Talk:Mass in C major, K. 220 "Sparrow"

Comment

Note to self: Look up who is A.B. in Compleat Mozart when E. D. U. returns it to me. James470 (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

NMA link

The NMA link now points to K 140. If it were obvious how the template works I would try to fix it myself... Sparafucil (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I don't get the NMA template at all either. I thought you could just plug in the K. number somewhere and it would work, but that's not the cae at all. James470 (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The norm in Wikipedia articles is to provide a very brief summary of key items in an infobox in the top right of an article. This provides a consistent framework element for re-users like Google to automatically extract information - see Intelligence in Wikipedia. It also marks up many items with standard classes that can be recognised by others who scan our articles to collect information in microformats. For the casual reader, an infobox has the same relationship to a well-written lead as that lead has to the rest of the article: if a lead provides a 2-minute summary of the article, then an infobox provides a 20-second overview of the lead. Redundancy is necessarily built in to an infobox, just as it is in the lead.

There are, of course, many reasons why either an infobox or some of its contents may not be appropriate in a particular article, but each needs to be examined on an individual basis: sometimes the précis will oversimplify and mislead; sometimes the amount of information in the infobox overwhelms a short article; but the case needs to be made. The same reasons for an infobox exist in every article; while the reasons against will vary and often do not exist. It is true that the weight of argument will be against an infobox in many cases, but the onus is on the person wanting to remove an infobox to make that case. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rex! You appear to be mistaken about a number of points. First, there is no set "norm" regarding infoboxes - they may appear or not appear depending on local consensus, which to this point does not exist here. Therefore, as with most other disputes, absent any consensus we default to the status quo, which in this particular case is sans box. Second, an infobox is not the only means to provide data for re-users - a simple Google search for a topic like Mozart or Haydn, neither of which include infoboxes on Wikipedia, will give you the same sidebar precis as a search for a topic with a box. If there is a need to develop a hidden metadata emitter for this class of articles, then we can of course discuss that. The infobox solution fails to find a balance between the urge to increase amount of metadata emitted (increasing parameters) and the need to avoid trivia and clutter (reducing parameters), and also presents a barrier to new contributors (per the literature, your anecdotal experience aside). You are correct, however, in your presentation of other reasons why this infobox is not appropriate: it's overwhelming for a short article and it misrepresents the content of the article on several key points (most obviously dates and instrumentation, but also name and other parameters). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nikki. I'm afraid that you are the one who is mistaken. Although infoboxes may appear or not appear depending on local consensus, they normally do appear as an article develops - that is the meaning of "norm". The default for most developed articles is to have an infobox and readers expect them. If an infobox is added to an article, you mustn't automatically revert it just because there was no box previously - that is contrary to the way we work on Wikipedia; otherwise every edit could be reverted on that reasoning and articles would stagnate to maintain a worthless "status quo". Adding an infobox always brings advantages: the consistent format for re-users; the microformats; the overview. Absent any consensus the default is avec box. You are also mistaken about the value to Google and the way in which an infobox benefits them as re-users - you clearly have not looked at this Google talk otherwise you'd realise how far short of the reality the assumptions you make are. The literature is contradictory about barriers to editing - there are nothing like reliable sources to base anything on. And frankly, when Sue Gardner has done as much teaching as I have, I'll be more inclined to give credence to her pronouncements. I actually agree that the infobox is large compared to the article in this case. Make some suggestions for cutting down on the infobox size or increasing the size of the article and let's see if there's a consensus to be reached. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Rexx, while I'm in favour of infoboxes personally, there's no policy that I'm aware of that defaults in favour of them. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

RexxS made no claim about such a policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly "automatic", Rex, and as Hchc points out there is no such default. Here is one example of a reliable source from the literature describing infoboxes as a barrier to new editors; I haven't seen any saying the opposite, although if you have some by all means present them. As to your final sentence, here's a suggestion: leave it out, and find a better way of emitting the microformats. The infobox as presented here is misleading and counterproductive, and is certainly not the best way to accomplish the goals of re-users. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

