Talk:The Bells of Kallio Church

Opus parameter

Silence of Järvenpää, explain? Solidest (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Solidest: ~ First, let me please apologize for writing a rude and unfriendly edit note. Not my best moment.

I just find the constant switching of the Catalogue parameter in inboxes to the Opus parameter frustrating, especially for a composer such as Sibelius. This is for several reasons, the most important of which is that Sibelius's catalogue contains both Op. and JS numbers: two cataloging systems (which are not duplicative), only one of which is covered by the Op. parameter but both of which are covered by the Catalogue parameter. In general, I tend to prefer visual consistency within the articles that pertain to a particular composer, and so my preference is that all infoboxes on Sibelius compositions, regardless of their catalogue, use the Catalogue parameter, because it will apply universally, rather than partially as with the Opus parameter. A minor point is that I also think, aesthetically, having bolded parameters as Wikilinks is ugly and distracting. True, these are personal preferences, and mine are no better or more accurate than anyone else's ... but then again, I am the person who actually takes the time here to write about this composer (e.g., create new articles, expand existing ones, etc.). Perhaps this smacks of ownership, but I think my position is more principled. For example, take the Performers parameter under the Premiere sub-box. Performers can involve the orchestra, the conductor, the soloists, etc. Should these be broken down into smaller, less-universal pieces, e.g., a Conductor parameter, an Orchestra parameter, and a Soloist parameter, with each linked to its particular article? I think not: the universal category is more encompassing and thus more context flexible.

Less generally, i.e., with respect specifically to the unique case that is The Bells of Kallio Church, we have a confusing situation: three pieces under the same name: (a) the the carillon version uses JS; (b) the piano version uses Op.; and (c) the choral version uses (the same) Op. Thus, in the infobox, there is the need to display both cataloguing systems, which the Catalogue parameter, rather than the Opus parameter, best achieves. But, even if all three versions used Op. or used JS, I would still be opposed to the Opus parameter for the reasons (aesthetic) I detailed above. Thanks for your time. Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 20:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Silence of Järvenpää:, thank you for the explanation, but I'm afraid I don't understand your arguments at all.

> two cataloging systems (which are not duplicative), only one of which is covered by the Op. parameter but both of which are covered by the Catalogue parameter.

Ok, but how does your styling option of shifting the parameter header to the right affect this? Catalogue and Opus parameters are displayed simultaneously and independently of each other. How does copying the title of one parameter into another parameter, wikilinking it and specifying its value affect anything you wrote? Besides, both numbers are listed in the corresponding columns in [of compositions by Jean Sibelius] and it would be logical to fill both values into separate parameters (which by the way is done in most articles by this composer). That's the consistency.

> In general, I tend to prefer visual consistency within the articles that pertain to a particular composer, and so my preference is that all infoboxes on Sibelius compositions, regardless of their catalogue, use the Catalogue parameter, because it will apply universally, rather than partially as with the Opus parameter.

Have you considered that your approach violates the consistency with the entire wikipedia and specifically within the use of this infobox? Check this: numbers of current uses of parameters - "opus" parameter is used in 540 articles out of 2761. While these seem to be all articles where you (and a couple of someone else's) added "opus" into the "catalogue" field: search – these are 29 articles only. And it's not just Sibelius articles. To me it already looks like a violation of the principle of consistency and a kind of protest. And I don't see how rejecting a systematic approach is helpful to anyone.

> Catalogue parameter, because it will apply universally, rather than partially as with the Opus parameter.

I don't understand this. Both parameters apply universally to the article object, not partially.

> A minor point is that I also think, aesthetically, having bolded parameters as Wikilinks is ugly and distracting.

Okay, but such a formatting is the consensus on wikipedia. Or for example I find it aesthetically bad-looking to shift the field header to the right. Not to mention the technical disaster of doing so. This is not done anywhere else on the entire wikipedia, based on my experience with many infoboxes. If you disagree with the visual aspect - you can discuss it in infobox talk, for example by suggesting a variant of how the numbers are indicated in the Template:Infobox television episode (see "Episode no." string). And exactly because all data about the opus numbers should be filled systematically into a single parameter - one edit in the template code can change this design everywhere. Due to the consistency.

> I am the person who actually takes the time here to write about this composer (e.g., create new articles, expand existing ones, etc.).

I understand you from the perspective of someone who puts a lot of time and effort into wikiprojects (see below), but I also absolutely don't understand how little things like the visual design of displaying a single digit can affect you as being 0.0001% of the work done.

> For example, take the Performers parameter under the Premiere sub-box.

I don't think that comparison with other parameters and their supposed split is relevant here. We already have a parameter "Opus", which is widely used and exists exactly for certain purposes.

> Thus, in the infobox, there is the need to display both cataloguing systems, which the Catalogue parameter, rather than the Opus parameter, best achieves.

Again, I completely fail to see how your edit makes any difference in this situation. You just shift the title to the right and disable bold text instead of displaying two lines and that's it. And I think you're again reasoning here as if either the catalogue number or the opus can be displayed, but it's not - they're both displayed at the same time.

