Infoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Classical music

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this template or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

This template has been set up as a result if the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music starting 16 March 2013. It is intended for symphony orchestras but may also be used for smaller ensembles if necessary. --Kleinzach 03:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's to be used for other ensembles, then a |type= parameter would be needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to set this up. Classy work, as usual. One thought: I like the longer form, but I'm thinking--and I recognize the irony, since I brought it up in the first place--perhaps placing the former name field before the dates gives it too much prominence. I'd suggest putting the dates first, then the former name(s). Would it be possible/desirable to include dates with the former names? That might give something like "Bucharest Philharmonic (1886-1955)." I can see how that might get messy when the history is more complicated, but it also might be very handy for readers. Perhaps an option for the field? Drhoehl (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; just put the dates in parentheses in that field, or use {{Timeline-event}} there. While there is no hard-and-fast rule, it's usual to put alternative names immediately after current names in infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see many orchestras which switched names in history, orchestras which existed only for a certain time, orchestras merged. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a |disbanded= parameter. Perhaps a |merged_into= or |successor= would be useful; with a corresponding |constituents= or |predecessor=? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of |later_name= is unclear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If different names for one orchestra, earliers names might be of interest, the current (later) name would be the article title, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to any changes to the template made without discussion. These shouldn't be happening — as I have said here.

I'm also against using a 'native name' field. There was no support for this in the discussion leading up to the creation of the box. --Kleinzach 14:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am for unrestricted changes, - I didn't make them, but why not use the advantage of a wiki? - I would first collect possible parameters and then decide what is not needed. Native name is needed, if you ask me, for example the orchestra you call Vienna Philharmonic here calls itself Wiener Philharmoniker, - I would like to see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 March 2013‎

See Vienna Philharmonic. It's the name of the article. --Kleinzach 14:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Wiener Philharmoniker is the native name. - See more name examples also on the project talk. Can we please focus the discussion at one place? Here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current infobox on that article has both English and German names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the revert to a former state of the template, losing all improvements, I repeat what I said for Opera in a similar discussion: I suggest to collect possible parameters first, and then decide what is not needed. Most of them can be optional anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out many times before, optional fields are used. I've removed the 'native name' field until the editors have had a chance to discuss it. (So far no-one except you has supported it.) In the meantime please don't put it back. Kleinzach 17:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also support it, obviously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I support to see the original name in cases where a translation is the article title, and a translation where the "native name" (strange word) is the title, and an indicator of the language, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the use of non-official translations? Can you clarify? Kleinzach 08:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example: Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie. I don't need a translation, but others may want one to understand North West German, - optional, of course. - I just went over all inclusions of {{infobox musical composition}} and found many parameters not filled,- don't be afraid, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what non-official translation means? Do you want to invent these when they don't already exist? --Kleinzach 11:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May be I don't understand. In the example, official or not, I don't invent that "Nordwestdeutsch" means "North West German" and "Philharmonie" can be translated to "Philharmonic" (and is translated like that in other orchestras), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for prior discussion; especially for a draft template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that this "native name" field is to hold a Wikipedia editor's home-brew concoction rendering a foreign name in English? If so, put me on record as firmly opposing it. To the extent giving a translation is desirable, it should go in the text (in a sentence along the lines of "The orchestra's name can be roughly translated as The Philharmonic Orchestra of Lower Atlantis"), not in a box that by implication confers some sort of "official" status on it. That, of course, is a major objection many of us have to infoboxes in the first place: they tend to suggest black-and-white authority for information that is open to debate. I'll address the inevitable "but it's optional" rejoinder while I'm about it: "optional" fields of this sort are what the lawyers call an attractive nuisance, enticing those who are careless, misguided, or uninformed to engage in undesirable behavior. I also join in objecting to changes made without benefit of discussion. That way lies chaos, at the very least. Drhoehl (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the idea was that the |name= is the same as the article name, and |native_name= was the official name in the native language, which is almost certainly the name of the article on the WP for the local native language. I don't see how this would be controversial. clearly if someone is using these parameters as a place to put invented translations, then that is an improper use of the parameters, but not a fault of the template. we could add a tracking category, along with the parameter, so its usage could be monitored. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why is |disbanded= a required field? are all orchestras suddenly disbanded? Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestras are sometimes disbanded, merged, reassembled, renamed, revert to their original name etc. etc. Most of these are unusual or unique cases, e.g. Philharmonia Orchestra or New York Philharmonic. Do we need to have fields for these special cases? This was discussed here. --Kleinzach 17:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is "required" or "optional", in this case, "optional", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was inadvertent; the parameter should, of course, be optional. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there are changes being made on the fly without discussion. [1] [2] I have reverted. --Kleinzach 04:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making changes "on the fly" is what Wikipedia is about. There is no requirement for you to pre=approve prior discussion. Your referral to me as "That editor' at it again!" in your canvassing edit summary is not acceptable. The |short_name= field is needed, as seen in this diff, to prevent polluting the |name= field with things which aren't part of the name. In the example edit given, the orchestra's name is "National Symphony Orchestra", not "National Symphony Orchestra (NSO)". There are multiple cases of such abbreviations being put in the name field, including many by you.

