small bag of holding

I usually watchlist talkpage threads for a few days, so please reply in original threads.

If you leave a new message here, I will probably reply here, unless requested otherwise.

Infobox Classical musician

Note to self: User:Quiddity/composers and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC

Ravpapa (talk · contribs) seems interested in designing a new Infobox for classical musicians, also. A collaborative effort by two knowledgeable editors would be far better than efforts of a single editor that hasn't a clue what he's doing (i.e. me). I've requested that my old deleted userspace be undeleted for your convenience, also. The 2007 attempt by Turangalila (talk · contribs) is also worth a look: User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer. That's basically where my attempt stemed from. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 22:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the extended box is fine. I can think of lots of additional information I would like to see presented in a structured way (for example, genres (symphony, piano, chamber, opera, etc), main cities of residence (Vienna, Salzburg, ...), and more. But considering the politics surrounding the issue, and the vituperation it inspires, I think that less is better. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to word the documentation advice concerning the fields "Era", "Styles/schools", and "Principal_genres" (at User:Quiddity/composers/doc#Long example). Please have a go, or suggest a delegate who might be good at an initial go (it'll all get refined eventually :) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Styles: Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Late Romantic, Impressionist, 12-tone, Modern. I think any finer resolution is likely to case problems.

Principal genres: Symphonic, Piano, Chamber music, Opera, Vocal, other. Other would include composers like Gesualdo (who wrote only madrigals), or composers who wrote for a single instrument (Devienne, who wrote for flute). --Ravpapa (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For Styles, I think I've had them accidentally swapped/mixed with Eras? Please tweak what I've currently got at User:Quiddity/composers/doc#Long example. I'm going to sleep on it :) -- Quiddity (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to work on the infobox. As stated, I won't personally use it (at least, certainly not in the foreseeable future) it but others may find it useful --Jubilee♫clipman 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Good job! I'm standing well back for now but watching... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a thread (that I'll add to the rfc page) for discussing the example box. It needs some more work first though. Tomorrow hopefully, as time allows. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry just seen this!) Looking good. Thank you again (Have you spoken to that other editor yet, BTW?) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't talked to Ravpapa yet, I'll get on that after supper.

I'll go through the discussions again, and do some final revisions, and add a couple more examples, tonight or tomorrow. Then I'll add it to the discussion thread. Thanks for your feedback (and general diplomacy and insight) throughout this :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of the sensitivities of members of the project, I would probably avoid style altogether, and leave era (or period). Because style can cause endless arguments, especially when discussing modern composers. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Quiddity - perhaps my/your discussion at the sandbox should be moved here? More central and open...! --Jubilee♫clipman 15:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved below. Style field removed (and added to the "left out" section). -- Quiddity (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

discussion moved from User:Quiddity/sandbox to here, regarding my draft of proposal thread:

It might be useful to add several examples: (a) the disclaimer, I do not mean this to imply that "x" should have an infobox, is enough, and (b) there is nothing to stop anyone using the box—that's the point! (No WP-approved guidelines actually preclude/prescribe infoboxes at all.) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added one more example at the documentation page. I'm thinking that I'll sleep on it, and post this in the afternoon/evening, after checking in with you :) Feel free to overhaul/tweak my wording however you deem helpful. It's kinda pointform at the moment.... _zzzzzzZZZ-- Quiddity (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks again for taking the time to do this! --Jubilee♫clipman 14:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I wonder if if it could be widened a little to include classical musicians in general? I'll add a lead to the documemtation explaining that this one is for composers but note that no classical musician has a specific infobox! --Jubilee♫clipman 14:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OTOH, I can see a strong advantantage in restricting it to composers: lack of over-fielding... As it stands, the info box is fine. Maybe just reduce the clutter in the doc by removing some of the less important links? (Leave the RfC link there though obviously...!) --Jubilee♫clipman 14:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Folantin makes a good point over at the RfC: perhaps the documentation should use only contemporary composers for its examples...? (Riley and and a reworked Bradley Joseph would do, I suspect) --Jubilee♫clipman 15:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Removing the Styles/schools field was a good decision which I almost made myself but left to your judgement based on Ravpapa's advice --Jubilee♫clipman 02:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm done prodding User:Quiddity/sandbox into shape. Do you think that looks ready to be pasted into the RfC thread? Anything that could be phrased better? (I've sent discussions off on bad-tangents with a poorly-placed word that gets a hostile/defensive reaction, more times than I can count... ;)

Also, I've added 2 long examples to User:Quiddity/composers/doc. Do you still think we need to remove Vivaldi from there? I was hoping that the usefulness of having the "Lists of works" links in the infobox might find some interested parties... ? -- Quiddity (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Go for it. And thanks for the effort. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded --Jubilee♫clipman 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings -- pardon me for butting in (I just saw this rolling by on recent changes) -- the things that jump out of the Granados box are 1) Spain or Catalonia? It's been contentious, and will continue to be (maybe put in both with a slash separating?); 2) historical era? most musicologists would probably tag him as "nationalist" first, and maybe "romantic" second, but he doesn't fit neatly into a category; 3) genres? He's by far and away best known as a composer of piano music. The birth and death are fortunately unambiguous. I'd strongly recommend against having a list of works in any box -- except for one-hit-wonders, it's just too subjective. Just my unsolicited opinion ... cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Antandrus raises some important points but I think these should be raised on the RfC now, personally. You have gone as far as you can for now and further commenting/refactoring etc will need a far wider participation that us four --Jubilee♫clipman 03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gay (word)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gay (word), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gay (word). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Wolfkeeper 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I dare you to vote keep.

If you don't vote keep, you're basically admitting to stalking and block reverting me.- Wolfkeeper 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. (-17,120) tends to stand out. I was about to selfrevert, as it is indeed currently a cfork (with complications), but you afd'd it first. I'll give details at the afd, where everyone can benefit. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)