My main problem is that I periodically export infobox data from enwiki to wikidata, which is then automatically displayed in the infoboxes of some other wikipedias. On wikidata there is a separate parameter for catalogue numbers and opus. And messing them up causes a lot of extra work, and also potential errors in the export that I could miss. A year ago I corrected all the data in over 3000+ items, and also moved all the wrong data to the right field on enwiki. I spent a lot of effort and time on this to make everything look systematic, as required by wikipedia rules (that's what the infoboxes were actually created for). And imagine how it looks from my side now this personal protest against the system, where you roll it back because you don't agree with the visual layout? Solidest (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Solidest: ~ Thank you, Solidest, for your response. It was quite useful for me to see things from your perspective. It's possible that we just won't end up agreeing, but please allow me to try to explain my point again (I was writing quickly last time).

My main point, and setting aesthetic concerns aside, is that having two parameters, Opus and Catalogue, is simply poor categorization, because the former is a subcategory of the latter: Opus numbers are a cataloging system, although not all cataloging systems are opus numbers. Of course, you know this ... So when I say Opus is partial in its applicability, I mean that it cannot apply to every composition, whereas Catalogue can, as a universal, all-encompassing category. In my mind it would be akin to having a parameter "Fruit" and a parameter "Melon". The latter is redundant of the former because it is a subcategory. I think, perhaps, we're coming at the issue from different vantage points: whereas I am seeing the Opus parameter and thinking, "This is redundant. Why would I use this?", you're seeing the Opus parameter and thinking, "This exists. Why would I not use this if it applies to the composition at hand?"

Taken to its extreme, I personally think the Opus parameter should be eliminated in favor of Catalogue. But I concede that I had not realized Opus had been established by consensus ... in fact, ironically, I thought to was you who was pushing a particular preference (just like, I concede, I am) where no consensus had been established. Your final point about Wikidata is eminently reasonable, and I apologize for causing extra labor on your part (or those of others). I was not, however, convinced by the argument that 540/2761 articles use the Opus parameter, because (a) many of the changes of Catalogue to Opus have, I'm sure, been made by you; and (2) 714/2761 articles appear to use the Catalogue parameter (is it really the case that all 714 are non-opus catalogued works?). But no matter ... the more important point is that, if this is the way people prefer it, then fine: switch things back, and I'll start using Opus in my future editing and treating the Catalogue parameter as a subcategory that is merely the place for non-opus works. Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think that having two parameters is a poor categorisation. Opus number is indeed be seen as a subtype of the catalogue code, and in general class hierarchies quite often have nested subclasses, and this is not a disadvantage or a problem when both classes are quite universal. And this is exactly the case - both parameters are quite universal in classical music and apply to the works of most composers. So your fruit/melon example doesn't really apply here, as it rather points to the excessively specific. I look at it more like "producer" vs "executive producer" parameters - in general one is also a subspecies of the other, but both are used often enough and have enough differences to be used separately. And your example describes the parameter "bwv" much better. - is certainly a special case that could be completely replaced by the "catalogue" parameter. And I would rather have done that, but unfortunately, some other users were against it.

• You are right - I look at infoboxes like properties in wikidata - I see a list of them and use the most accurate one, otherwise, something seems out of place :)

• Yeah, I think I moved most of them in 2022 - somewhere around 300 values, I think. And at that time I definitely double-checked all the remaining "catalogue" values - there were only the ones with alphabetic indications of catalogues. By the way, here is a list of all compositions that have enwiki article and have "opus number" on wikidata: https://w.wiki/7Z9S - there are 1267 articles, but unfortunately infoboxes are not always placed in such articles.

• I hope I've understood you correctly, but just in case, I'll just point it out that the requirement to set only one of these parameters in all infoboxes is also not obligatory, so it is not quite correct to consider "catalogue" as a subcategory (or, as I believe, any other parameter in the infobox, unless we've decided that some are deprecated or so). The infobox documentation correctly describes these two parameters - one is what described by the opus number article, and the other is the letter code of the specific catalogue + number. In different cases, either both or one of both or neither of both may exist. And preferably they should not be treated as something related, but rather distinct characteristics.

• But I'm glad we were able to come to an agreement. Thank you! Solidest (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Solidest: ~ One more thing I wanted to note, as you raised the two-column format of the List of compositions by Jean Sibelius: It was I who made this table, and if I recall correctly from the talk page discussion back then, it wasn't necessarily to the liking of one other editor. They suggested that the Op. and JS be collapsed into one column, and I eventually came to agree with them ... however, it was too much work to go back and fix, in my opinion. However, and accordingly, given that my main project here at the moment is an improved version of this list that can hopefully reach FL, I have in the new table opted for a combined column. You're welcome to give it a look at User:Silence of Järvenpää/Sibelius loc. Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 19:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that the division into two columns is a more systematic approach, which one would expect to see here, being familiar with other composers' catalogues. But Sibelius doesn't seem to have the typical double labelling of works like other composers? Or maybe it just wasn't a practice to fill in that data on the wiki, since The Bells of Kallio Church has two numbers listed, and one is missing from the table. But anyway I think that as it is more convenient for you, you can keep this option :) Solidest (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)