From: "Jeff Raymond"
<jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Madness of King Infobox
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 13:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
For heaven's sake, you never call
someone's voice their instrument.
Ever.
The terminology is nonsensical. Again, the box
just does not fit.
To be fair, as a music student and vocal major in college for a time, our
voices were consistently referred to as instruments.
No clue if it's widespread, but it's not as nonsensical to me as it
appears to you.
>
> The problems these bioboxes are causing are very widespread. You
simply
cannot
twist the article beyond all boundaries of accuracy, correct
terminology and common sense just to fit an infobox. Infoboxes are
supposed
to be a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
What's frustrating the most is that the boxes don't break if you fail to
include information. So no one ''has'' to put something for country of
origin or instrument or party or anything else, and the box is still
good.
There are constructive ways to deal with things, folks. I'm not
directing
this at who wrote what I'm quoting, but it
seems like, more and more
often, the path of least resistance is being ignored.
-Jeff
--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.
Yes and no - actually, reading some WP articles it seems that the voice is
sometimes called an instrument, though I've never come across that in the
UK
(where I am). Seems rather odd to call Christiana Aguilera's voice her
instrument, and I've never seen it done before. Oh, well.
As far as I know the GCSEs referred to by one of the people who did know it,
are only done in the UK. You probably just missed it all along. Voice is
specifically mentioned as an instrument on the infobox information page so
I'm assuming that music experts from the WikiProject Music took a look at
that before approving the box and recommending its implementation.
As for genre "classical music". I personally would love to be more detailed,
but I can't. If you can, please help and be more specific.
Mgm
Agreed with point 2, but only partially. On the Paderewski article, it was
the main information provided by the box that was
causing problems, not
some
small chunk that you could lop off. Check out some previous revisions.
At best, the things tend to be redundant, by simply duplicating what's
already in the article. Sure, they sometimes act as a summary, but often
too
much gets compressed. One infobox described Beethoven's genre as
"Classical,
Romantic". I know that brevity is a virtue, but surely that's going too
far!
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________
Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l