Talk:Gustav Holst/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Linking to the Military Band recording

According to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works so long as (as is likely) their own recording is legitimate, this shouldn't be a problem. (Offsite linking to images causes a bandwidth issue and overusing the link to the wind band suites may eventually do the same, but that's a separate question.) Thanks for finding a compromise approach. Schissel : bowl listen 16:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and input. I'm a huge Holst fan, and I thought the link might help people curious about or interested in his music. I figured that the link-ees wouldnt mind because I linked to a page about the album, which included things like purchase information, instead of deep-inking the files. I didn't replace the links elsewhere in the article, even though they were broken, because another format was specified and because this was my first edit and I decided to take a minimalist approach. :)

Pictures

Does the article really need two pictures of the Royal College of Music. We get it, he went to the RCM. It just seems a bit superfluous. Gruesome Pet

"von Holst"

Why was he called "von Holst" and feared of being identificated as a German if he didn't have German roots (at least none of those are mentioned)? 129.13.186.4

Because the name sounds German, and the anti-German hysteria of the First World War was particularly stupid. Septentrionalis 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cats

Is there a source for Holst actually practising astrology? Without one, the astrology cats should probably go. Septentrionalis 21:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

English-Germans?

Does Holst really belong in Category:English-Germans? The article states that his family was Swedish, via Russia and Latvia. Any German connection was then presumably some way back (despite the "von" which was originally in his name). David Underdown 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. "Von" and "de" are both common nobiliary particles throughout Europe and does not per se mean German/French ancestry. // Oskar

Early life links?

I have fixed some of the links in the "early life" section but I don't know who "Doyle" is so I can't fix that one. Suggestions? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just what I was wondering. ("Holst grew up in the world of Oscar Wilde, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Doyle, Gauguin, Monet, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, and Puccini.") Probably Arthur Conan Doyle? There is plenty of choice at Doyle but I don't know any Doyle conventionally referred to only by surname. Anyone got any other suggestions or shall we just do it? Flapdragon 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

State of the article

This page needs a serious rewrite/cleanup. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be based on a single essay which combines biography and musicology in such a way that expanding any particular topic is almost impossible. If I get a chance I'll try and help unpack it, but it's quite a big job.Myopic Bookworm 13:45, 13

September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody vandalized it and I'm not sure anyone noticed it. Where did he actually go to school?--68.193.120.221 02:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am especially unhappy about the section on The Planets. First, since there's already a page devoted to the suite, shouldn't much of this be there? Second, there's this stuff like the quoted "most ferocious piece of music in existence." This is complete guff. Uncited, blatantly POV and simply incorrect (ditto the stuff on the meters used). What makes it more ferocious than the Sacrificial Dance or the Second or Third Prokofiev symphonies or any number of other pieces I could mention? Come on, folks. I plan to move/delete a lot of this unless cogent objections appear. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree: go ahead. I guess someone just tipped in their work from a music analysis class. Myopic Bookworm 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Is Holtz really an alternative name for Holst? Isn't it just a somewhat naive misspelling? --Camembert

I checked the Grove Dictionary today (the standard multi-volume music reference work), and it does not give "Holtz" as an alternative. Grove almost always gives alternative names, even if they are hardly ever used, so I removed this one from here. I think it's just a misspelling, as I said. --Camembert

I reordered the Other Works by year of completion. I suspect this section is going to get pretty long if the movements are all added in. Choral Hymns from the Rig Veda are in four sections with movements, each, for example. -- Marty

"Other Works" -- works other than what? Several are mentioned in the main section which are also listed here. Maybe this should just be a list of all works? Aaronrp 01:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Web Master: Can the following sentence be corrected? -- The play follows his early dismay at his lack of composing success, to the creation of The Planets suite, with the play's seven tiers follow the structure of The Planets. Gofreddo63 (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no webmaster here. I fixed the verb tense, but you could have done that yourself -- Foetusized (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is a weak B -- some personal details are missing (when he got married, when his daughter was born), and the musicology (style, criticism, popular appreciation, and legacy) is weak. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 14:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Period?

Just wondering... to which period of the classical music does he belong to? Late Romantic, Modern?...--Fluence (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. I've seen cases for late romantic, modern, and neo-romantic. The truth is, he's all three! If you have to pick a defined category, I'd say late romantic in the early years (pre Planets), and modernist in the late years (post Planets). Justin Tokke (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Holst and Ravel

The suggestion that Holst's 'early' work was influenced by Ravel seems to me misleading. The earliest he could have been influenced by Ravel was surely via Vaughan Williams, who went to study with Ravel in 1907 (Holst by then was 33 years old); even then there's no evidence in his music of Ravel's influence until the Rig Veda Hymn settings (specifically the Second Group, composed in 1909). I would suggest that since Holst had already composed two major operas, Sita (completed 1906 and v influenced by Wagner, a composer whose wide-ranging influence on Holst's early work is scarcely acknowledged) and Savitri (1908-09) it won't do to suggest that Ravel played a part until Holst's first mature works. I will try to rewrite the article accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bannershell broken?

Someone please fix it: The first section (comments) starts as #5 and no toc is generated automatically...--Oneiros (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Snippets

On a record sleeve recording of "The Planets" where the orchestra was conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent, he describes Holst as;

"My friend and one of those 'fey' people....he used to use the india rubber to remove notes which didn't satisfy him".