We've had RfCs which have shown community consensus to use infoboxes to emit microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says we default to the status quo when one editor objects to something supported by everyone else commenting; that would give that editor an effective veto. And of course RexxS is right about norms. The infobox, being useful and helpful to our readers and data re-users (who number far more than Google), should stay. I repeat my invitation to Nikkimaria regarding her serious allegations about infoboxes being barriers to editors (the fact that we should put readers before editors notwithstanding): start an RfC for the removal of all infoboxes from Wikipedia. I would again remind editors that the RfC called for by members of the classical music projects found that "Infoboxes are not to be... removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I would remind Andy that the full quote he presents reads "Infoboxes are not to be added or removed systematically from articles" (my emphasis). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; but then on-one is systematically adding them to articles about classical music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You appear either to be behind the times, or to be applying a different definition of "systematic" to adding vs removing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Nikki, I would prefer not to have to say this, but I have been approached by two editors privately complaining that you have been following their edits and reverting each time they add an infobox. That has the appearance of "automatic" and is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Neither is insisting on your version of an article by edit-warring to force it against multiple other editors. You have already crossed the bright line with 4 removals of the infobox today; I would much rather you were here to discuss the issues than blocked, so I would strongly urge you to revert yourself immediately before someone complains at WP:AN3. The survey you point to is just a single study and a long way from being significant. If infoboxes were such a barrier then I'd be with you in calling for an RfC to get rid of them; but nobody actually believes that.

Hchc, policy on Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it is meant to document what we do, not circumscribe what we may do. The reality is that infoboxes are ubiquitous on Wikipedia and - even if it is not yet written down - the vast majority of articles acquire one as they develop - for better or worse. That is surely the very definition of a "default". --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Rex, if you would prefer not to have to say it, you could a) compare the contribs history of the two editors in question (it's no secret who those might be) to the edits I've actually made, and note that I haven't reverted on every occasion they've added infoboxes, but only under certain circumstances; and b) remember that coming to a discussion because of an off-wiki complaint not mentioned until now does have the appearance of canvassing. It's already been reverted and it's already at AN3; I've no intention of reverting again either way, but I do actually believe that in this case the box is a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made that comparison and we both know how it looks. I started this discussion (not "came to it") because I saw another box added and reverted again with a very inappropriate edit summary, and no discussion on talk. I wanted us to discuss, not revert. I won't apologise for looking at what I perceive as a problem after two editors quite separately had told me how upset they had become over this issue. Below you've made some excellent points and I've agreed with much of it - surely that is the way to go forward, not just reverting someone's good-faith contributions with a summary of 'cleanup'? --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi guys, a wider discussion on this topic is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Infoboxes in composition articles. Please contribute to that, if you'd like, or feel free to keep discussing this particular article as an isolated case if you think that's more appropriate. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

So Diannaa has just edit-warred the box in with its deficiencies while simultaneously warning about edit-warring - that's entertaining. Anyways, here are some specific problems with this box:

1. The title does not match that used by the article
2. It's too long relative to the size of the article
3. Catalogue number doesn't match the article
4. Dates are misleading
5. Solo is unsourced and not in the article
6. Instruments is wrong, or misleading at best. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your second point is subjective. Your others, though mostly vague, can be fixed without removing the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Nikki, it's always better to look at the specific objections to see if we can find some common ground.

1. It would not be difficult to swap the order of "Missa, K. 220" and "Sparrow Mass" if that would improve the article. The work is known by both names, but an article can only have one name, so it is not unusual for an article title to be deficient as a proxy for all of the names a subject may be known by.
2. I would agree - the border spacing of 3px coupled with 1.5 em line height does seem to cause a lot of spacing between items. Are all of the parameters that have been used, useful here? It would be less of a problem if the article were to be expanded. Can anyone comment on the likelihood of that happening?
3. That should be fixed by amending the article to include the 196b designator, I expect.
4. I think it's technically accurate to the best of our knowledge. Was it not composed in the interval "1775–1776"? Would the format "1775 or 1776" be more accurate? If we don't know, then neither the article nor the infobox can be authoritative, although I would much prefer if they agreed with each other.
5. I'd suggest removing 'solo' until we can source it and use it in the article - unless the parts are so obvious that the fact is unlikely to be challenged, in which case it does need writing into the article.