Furthermore in this edit and this one, you replaced another infobox which already has a separate parameter for the abbreviation. Your claim that you "haven't found one instance where this 'short name' field would be useful" is facile.

Infobox fields do not exist for you to to shoehorn into them arbitrary text. As with your futile removal of the native name fields, discussed above, you are creating unnecessary drama over a change which any neutral observer will recognise is reasonable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through more than a hundred orchestra articles and never found one that needed this field. Adding unnecessary fields increases the likelihood that the box will be misused with the addition of inappropriate and inaccurate information. --Kleinzach 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have found several, as I have evidenced above; that you failed to recognise them is to your demerit. Your "will be misused" argument is a slippery slope fallacy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the comment above:

This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course).

There was no response to that, but I now see this infobox being used to replace others, in such a way that infobox content is lost.

For example this looses the music director; while this looses music director, pops conductor, assistant conductor, and founder; and this one discards past and present music directors (and the fact that it's USA based).

This is a disservice to our readers, and should stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox was agreed by consensus following a discussion at the Classical Music Project. One disaffected editor should not take it on himself to deny that consensus. The infobox should not be removed from any orchestra articles. --Kleinzach 15:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know by now, project consensus (if there was any; link please) carries no weight here or for individual articles. I note again that you did not reply at the time (nor recently), to the issue raised here in February. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparent that, rather than wait for the outcome of this discussion, Kleinzach is continuing the systematic replacement of other infoboxes with this one, again loosing content in the process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I've been reminded that Kleinzach was clearly aware of the issue; as he acknowledged my comment elsewhere (though ignoring it here) on 19 March. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

Note that Kleinzach has again canvassed one project, ignoring others which may be interested. He was warned about this only a day or two ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one is not allowed to post a heads up on a wikiproject page, what is one allowed to do? Not every editor is watching every page. The City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra does not pertain to classical music? Often I think you don't care anything but "winning" and that's best done by pulling out all the wiki-rules necessary to suppress discussion.

Back on topic, if Template:Infobox orchestra is not appropriate for City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra then what is it good for? If the infobox czars don't want it used for orchestra articles then just delete the template altogether.DavidRF (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If one is not allowed to post a heads up on a wikiproject page" - Strawman. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? The section heading clearly says "Canvassing", all he did was post a heads up on the WP:CM discussion page. I call you on it and all you say is "Strawman"? You are trolling. Please spell out exactly what your objection is or withdraw your complaint.DavidRF (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did spell it out. Your various accusations that I am trolling, here and elsewhere, are a personal attack and unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one throwing out canvassing accusations. Your lack of explanation is proof that you sre indeed trolling. All we ever get from you is reverts and cryptic short responses with no explanations. All you're doing is trying keep your edits and avoid discussion.DavidRF (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "lack of explanation"; it is here in black and white, at the head of this section. Your accusations are palpably false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I didn't know about this page or info-box until very recently, and I ask for indulgence if I'm raising something already dealt with. But I'm working on the RPO article at the moment, and the absence of Sir Thomas from the box seems odd. Almost Hamlet without the Prince, with due respect to M. Dutoit. Could there be a "founder" field? Or even an ex-luminary one? Quite happy to pipe down if it's already been addressed. Tim riley (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with it. just add the following,