On one of his astronomy VHS recordings the late Isaac Asimov also describes Holst as "a dedicated astrology buff"

As planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 and Holst died in 1934 is there any known reason why he didn't write an orchestral piece for Pluto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Kunene (talk • contribs) 09:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC) ______

He didn't want to write another section to The Planets some 20 years after the original work was composed .... and Pluto is now not considered to be a proper planet anyway, so it is just as well. Look it up. 68.71.8.88 (talk) `68.71.8.88 (talk)

Snippets

On the packet of a 1960s LP recording of "The Planets" where the orchestra was conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent, he describes Holst as, "My friend and one of those 'fey'people... he regularly used the india rubber to erase uneccessary notes".

Also on one of his astronomy VHS recordings, the late Isaac describes Holst as "a dedicated astrology buff".

If planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 and Holst died in 1934 is there any reason why he never wrote a Pluto piece to complete the whole suite?212.138.47.16 (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Names

Although he was originally named "Gustavus Theodor" by his parents, he clearly adopted the name Gustav during his lifetime, and I think this name should be given explicitly in the entry, as well as the title of the article. Myopic Bookworm 16:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Should it not be made clear whether or not he assumed the name Gustav Theodore (as opposed to Gustavus Theodor) at the same time as dropping the 'von'? I would change it but I'm not sure is this is true... FlannyBabes (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

German origins

According to BBC4 program , Holst: In the Bleak Midwinter, and aired on Sunday 24 April 2011 at 21.30 [1], the commentary and interviews from relatives place his family distinctly of German extraction. Politis (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I came here on exactly the same errand, checking my 1941 (3rd edition) Percy Scholes beforehand; "his paternal great-grandfather, of Swedish descent, was born at Riga" [...] "There was a 'von' to the name, but it was, at the present writer's suggestion, gladly dropped during the War in deference to the feelings of the British soldier." The War in question is, of course, WWI. Hm. Haploidavey (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The BBC4 program says he dropped the Von before going to entertain the troops during in the Balkan front including Bulgaria and Constantinople. Politis (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony Palmer documentary

I think editors would be well advised to be a little more wary of treating the Tony Palmer BBC documentary as authoritative. There are several instances where TP passes off dubious facts by having them narrated as voice-overs by an actress who sounds almost but not quite like the composer's daughter, Imogen Holst (e.g. that he "lived in a street of brothels in Algiers"). Plus there are a lot of clearly improvised remarks by many of the experts consulted (did the Socialist Worker paper, allegedly distributed by the composer, actually exist in Holst's life?). I will go through the article rewording the post TP revisions accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Socialist text in lead

Two people, the last with a revert, have placed this text in the lead:

"He makes the point that Holst was far removed from establishment-loving patriotic fervor, but was in fact an ardent left-winger who devoted his life to bringing music to the working classes and campaigning for socialism. This did not stop him from taking a job at an exclusive private school for girls for 25 years, but Palmer claims that in the early years of the 1900s, an academic school for girls was sufficiently revolutionary to enable him to square his conscience."

To my eye, whether true or not, this is overly detailed and too strong a political POV for the lead section of the article. What do others think? Antandrus (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It may well belong in the body of the article somewhere, but as it stands, it jumps off the page as inappropriate to the lead section. (In fact, I read it first and only came here to the Talk page to see if there were any comments about this bizarre passage.) For that matter, why is this section peppered with footnotes? I thought the purpose of a lead section was to summarize the article. If the various footnoted claims in the lead are already referenced in the main text, this is unnecessary duplication; if they are not even mentioned elsewhere, then do they have any place at all in the lead?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that's opinion that shouldn't go in the lede. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question Holst was a socialist -- though the term wasn't quite as loaded, or was loaded in a very different way, in England a hundred years ago -- maybe we need to find a better way to work this in, just not in the lead. To my eye it was a gopher hole no reader should need to step in. Terms like "left-winger" snap at you like mad dogs, especially in the lead, and we should strive to avoid them unless they are direct quotations. Anyhow Palmer is not mentioned until later. Has anyone seen the show? (I have not). Antandrus (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is very relevant text to the lead of one of England's most important composers, and one highlighted by a recent documentary, for example on BBC4. What is bizarre is the above comments. His beliefs controlled what he composed, and removal of the lead undermines the credibility of the article. Peterlewis (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually read the text that you are now responsible for adding twice? Who does the initial word "He" refer to? Was Holst notable as a Socialist or as a composer? If he was notable principally as a composer, what is the purpose of this aside about a "left-winger"? Antandrus (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course I did, and and I also saw the Tony Palmer programme. Have you seen it? His socialism was central to his beliefs and composing, such as his brass band compositions, much beloved by working men in the north of England. Peterlewis (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Turns out it was a copyright violation from this website -- a straight-up copy paste. Please do not restore this text, thank you. It's by Keith Clarke, and there's a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the page.