There are several valid issues that need to be addressed by someone familiar with the sources. Any help available? --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that the "instruments" issue can be resolved in any way that keeps that parameter in the box. "Orchestra" isn't accurate (particularly not if, as Gerda has argued, the infobox is aimed at "those who know nothing" - they'd have a much different conception of what "orchestra" represents), but having a long list of instruments in the box isn't a good solution. "1775 or 1776" would be more accurate and would better reflect what's in the article, but really we should do more research on this point. As to titling, it's unclear from the article what the "official" title is - Missa vs Missa brevis - and which of the various titles and nicknames should appear first. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies - I missed the 'instruments' part - yes, I don't find orchestra helpful either and I'd suggest removing it in this case. Unless there's a specific collective noun for "soloists, choir, 2 trumpets, 3 trombones, timpani, strings and organ", I can't see how to summarise that usefully. Google of course will still "see" those in the lead, but won't have the confirmation from the infobox that helps it with its natural language analysis. --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

sigh I had plans to edit this article today to improve it, as I've created most of the rest of the Mozart mass articles, but it's not appropriate for me to edit through the protection seeing as I'm kind of involved in this, I guess. Seriously, guys, so not worth getting into a dispute over... ~ Riana ⁂ 05:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel the same. The protecting editor is probably asleep now. There's a procedure to have it unprotected, but I don't have time for that, singing the piece! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I unprotected it, have at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Rather sad to see such effort being expended on an undeveloped article like this. Surely disproportionate. An infobox is supposed to summarise the article, but that's not easy if there isn't much article to summarise. Some points (1) orchestra is not an instrument. I think it would be better to delete that field, (2) how is the general reader expected to understand SATB with and without spaces? Do we have to read the article to understand the box? If so, the box must be redundant. P.S. I have no objection per se to boxes for compositions, so long as they conform to WP:UNDUE. --Kleinzach 09:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to be more specific for the instrumentation, and to collapse it. I will bring up the topic of abbreviations at the project. - Deleting the "instruments" field would have made it look as if the work was a cappella. - I agree that the article deserves expansion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Some comments left from above:

1. The title does not match that used by the article

The article titles of Mozart's masses are debated at Classical music. The numbering is not widely used. Missa is certain, different publishers have both "Missa brevis" and "Missa brevis et solemnis", better not treat that as if it was part of the title.

2. Catalogue number doesn't match the article

Most works by Mozart have an older and a newer K-number, - for the title the newer one is relevant, otherwise both should be mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