| label6   = Founder(s)
| data6    = {{{founders|}}}

Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favour of adding another field. When this was originally discussed everyone wanted to keep the box simple, hence the foundation date was included, not the founder(s). This was intentional. Beecham is obviously important but most other founders are not. His role can be explained in the text. --Kleinzach 05:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of adding that field. For most orchestras, it will not make a change, but it is good have it for those where it does, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you I see what Kleinzach means: have a look at Template:Infobox opera and lose the will to live! Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: browse the Wikipedia and take a look at the infoboxes. They're getting huge -- pathetic efforts to rewrite the entire article in tabular form. This is a classic example of a WP practice that serves to provide recreation for idle editors, rather than useful presentation for readers. We could be worthy exceptions to this deplorable trend by not adding any more fields to the orchestra infobox. Opus33 (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also here. Infobox musical composition — which I didn't know about — has 29 fields. Monstrous. Kleinzach 23:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! I withdraw unreservedly and enthusiastically. Tim riley (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the addition of this field which, obviously, will be optional. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before this info-box was introduced the London Symphony Orchestra's logo was bounced from the previous info-box by User:Aspects. Is it permissible to use it in the new box? Tim riley (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, although I'm really down on infoboxes in general, I'm totally happy with the idea that if there is an infobox, it should include the logo. The infobox is a convenient place to tuck it in. And, after all, there is a close affinity between logos and infoboxes: both are devices intended for people who can't read.  :=) Opus33 (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very large number of the orchestra infoboxes include the logo. I would guess there may be up to a hundred of them. Like Opus33, I think the box is a good place for the symbol of the orchestra. Kleinzach 23:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we don't need to distinguish "present" and "past" principal conductors, if we attach a time (from ... to ...) also. I know at least one case where former conductors are more notable than the present one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly concerned if its changed, but what about cases where the dates are not readily available? Also, the present style ensures that the current conductor is listed before the others, even if they are shown in chronological order, which would otherwise have the current conductor last. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the example showed that, - it has no principal conductor, only past. Next: do we need the "(s)". I imagine readers can think it if they see more than one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any discussion here, although there was some at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Default type "Orchestra", about the introduction of the compulsory parameter |type= which defaults to "Orchestra". This parameter was introduced only 2 days ago, so it's reasonable to assume that almost none of the existing transclusions use it. Therefore the overwhelming majority of orchestra articles which have the word "orchestra" in their title are being lumbered with the unnecessary subheading "— Orchestra —" (with an emdash, disregarding MOS:DASH). Can we please stop insulting our readers and wasting screen space by making this parameter optional so it can be usefully employed where needed and not clutter the article where it's not? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No default for the moment, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] It's not unnecessary; does not "clutter"; and does not "insult our readers". You don't seem to have a problem with us using that word in the lede of articles like The Cleveland Orchestra, which begins (my emphasis) "The Cleveland Orchestra is an American orchestra..." MOS:DASH does not prohibit the use of an em-dash in this manner; see {{Infobox settlement}} for examples. Without this parameter having a default value, many of our orchestra infoboxes neither tell the reader explicitly that the subj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 August 2013