That said, I don't mind a mention of Holst being a socialist in the lead, since he obviously was one (we can even cite Grove, which mentions his early enthusiasm for the philosophy of William Morris). Any ideas how best to do it? Does anyone have any reliable sources that relate Holst's compositional work to his political ideas? Antandrus (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing that I am aware of in Holst's musical life that says "here is a socialist" except the obvious points that he took an active interest in music-making for "ordinary" people – as witness his unpaid work at Morley College and the composition of one work for brass band. The main text states clearly that he was a lifelong socialist. He was definitely not a Marxist, Leninist or Trotskyite (or anything like them) but rather a follower of William Morris and G. B. S. I suspect he voted Labour (but I don't know that). We must take care not to misrepresent himWillowmusic (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Works for wind band

I have removed part of a recent posting that attempted to give details of Holst's wind-band works, because it was incomplete and confusing. It failed to mention several pieces, such as the arrangement of Bach's Fugue a la Gigue, and yet listed one work – The Praise of King Olaf – that I can find no authority for. Imogen Holst does not include it in her catalogue, neither did her father in his (incomplete) list. If a comprehensive list of authenticated compositions is desirable, I can attempt one, but it will take time. If, on the other hand, we need only mention the major works, then the major wind-band works are there now.Willowmusic (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted some IP edits which appeared to remove text. Please feel to re-revert if I got it wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Evelyn Thorley

'she gave birth to two further sons, Matthias Ralph and Evelyn Thorley'. Apologies if I am mistaken, but is Evelyn not a daughter? 81.105.53.134 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A son. Evelyn is (or certainly was) used for male and female. Evelyn Thorley Holst's genealogical summary here. Haploidavey (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

and it is Eve-uh-lynn. Long E___. Not the usual North American version of Ehv-a-lynn. short e^...

Famous author of *Brideshead Revisited" Evelyn Waugh was a man, and he wasn't called Eh- va- lynn.

68.71.8.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Gustav Holst

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gustav Holst's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ODNB":

• From William Denis Browne: Davies, Rhian (2004). "Browne, William Charles Denis (1888–1915)" (subscription required). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/56650. Retrieved 2007-11-09.
• From Edward Clark (conductor): Jennifer Doctor, 'Clark, (Thomas) Edward (1888–1962)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004, accessed 31 Jan 2013
• From Cecil Sharp: Heaney, Michael (2004). "Sharp, Cecil James". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press.
• From Kathleen Ferrier: Harewood, Earl of (2004). "Ferrier, Kathleen Mary". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online. Retrieved 25 May 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Astrology

On one of his videos, Isaac Assimov describes Holst as an "astrology buff".AT Kunene (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I think we have the point properly taken on board in the article. Tim riley (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Public Domain status of works?

Holst died in 1934. If we take into account current copyright law in the U.S. and the EU, wherein counting starts from the next year of a person's death +70 years, then his works must have entered the Public Domain in 2005.

I'd like more input on this topic. -Mardus (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume the copyright laws apply to GH in exactly the way they apply to everyone. This is a tricky area, I think, as copyright here used to be year of death + 50 years (thus Gustav Mahler (1860–1911) and W.S. Gilbert (1836–1911) came into the public domain on 1 January 1962) – the latter with much fanfare in the UK. But when the change was made from 50 to 70 years I don't know. If it was after 1984 Holst (and Elgar and Delius) would, I imagine, have come into the public domain in January 1985, but whether that's true, and whether, if so, they came out of copyright and stayed out or went in again and re-emerged in 2005 I do not know and cannot guess. We don't, as far as I recall, mention the date of expiry of copyright in other composers' articles, and it isn't plain to me what value there would be in making an exception in this case (quite apart from the fact that the matter isn't covered in any of the souces I have access to.) Sorry to be so dim, but better safe than sorry, I'd say. Tim riley (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nina

It's absurd not to include her in the family tree, which contains several less relevant names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.218.180 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Some idiosyncratic terminology

The latest edit to the article has drawn my attention to what has been written about A Choral Fantasia in the "Music" section. I'm afraid A.E.F. Dickinson's very idiosyncratic use of such terms as "chorale" has tripped up whoever wrote this part of the article, resulting in the vague and potentially misleading statement "chorale-type themes are interspersed with choruses". I will rewrite that section for now, basing it on Imogen Holst's more easily summarised commentary in The Music of Gustav Holst. At some point soon I will go through the entire "Music" section more carefully. Alfietucker (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wording issue

Holst's works were played frequently in the early years of the 20th century, but it was not until the international success of The Planets in the years immediately after the First World War that he became a well-known figure.

or

Holst's works were played frequently in the early years of the 20th century, and after the international success of The Planets in the years immediately after the First World War he became a well-known figure.

I prefer to avoid "but it was not until" (5 words) and use "and after" (2 words) as I think it conveys exactly the same information in fewer words. --John (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The shortest distance between two points may be a straight line, but it is not always the most effective way to communicate. The point here, surely, is that Holst was only moderately known by the public before the post-war success of The Planets, and this emphasis is lost with omission of the words "but it was not until".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jerome. To my mind the suggested change alters and dilutes the intended nuance of meaning. "I was cold but it was not until my toes fell off that I went indoors" is not the same as "I was cold and after my toes fell off I went indoors". The latter is shorter, but misses the contrast and conditionality (if that's the word I want) between the earlier and later states of affairs, and the same is true, I think, of the Holst extract. Parenthetically, apropos of the above heading, here is Gowers on "issue": "This word has a very wide range of proper meanings as a noun, and should not be made to do any more work – the work, for instance of subject, topic, consideration and dispute." Verbum sap. Tim riley talk 21:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the shorter version carries exactly the right weight of meaning. Generally on an encyclopedia article the shorter wording is the better. I find the longer version to be a rather jarring bit of bad writing in a Featured Article. Are there other such constructions in the article? Prose is one of the criteria, you know. --John (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry John, but I think you are wrong on both counts. While the sentence as it now stands in the article is clearly expressed and good writing, your preferred version is not good writing (rather limp and imprecise, to be honest); nor does it "carry exactly the right weight of meaning" – do you seriously think it conveys what Jerome has explained is the crucial nuance of the sentence (i.e. that notwithstanding the frequency of performance of Holst's works before the War, he was not a "well-known figure" until after the public success of The Planets) as it stood before your edit? Alfietucker (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with Alfie on this. John cares about good writing, and I am forever grateful to him for leading me to kick the "however" habit, but I think he's plain wrong on this one. Tim riley talk 21:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, on reflection I think I agree with you both. I take it the sources back this emphasis up? --John (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed so. The Times remarked on his post-Planets fame (29 August 1923, p. 12), and his daughter tells us how he disliked this new celebrity (pp. 54–55). Concert notices in The Times between 1903 and the end of 1917 list fifty Holst premieres etc, most of them from 1910 onwards: not at all bad for a rising young composer, but the post-war success of The Planets was something else. Tim riley talk 08:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Star Wars Connection