We have a new member of the infobox warrior club: Gerda Arendt [1][2] [3]. Kleinzach 01:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no such club that I know, and if it is I am not a member. I installed an infobox, something like an article's identity card, here on 30 March, it was removed without a discussion by a user who did not edit the article (if that is of any importance) on 6 June, so I restored it when I noticed. Is there an anti-boxer club? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I used to say "I don't agree with Gerda, but at least she doesn't edit war". I can't say that any longer. We are now seeing a new Gerda — one who is a serial reverter. Regarding Opus33, he's one of the leading WP:CM editors, with a special interest in this period. If you look at his contributions you will see the considerable extent of his work on Mozart (and Haydn) articles. An infobox . . . an article's identity card — right, so Wikipedia is analogous to a police state? Kleinzach 09:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that this is the talk page of the article Sparrow Mass, intended for the discussion of this article. I don't question the expertise of Opus33 whose work I appreciate highly, see our conversations on Haydn's Creation. General like or dislike of the infobox in general is not to be discussed here. I started a place to do so, last edit summary "stay calm", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Gerda -- You are a knowledgeable editor, and you've put a lot of real content into WP. Not many editors are like this! So, you are a resource for the project. It gives me sorrow that you're spending your time on something that anyone could do, irrespective of their knowledge level -- namely, dumbing down the WP with pointless decorations. Couldn't you consider going back to your old former self? It would really be helpful and also raise the morale of your fellow classical music editors. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear content worker, I appreciate your thoughts but am sorry that I am unable to return to my former self, I am my present self. Please look at my user page: I do content. All this does not belong here, though. The question here is: does the infobox harm the article? If not, deleting it takes time that you could use better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote that I had not seen that you wasted your time a second time. Who is "warring"? - I posted on my talk today: I hate to fight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Come on Gerda! If you don't remember, I've provided the diffs at the top of this section. Kleinzach 01:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Started: some reflections on the infobox in general, and a chance to discuss this one and others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend you incorporate the following in your reflections : Help:Infobox, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, and of course WP:DISINFOBOX. If you can reference these properly, your analysis could be useful. At the moment almost all the well-argued material is box-sceptic. It's time someone tried to write an intelligent pro-box essay. Sorry, I am wandering off topic . . . Kleinzach 01:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A year later

I (still) believe that we would serve our readers better, if this composition article had an infobox, showing at a glance some key facts. Compare to articles with infobox from this list, which has today 119 {{infobox musical composition}}, 47 {{infobox opera}} and 177 {{infobox Bach composition}} to look at. The article had an infobox from 30 March 2013 (which was improved) until 6 June 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I still believe it wouldn't. And you should stop flogging the dead horse. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"...as if he was setting himself a compositional challenge"

Could someone check the bolded part of this sentence against any reliable source (the source indicated in the article is Heartz 1995 to which I have no access, and when looking for other references that confirm this google-wise I only get self-references to this Wikipedia article): "...series of five masses that Mozart wrote in the key of C major, as if he was setting himself a compositional challenge"?

Background (see e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 24#Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D major): I doubt there was any compositional challenge of this sort, but that the reason was more practical than poetical. For these Masses he had trumpet players at his disposition. The trumpets were in C. Ergo → Masses in C major. Of course if any source gives this "practical" reason for these Masses to be in C major, such reference would be appreciated too... Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the same but - while expanding the article as had been requested on the talk about two years ago and seems fit on Mozart's birthday - I try to keep what is there, knowing the author as reliable. It's probably in the source. What can we do if the quoted source is outdated, as probably in the case of mass K. 115? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Re. "It's probably in the source" – that's what I suggest to check while "probably" is not good enough in a WP:V logic, and errors, however well-intentioned, occur. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The author who would know is not active, I have no access. We don't need the sentence, yours is better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! It is indeed in the source but given that it's probably just the author speculating, and Francis's explanation sounds much more plausible, I have no issue with the sentence's removal. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 15:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Riana! Dich wiederzusehen! - Hope you don't mind other transformations ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. Such is the nature of the beast. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 17:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert of content as repetition and more

A title of the work is not the same as filling in info box content which contains the key the work was composed in even of they are the same. Also, a near date given the time lapse between then and now and the possible place of composition is information the reader gets at a glance. I realize some hate to admit that info boxes are another form of information placing, quickly and easily seen, unlike an article itself. However, I would think a respectful action might be to discuss the removal of content with those who have put a lot of effort into the article. I realize info boxes are contentious and their use relies on opinions rather than policy. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC))

We discussed the issue of the date already above: we don't know when exactly the work was composed, and it's misleading to the reader to oversimplify in that way. The key already appears at the top of box for the reader to see "at a glance". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer discussion especially in the info box area. I shouldn't inject myself further except to say I reverted to the article as it was and hope you can wait for discussion and agreement for removal. Just my opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC))

Thank you for your opinion; however, since the information is inaccurate it would be best to leave it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)