (P1558)
	time	time signature (P3440)
	–	chord progression (P6116)
	duration	duration (P2047)
composing
outdated,split,dup	composed + written
new	composing_date	inception (P571)
new	composing_place	location of creation (P1071)
	year
	period
	based_on	based on (P144)
text
new	lyricist	lyricist (P676)
new	librettist	librettist (P87)
should be used for texts only	text [text + author]	has lyrics (P6439)
outdated, dup	text_poet + cantata [printed as Cantata text]
outdated	chorale [text + author]
outdated	bible [book + chapter + verses]
	meter	used metre (P2551)
	language	language of work or name (P407)
cataloguing and series
	opus	opus number (P10855)
	catalogue	catalog code (P528)
	bwv [catalogue, but in header]
	movements	has part(s) (P527)
purpose
	dedication	dedicated to (P825)
	occasion	created for (P9883)
	client	commissioned by (P88)
recording and publication
ourdated,split	first_recording [date + place]
new	first_recording_date	recording date (P10135)
new	first_recording_place	recorded at studio or venue (P483)
ourdated,split	published [date + place]
new	publication_date	publication date (P577)
new	publication_place	place of publication (P291)
	publisher	publisher (P123)
	–
instrumentation
	scoring	instrumentation (P870)
outdated	vocal
outdated	instrumental
premiere
ourdated,split	performed
	premiere_date	date of first performance (P1191)
	premiere_location	location of first performance (P4647)
	premiere_conductor	musical conductor (P3300)
	–	orchestrator (P10806)
	premiere_performer	performer (P175)
connection with other works
	–	modified version of (P5059)
	–	derivative work (P4969)
	–	supplement to (P9234)
	–	adapted by (P5202)
	–	has melody (P1625)
	related
misc
	misc
media
	–	audio (P51)
	–	sheet music (P3030)

Also some of the parameters imply that both date and location should be written in at once, which I propose to split into two. Thus proposal 2 is to add the new parameters:

• tempo
• composing_date
• composing_place (both to gradually replace "composed" & "written")
• lyricist (general replacement for combined "cantata text" and "text")
• librettist
• first_recording_date
• first_recording_place (to replace the combined "first_recording")
• publication_date
• publication_place (to replace the combined "published").

Visually, we still can display the parameters in a single line, if that is preferable for someone but it would be better to have separate parameters, both for wikidata export and for for standardised filling and appearance. Also in the table I have marked the parameters as "outdated" that are losing their meaning as separate (this is in line with the discussions here in previous years) and that are gradually worth replacing with others. And you can also see some options (marked with dash) for adding to infobox in the future, if needed. Solidest (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking. Which tempo would Tempo be in a symphony? English isn't my first language, therefore "instrumentation" seemed to mean only instruments, not voices, - please explain. We still have editors who don't like infoboxes at all (see Robert le diable), and others who fight every extra line (see Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are examples for "tempo" for specific compositions, incl. symphonies: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1558#P1855 . Actually we should take this as a thing that sources list and which we can fill in based on them, respectively for different movements of symphonies sources list different tempos – such info is already listed in the articles text as far as I can see (or we can just left it blank for complex works and use it for more obvious cases).

We will still have "scoring" parameter in the infobox as combination of vocal + instrumental listing. While "instrumentation" wording is only wikidata's nuance that will not affect us (at the moment their "instrumentation" property has "scoring" in aka, and is used there for vocals as well - that's WD Music Project consensus to not split it and use it as it is for now, but this does not affect Wikipedia in any way). The opponents of infoboxes should not be concerned, because it's actually just a logical sorting and systematisation of what we already have. Yeah, and a couple of additional parameters, which I think are already widely used and specified in the articles, while infoboxes are designed to summarise the information from the article. Solidest (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Extraction of values from Wikidata should be optional, only when requested, not by default. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean from wikidata, but into wikidata. That's what I do, and there are also gadjet like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Infobox_export_gadget that allow this to be done automatically or services like HarvestTemplates, but the unsystematic (and partly illogical) selection of parameters hinders this. And in any case, systematicity is the goal towards which both infobox formatting and wikipedia as a whole are moving on. Solidest (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Trying to fill in tempi is way too complicated - some pieces will have multiple tempi even in a single movement. Some of the proposed splits would also preclude the use of timeline templates, which already support the proposed benefits of such a split. In general, the proposed changes seem to add complexity outweighing potential benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have examples of articles where dates and location cannot be broken down by individual parameters? Looking at https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+musical+composition I don't see any. And I can't think of any examples where this would be relevant. All such cases rather suggest that the infobox is overfilled and the information should be moved into the article. Infoboxes themselves are designed to structure information, not to be a loose counterpart to an article. And encouraging free, unsystematic filling of information directly contradicts the fundamental purpose of infoboxes. And when parameter names are listed loosely this is exactly what adds both complexity and looks discouraging to those seeing it for the first time. It took me a long time to figure out what a dozen of similar parameters in the infobox represent, only to then come to the conclusion that they are duplicates, written in loosely and printed in different parts of the infobox. THIS is exactly what adds complexity and deprives infoboxes of the benefits prior to systematic filling. Solidest (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, we now literally have "performed" param in which you are supposed to fill in premiere or "notable performances" without specifying what the notability is, i.e. the duality of this already makes it unclear how it will be filled in and how it will look to the reader. And yet we also have separate parameters "premiere_date" and "premiere_location" which simply cannot be taken ambiguously. And because we have such loose params we have such fillings like in Symphony No. 1 (Brian), where it is not clear why the two parameters are filled with different things. This is something we need to get rid of by making the parameter names as unambiguous as possible. And leaving those that can be implied to be filled with both dates and locations, texts and people – this definitely contradicts this approach. (Descriptions are no help here as well as they are often not followed, see how the "text" parameter is described and how it is populated in most cases - by listing author). Solidest (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The various dates for Brian's Symphony No. 1 are quite clear to the reader of the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

There's no various dates, only locations. Infoboxes are a brief summary of the subject matter of an article. How such a field give you an indication of what it is supposed to mean? The point is that "Performed: Royal Albert Hall, London" doesn't say anything about the difference between premiere section nor does it tell us why this performance is more important than all the subsequent ones. The article says that this one was "first professional" while the premiere was not. And when you see "Performed:" it doesn't tell you that. The parameters in the infoboxes should be precise enough so that no such questions arise.But this is just a special case. Probably in 90% of the places this parameter is filled in simply by premiers. Solidest (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

They are already broken down by the use of timeline templates.

I have no objection to removing the performed param, but forbidding any flexibility in providing details goes too far in the other direction. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)