I'm kind of surprised that the page, and this talk page, make no mention of the years of controversy of how much of the Planets seems to have been lifted by John Williams for the Star Wars score and others. Was it mentioned here and deleted, or have we just not found a reasonable source talking about it? Spawn777 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

von Holst

The wording "He appropriated the aristocratic prefix "von" and added it without authority to the family name" is unclear; there is no "authority" required for a change of name the UK; anyone may, legally, use any name they please. Unless this refers to something else (in which case that should be explained), the words "without authority" are redundant and should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel all that strongly about the matter. The point I was trying to get across was that this ancestor was trying to pose as a grand continental aristo when he was no such thing. Perfectly true that a Briton can call himself what he likes, but I think the wording makes the substantive point clear. There was no quibble at PR or FAC, but for my part I'd be quite happy to change if there's now a consensus to the contrary, Tim riley talk 17:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that he was a German immigrant in the Victorian era, when familiarity with such German customs was greater than it is today (not to mention the German custom itself being still one of legal status at the time), it seems plain that the authority in question was German law, not English, and so the criticism stands and should be retained. Besides, it is verified by a citation from the composer's daughter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the meaning should be clarified, since it is not at all apparent to a reader without knowledge of German customs of the Victorian era. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point. What might you suggest as an appropriate explanation? Obviously, this is not an important enough issue for this article to add more than one short sentence. Would a link to the article German nobility suffice, or perhaps more specifically, to the section on nobiliary particles?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Not an especially good point, me judice. I think rather than make a production number of this with a pointless link to another article it would be preferable to remove the words "without authority". I should like to know what other editors think about this. Tim riley talk 00:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd just remove the "without authority": the rest all is well and good as it stands. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we all sign up to that? Happy to do the honours if so. Tim riley talk 16:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If Andy is happy with this, I certainly have no objection.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I am. Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Andy/Pigs. 23:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sharp's collected tunes in Somerset Rhapsody

DBaK, I too spotted that change from three to four tunes, and, like you, raised an eyebrow. What say you to leaving out the number altogether, and saying "made use of tunes that Sharp had noted down"? I don't think the total will be missed by readers. Tim riley talk 19:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Sounds reasonable. If we can find a reliable source then I suppose it could go back in, but I haven't; as you say it is hardly the most crucial piece of leading-edge musical information the whole encyclopaedia. I'd be fine with that edit. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Tim riley talk 21:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gustav Holst/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Gustav Holst: 2009-01-23== This is an assessment of article Gustav Holst by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? ok ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Limited personal details. When did he marry? children? ===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Limited personal details. ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. A list is given in a separate article; it claims to be "selected". ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? Weak; some musicology. Needs more, and more on his musical legacy (who he influenced, or claims him as influence). ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) Two images; could use more. Some sound clips. ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article primarily references (modern) Britannica; Some inline citations. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) lead needs work ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE) ===Summary=== This is a decent musical and professional biography. It would benefit from some additional personal details, such has when he met his wife, married, when his daughter was born. It could also use a more musicological look at his music as a whole. I note that the primary references are to another encyclopedia. If Britannica starts deciding Wikipedia is also reliable, we'll come full circle. There are biographies of him available that should be consulted (although editors referencing his daughter's biography of him should be aware of the Alma problem). The article's lead consists of several single-sentence paragraphs that read almost like a trivia section; it should be rewritten per WP:LEAD. Article is a weak B-class; there is room to improve. Magic♪piano 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Something new

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

.

Cassianto said: "nothing new has been discovered on either side of the argument". Here's one I haven't seen mentioned; straight out of the Law of Unintended Consequences:

As a user with declining vision, I enlarge the text for increased readability. As the infobox's text enlarges, its width also increases, detracting from readability instead. Some articles hold up, under these circumstances, better than others, some are crowed rather badly, (15% text / 85% Ibox), and some have no text left of the IB at all, or it splits at the first word longer than the text field will allow.