How is having a line in an infobox about the Cleveland Orchestra telling readers that it is indeed an orchestra necessary, efficient page design, or enlightening? MOS:DASH only allows spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes, so the use of spaced em dashes is not condoned. Your reference to {{Infobox Settlement}} is disingenuous. Apart from the obvious fallacy that "other shit exists", a cursory examination of the template's history shows that en dashes were requested following a discussion in November 2011 as replacement of hyphen/minus; however, the actual edit erroneously used em dashes instead. The original intent should be implemented at that template and here. Your reference to {{Infobox Settlement}} is weak because "other shit exists" is a long-discredited argument, not only in deletion discussions; that template's use of em dashes should be changed just as this one's should. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOSDASH refers to running text, not the 'graphic' design of headers in templates (feel free to quote it otherwise). Your attempt to enforce your strange interpretation of it, at Infobox settlement, has already been rebuffed. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists says (my emphasis) "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid... When used correctly... these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes"; and "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following the removal of the em dashes in {{Infobox settlement}}, I restate my suggestion to remove them here as well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of that change, and while it remains uncontested (I shall not do so), I agree that the dashes should be removed from this template. My aim was consistency. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I miss parameters in the template that appear in the documentation, and I miss a discussion here. I think that it would be good to know if an orchestra is a chamber orchestra or an early music orchestra, possible to in |type=. If you don't want |founder= could you at least add something like |people=, for people associated with an orchestra other than the present conductor who may be of minor importance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now at least the documentation matches. I still miss a discussion here about why useful parameters were removed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The section above notes a lack of discussion here about why the parameters were added in the first place, and one further up finds no consensus for the addition of founder. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably have another language problem because I see Founders, Conductors and Type discussed above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You see a "type" discussion after the addition of the parameter objecting to its addition and the lack of discussion about same; you see a "founder" discussion that the OP withdrew and that found no consensus for its addition (as I noted); and you find a discussion about conductors in which you yourself suggest the past/present distinction is unneeded. Nowhere do you see a discussion finding consensus for the addition of these parameters, so nowhere do you need to see a discussion about the reversion of that addition, and if you want them added you will need a consensus for same. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful subheaders[edit]

A subheader can show both, that an article is about an orchestra if that is not clear from the title, and what kind of orchestra. A few orchestras names show that they are an orchestra, for example the CBSO. Others don't. Please let's not assume that every reader knows that a "Philharmonic" is an orchestra. Some names don't imply orchestra, such as Lautten Compagney. Some are in a language other than English, such as Deutsche Radio Philharmonie Saarbrücken Kaiserslautern. In addition, I would - as a reader - be interested right on top what kind of orchestra, chamber, string, conductorless, Early music, festival, community, radio, you name it. I liked |type= for both purposes. Are there other suggestions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In each case, the article should explain details of what the organization being discussed actually is. Nikkimaria (talk)

A subheader that tells us that an orchestra is an orchestra is completely unnecessary and annoying and should not be set as the default. By all means have it as an option for those orchestras that aren't obvious, but telling us that London Symphony Orchestra is an orchestra just reads bad and appears to treat the readers like children. Hzh (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably not guess that L'arpa festante is an orchestra (named after an opera), and you are invited to helpfully specify: youth orchestra, chamber orchestra, Baroque orchestra, if it's not in the name. - The bot could not do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone searching for L'arpa festante or other orchestras would have some idea of what they are, so I'm not sure what the subheader of "orchestra" would be meant for. Those are not some random search terms. In any case, I'm not arguing for removing the subheader if a more specific label is useful, just that it is somewhat pointless and silly to tell people something clearly stated as an orchestra that is is an orchestra. Hzh (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There will be users who don't have searched for L'arpa festante as an orchestra but perhaps the opera, or arrived at the article at random, having searched for a piece of music played by the orchestra, - let's tell them as soon as possible where they are. Also, L'arpa festante has already a more specific helpful subheader. What you call somewhat pointless was the work of a bot that was not programmed to tell if "orchestra" was already in the name. There are many orchestras, - it would have been hard work for humans - who may now improve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's there depending on how the infobox is written. In other infoboxes, if the field is left empty, then it would be ignored. I have no idea why this one made it appear by default. Also you use disambiguation hatnote to tell people that they might have come to the wrong site, not the infobox. Hzh (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this infobox would benefit from an extra parameter for a logo. This already used in the Template:Infobox company. This would give editors the freedom to include both an lead image (e.g. a photo of the orchestra in concert) along with the official logo. Seem reasonable?

| logo = 
| logo_alt = 
| logo_caption = 
| image = 
| image_alt = 
| image_caption = 

Cnbrb (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC which may affect this infobox's |location= parameter has been opened at WT:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]