I don't particularly like reading prose in a very narrow column and think it should be considered; perhaps corrected.--John Cline (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This is important and a v. useful contribution, but I truly think it doesn't belong here in this discussion about Holst's article. I'm not at all expert in the forums in which WP policies are set, and would be grateful if someone (pro- or con-box) would be kind enough to suggest where the matter ought to be raised in the context of en.WP as a whole. Tim riley talk 17:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on removal of hidden comment

Rfc closed 10 September 2016

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. There are two constituencies with somewhat different priorities. One group is primarily concerned that there should not be an infobox. The other is primarily concerned that hidden messages should not exert WP:OWNERSHIP. Although WP:HIDDEN is not yet a mature guideline, following it would satisfy both local consensa on this page. Rather than saying "please do not add an infobox" it could say "please do not add an infobox before seeking consensus on the talk page" and link to the most relevant prior discussion. If there was no other discussion, then linking to this RfC will do. No one in the course of the RfC has suggested an infobox should actually be added. Rhoark (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Should the hidden html comment, <!-- please do not add an infobox: see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes]]--> be removed from this article? RexxS (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Help:Hidden text gives examples of where hidden text is appropriate, and where it is not. One of the examples of inappropriate use is: Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit. When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus. The policy relating to the use of infoboxes is at WP:INFOBOXUSE: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. In the case of this article, there is no previous discussion about infoboxes and no existing consensus. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Support removal Support The hidden comment here clearly breaches our guidelines on its use. It is nothing more than a pre-emptive measure to put editors off adding an infobox to the article, despite the absence of any previous debate. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Support removal. There is no good to reason to treat the addition of an infobox differently from other edits: all can be reverted and discussed if it seems necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Support removal: There was a clear directive from ArbCom that the "local consensus" of a wikiproject on infoboxes is not applicable, and that each article is to be considered on a case by case basis. This hidden comment, in fact, is a violation of the sprit of the ArbCom decision, though I don't think the decision specifically addressed this hidden comment issue. FWIW, it's also instruction creep. Montanabw(talk) 03:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Support removal because it's inappropriate. However, I'd support a /FAQ at the top of the talk page that says (if true) that editors here have discussed it and decided against an infobox, with a suitable link to WP:Consensus can change. (NB that "editors here" does not mean "members of a WikiProject having a discussion elsewhere in an effort to make blanket rules for all articles that interest them".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Support removal noting that the rule is that consensus on any individual page is sufficient for inclusion or exclusion on that page, and no project may mandate inclusion or forbid exclusion by a consensus found only on a talk page of such a project. That said, I would suggest that a positive consensus for inclusion of an infobox for this page would make sense as a requirement before any infobox here is added. Collect (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Per Arbcom and WP:CONLOCAL. It's a pretty clear case of overreach. --Izno (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Per RexxS & Izno. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Support removal – our guideline is clear on this matter WP:ADVICEPAGE...oppose votes seem to lack any policy base for a position. That said a link to a discussion on this talk page would be fine...but not to a random project essay that clearly lacks community support.. -- Moxy (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Support removal – for all the reasons stated above. As a reader, I find value in infoboxes and find such a hidden comment an unneccessary distraction. This RfC is a good example. We now have to devote time to discussing the obvious one-sided use of the hidden comment instead of focusing our attention on improving the encyclopedia for the benefit of its readers. Atsme📞📧 19:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC) As the comment is hidden, I'm honestly unsure how it is "a distraction". I'm not challenging your support for the removal of the comment, but I just wonder if you could clarify just how the comment is a distraction to our readers? – SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Hi, SchroCat - I'll begin by saying I did not say "the comment is a distraction to our readers" – that was what you gleaned from my comment for whatever reason. I find it curious that perceptions can be so different and often wonder how on earth that happens. Hopefully your response will help me in the future with regards to making my comments unambiguous. My exact statement was that I "find such a hidden comment an unneccessary distraction"' which I followed with "This RfC is a good example." How did you equate that into it being a distraction for our readers? Atsme📞📧 20:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Your semantic games aside, I'm still perplexed how a hidden common is a distraction. The RfC is also hardly a distraction: no-one is being forced to read or comment on the thread. Could you explain how the hidden common is a distraction? – SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC) "Semantic games?" If only that were the case but unfortunately I don't have time to play games. My comments were sincere so let's get back to focusing on content. I support what the OP stated in his reason for removal, and feel that he presented a well-drafted argument for removal. Warning tags are placed on BLPs and various other topics where there may be DS or PP because they actually do create situations where editors need to be aware (or risk being blocked). This is not one of those instances. It reminds me of subject headlines in some of the spam email I've received, like Please contact the IRS regarding your intention to create a Sect 501 (c)(3). Editing WP articles is a daunting enough task without adding "do not add" requests which has a tendency to be distracting. Atsme📞📧 21:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC) I really don't want to continue this, but I'm still perplexed how the text is, somehow, "a distraction"? I know your comments were sincere and made in all good faith, but I am just trying to understand how a hidden comment can be thought of as a distraction. Can you explain, without comparing to unconnected things like spam email? Did you mean to say "distraction on", or did you mean something else? – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC) I am more than happy to help clarify, SchroCat, and will mix in a hypothetical situation to demonstrate. As an occasional WikiGnome who focuses on ledes, when I see  !<----please do not....----> at the top of the edit page I will take the time to investigate. When I first arrived here, I checked out the hidden comment and followed the links before I made my decision to support removal. I would have done the same thing had I arrived at the article to edit so it created a *(distraction)* by taking me away from editing. When I arrived at the project page I did a speed read, and landed at the 2nd link *(2nd distraction)* to discover there was no policy prohibiting the addition of a biographical infobox. Curious, so why the hidden comment? Could it be a case of WP:OWN? *shrug* I like infoboxes, and consider them helpful so now we're at the *(3rd distraction)*. In an effort to avoid disruption, I probably would not have added an infobox and chances are, would have forgotten the edits I was there to make in the first place. But hey, if this RfC ends in your favor, I would consider adding !<---please do not make any edits to this article without proposing them on the TP first---> 😉 Atsme📞📧 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Thank you Atsme for the explanation. I'm not in 100% agreement with it, but I can now see where you are coming from. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Support removal per WP:FAITACCOMPLI, WP:DRAMA, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and the aforementioned CONLOCAL and ADVICEPAGE: There is no consensus discussion on record about whether to have an infobox at this article, so the "warning" HTML comment is jumping the gun; it's inappropriate claim-staking by the anti-infobox contingent. The reason to remove it is that retaining it would be a signal to this faction that they can insert this message in every single article that does not presently have an infobox. Those who oppose infoboxes need to ask themselves if they would be okay with the pro-infobox camp going to all articles without infoboxes and adding <-- please add an infobox: see WP:INFOBOXUSE -->. Exact same thing (and I would oppose that as well). WP is not about sailing to new lands and planting flags.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC) SNOW support SMcCandlish hit the nail on the head; someone needs to read WP:Advice pages. This is clearly related to the perennial contest of wills between the cadre of editors at WikiProject Composers who wanted to excise infoboxes from all biographies of classical composers and their nearly as zealous opposition. Eventually ArbCom had to get involved to contian the disruption that resulted from these turf wars over idiosyncratic editing, and I do believe discretionary sanctions remain in place for this area of conflict to this day, so strongly advise that battleground behaviour be avoided here. Regardless, both ArbCom and community consensus have been clear on this for many years now: you simply cannot create your own rules through collaboration at a WikiProject (or any process page) and then tout it as "policy" or "consensus" for every single page which you feel fall within the purview of that topic, like a little personal content fiefdom. So, regardless of the tally of the !vote, reference to the WikiProject must be removed, as it is blatantly in conflict with a policy that is meant to avoid just these situation. The rest of the hidden text could be retained if and only if a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is established, on this exact page, to support avoiding an infobox. Until then, as others have noted above, this is nothing more thank a juvenile attempt to stake territory in one of Wikipedia's longest-run and most asinine sources of disruption. I'm not sure how long this has been in the article--it could be a hold over from the height of this fiasco--but if it was added by a content warrior recently, they should be (and given the content area, almost certainly are) aware that the community ran out of patience for this nonsense a long time ago. The rules are clear. Establish a local consensus if you want to add, or preclude, an element like an infobox. Only the support you garner here, and the consistency of the approach with actual policy matter; we don't care how many contributors at WikiProject Whatever agree with you. This is an FA and a content area covered by multiple ArbCom rulings (to which some of those commenting here were parties, I note, without shock); follow community guidelines here or expect the ban hammer to come down hard. Snow let's rap 08:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC) The hidden notice entered the article, together with beginning of expansion for FA quality, on 6 April 2013 and apparently stayed unchanged. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Comment: My initial thought about the hidden message was that since WP policy required article-by-article consensus for the inclusion of an infobox, a note advising editors to seek such a consensus when contemplating adding a box was sensible. That still seems to me a reasonable position; however, I can also see that the note is capable of being misunderstood as a policy in itself, rather than a request to follow policy, and is as likely to provoke dissent as to avoid it. Another concern I have is that the note links to a decision of the Classical Music Project that is now more than six years old. Many of the editors who participated in that debate have retired or are now inactive, and at least one has performed a complete U-turn! (of course it's not a crime to change your mind). In short, I am not sure that the presence of the message, however well-intentioned, will help to achieve a detente between the factions, which is the only way whereby we will ever move on from this interminable debate. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Oppose removal No. An attempt to avoid edit wars and the dramah that follows is to be welcomed. – SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC) No – per SchroCat. Too much time is wasted talking about the same things over and over again. A factual note, such as this, saves all the ensued drama which would, inevitably, disrupt the article. CassiantoTalk 20:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Oppose removal – per Jerome Kohl and Laser brain. Further: the references to Help:Hidden text are misguided; that's a Help page, not a guideline. The guideline at MOS:DONTHIDE, or more pointedly at MOS:COMMENT, says nothing of the sort. In fact, it says the opposite. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Oppose removal – We had a case only the other day where a well-meaning editor added an info-box to a Featured Article at which there was a consensus against a box. The mistake was quickly corrected, but a message like this (with amended wording if wanted) would have saved that editor embarrassment and wasted effort. Tim riley talk 06:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Oppose removal – tweak the language per below, if there has never been an infobox in this article, then there is already an existing consensus not to have one, if an editor wants to add one, then the onus is on them to establish a consensus for inclusion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Oppose removal – If the wording needs to be adjusted, that's just fine, but I have seen too many cases where an editorcomes across a composer article, notices it hasn't got an infobox, puts one in, has it reverted, and then whines "nobody told me there was a problem, and I've wasted a lot of time an effort on this." It is a simple fair warning to the unwary, as long as it isn't worded to sound like a policy or guideline.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Oppose removal — If consensus on this article is to not use an infobox — there must be some way to communicate this to those who would otherwise spam-add infoboxes to everything. Most of the time a lack of infobox is not a conscious decision — but based upon a lack of things to put in the infobox. Here is a deliberate decision, this reflects consensus on the page and is independent of whether policies forbid certain edits — consensus does. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC) @CFCF: But there is no consensus on this article not use an infobox, and certainly nothing yet that can be communicated to those who might add an infobox. If there is "a deliberate decision" here, as you seem to think, please supply a link to that decision. Even on an article where there is consensus, our guideline at Help:Hidden text refutes your conclusion: "Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus.". --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Oppose removal – Internal comments like this do preempt good faith editors from wasting their available editing time. This alone is worth the price of admission. By normal editing, the comment will be vetted for clarity and policy compliance; this is proper and should remain in continuing practice.--John Cline (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Oppose removal Hidden comments work reasonably well; I don't think many drive-by editors check an article talk page before making whatever edit they intend and these comments at least give them an indication to check first. SagaciousPhil – Chat 08:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC) @Sagaciousphil: Nobody would disagree with asking drive-by editors to check an article talk page if there were a previous discussion to check. But in this article, there is none. How does your reasoning fit with that? --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC) There's a discussion to check now (pity the poor innocent drive-by editor) and no consensus for adding a box. Tim riley talk 18:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC) The editors who expanded the article and brought it to the level of quality it presently shows appear to have made a considered decision not to include an info box as the HTML comment was added on the day the work began. It has since been peer reviewed and successfully undergone an FAC. The hidden comment simply reflects the consensus of the main editors and reviewers that an IB is not thought pertinent on this article. To check beforehand also shows at least a modicum of respect towards the hardworking editors who gave their time and effort to provide 'readers' with an excellent quality article. SagaciousPhil – Chat 18:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC) So they forbade an infobox even before starting work on the article. "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Where is that "discussion and consensus"? The "main editors" of this article have no more right to prohibit other editors from adding an infobox than they have to prohibit any edit that does not breach policy. Checking for prior discussion is a good thing; but attempts by the "main editors" to enforce a preemptive ban without any prior discussion shows a lack of respect towards hardworking editors like Graham11 who gives his time and effort to keep articles compliant with our policies and guidelines. --RexxS (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Well you see, Rexx, before the Wikipedia authorities' ruling there was among involved editors a quiet consensus – now ruled ultra vires – that we just didn't add I-Bs for composer Life and Works articles. I can't quite recall your contributions to any of the articles, but never mind, as now, courtesy of the massed IB troops, we have a detailed discussion that confirms that there still is no consensus to add a box. Tim riley talk 20:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Yes, Tim, I was already aware that a small clique had appointed themselves the arbiters of what was best for the readers of these articles. You'll have to excuse me, but I must have missed your edict that only editors who have previously contributed to one of your articles should be entitled to edit, or even have an opinion on them. I'm afraid the discussion below shows no consensus to exclude an infobox, either. Nevertheless, when your hidden comment prohibiting editing gets removed from this article, I'll be happy to contribute a policy-compliant notice requesting editors who are considering adding an infobox to check that discussion first. I'll even explain to you how to write one, or you can copy the example I made earlier at William Walton --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC) And the attempt to alter that previous "quiet consensus" -- by a classical music editor -- got so nasty so fast that it was what gave rise to the ArbCom case. Montanabw(talk) 23:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC) As far as I know only two editors were sanctioned at that tribunal: both of them members of the Compulsory Info-Box lobby. Tim riley talk 16:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Is "consensus to exclude an infobox" required? That strikes me as a novel interpretation of WP:DISCUSS and WP:BRD. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Michael, you must understand that a consensus is only a consensus if the info-box lobby agree with it. Tim riley talk 16:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Oppose removal – as per Jerome Kohl – brought here via bot BlueSalix (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Oppose removal As per pre-emptive action, I think it should stay. I would like to know the circumstances of it being added however. Iazyges (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Discussion Who cares? Its an invalid notice anyway and can be safely ignored. Anyone who actually wants to put in an infobox will do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC) I care because I believe it can dissuade a new editor who isn't familiar with the policy from adding an infobox, even if they felt it would improve the article. It lends a false authority to the WikiProject, contrary to WP:CONLOCAL. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Yes, rex thinks it's "chilling". Mind you, he wants the edit warring and an attempt to drive away those with a more flexible mindset, simply to get an idiotbox into every article. – SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC) I think a third option, rewording the comment, should be available.--John Cline (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Where there has been prior discussion, then I maintain that a comment pointing to it is helpful, for example, I made this edit to William Walton. But where no discussion about an infobox has ever taken place on the article talkpage, I don't believe there can be any rewording that helps the potential editor. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Of course there can: it's not beyond the capacity of a sentient being to come up with an alternative. You just don't want anything there. – SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) I don't see why not. WP:HIDDEN is perfectly clear on how this should be done: soften the wording to make it clear that this is no prohibiting policy, but requesting the courtesy of discussing it first. I have WP:BOLDly done this in the present case, as well as in half a dozen cases I encountered just before getting to this one, which is the first where I found any discussion at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC) WP:HIDDEN is indeed perfectly clear: "When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit" (my emphasis). It does not say "Where there is no existing consensus, the hidden text should require the editor to seek consensus on the talk page before making an edit." We'd never have an encyclopedia if everybody had to get permission to edit beforehand. There's no existing consensus here and no justification for requiring editors to seek one before editing. See WP:BRD. --RexxS (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Point of order, but this hidden comment removal occurred on several pages and now the issue is being litigated across multiple talk pages. We should centralize the discussion somewhere so people can comment in one place. That being said, these types of notices are quite useful to content editors who spend their time building and maintaining pages. I've seen them on plenty of music articles advising people not to add/remove genres, on the Elvis article instructing people not to keep adding infobox fields that don't have consensus, etc. This type of disruption almost always occurs in infoboxes because every know-all wants to roll by and add tidbits of information whether it's sourced and in the article or not. So we save ourselves a bit of time by saying "Look here before you do this." I fail to see the problem. --Laser brain (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Looking closer at the hidden notice: "please do not add an infobox: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes": A reader of the hidden notice can't follow the link, only sees a label with the appearance of authority. A reader who takes the time to copy the link location arrives at the top of the project page because the section header "Biographical infoboxes" doesn't exist. A reader who still doesn't give up but searches for the term "infobox" finds a piped "here" and gets to a section of the project guidelines. What will such a reader think? - Can we agree that this confusing wording should not be kept? Finding a new wording would take time, - couldn't we just try to do without the hidden notice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC) new day: Francis helped to a better link, so I could strike most of the above. The question is still the same: couldn't we just try to do without the hidden notice? I suggest to drop it for some, and leave it for others, as a test. - DYK that I will have another DYK about peace today? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Maybe it is a browser issue, but when I look at the message it reads somewhat differently: "please do not add an infobox without first obtaining consensus on the article Talk page: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes". I agree that linking syntax in hidden text is useless, and if the section header no longer exists, then it should be updated. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Is it simply because we are too lazy to update the information?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC) PS: I just checked the link, and apparently the section header has just been restored, because I was not redirected to the top of the page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) That's not what the notice says now. You may have missed the edit an hour and a half ago; it now reads: "please do not add an infobox without first obtaining consensus on the article Talk page: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes". As for "Finding a new wording would take time, - couldn't we just try to do without the hidden notice?" I am not sure what the rush is. The text from before the most recent edit has been there for some time, so I don't know why we need to suddenly rush to delete it today (along with the same deletion on several other pages – which verges on the disruptive IMO). Any open-minded and flexible approach should be able to come up with alternative wording if the consensus is that a replace,went is needed. – SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Just remove the damn things where they are a generic hidden notice, and no new wording. Further "please do not add an infobox" is contrary to what ArbCom flat-out ordered us all to do -- fight it out article by article by article. (Which none of us particularly like--that much, at least probably unites the pro- and anti- infobox factions) To the extent that individual articles, post-ArbCom, have endured an infobox war, a consensus was, however grudgingly, granted, and both sides have beaten the issue to a standstill, perhaps in those limited cases a hidden note with the permalink to the "consensus" could be included with a caution to the editor that they should consult before adding or removing. Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC) So, you haven't read "the damn thing", either. It presently asks to do exactly what you demand: fight it out article by article. Now, would you like to start over again, or just withdraw your comment?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC) ArbCom spoke, and until they reinstate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, this is all we have, article by article. Not sure what you mean by "haven't read," I've read this whole section...the bottom line is that the WP Classical music projects have exploded repeatedly over this issue, it will never be resolved, I've yet to see a debate that doesn't devolve down to an ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT discussion, and a lot of people who would normally get along rather well are at loggerheads and go straight for the jugular whenever the topic arises. Someday, we will have a universal infobox policy and these ridiculous debates will end, but I suspect it will be years from now. Montanabw(talk) 08:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC) I amicably disagree. The classical music project hasn't exploded, nor the composers project. In this whole discussion, we need to read only one comment, the first one in this section: "Its an invalid notice anyway and can be safely ignored." Thank you, Only in death does duty end, for nailing it. We are discussing if an invalid should be there or not. I say "not" to keep it simple, but if it's there, also no harm. All this talk about dramah and edit war seems a bit exaggerated. When was the last time that a newbie added an infobox which was reverted? When was the last edit war? - Thank you, Tim, for being so considerate of the other user's time ;) – How about the experiment to leave half of the composers changed without the notice, the others with it, and observe? My prediction is that it makes no difference, so could be safely omitted. - People die, and we still talk about a hidden notice, really? I am going to write a Requiem article now, thinking of Kevin. (With an infobox, naturally.) Only in death does duty end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Gerda, dearest, it wasn't a music article I referred to, but I am not so naive as to flag up another article where the Info-box Panzers can immediately roll. Remind us about Kevin and what he has to do with this discussion? Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC) There are no Info-box Panzers, unless you can provide a reference for their existence. Why are you so afraid? - Kevin. (I thought everybody knew that.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC) I should not have answered the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Oh, come off it, Gerda! Pro-IB bullies banned score= ? No names, no pack-drill. Never ran across this Kevin, but I see from your link that he was a sacked admin. What's he got to do with this current discussion? Tim riley talk 14:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC) @Tim riley: I believe Gerda is referencing the fact that Kevin Gorman appears to be dead and hence she will think of him while she writes a Requiem article. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Laser brain, For what it's worth, although I had heard the news about KG, I'm also confused about what he (or GA's requiem) have to do with the discussion here. (Not that I'm after any explanation – there is no connection). - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Requiescat. We are all God's creatures, and to be prayed for by anyone who can pray (which I know from private exchanges includes both Gerda and me). Nonetheless I am unsure why the poor soul is being dragged in here unless it's to camouflage the tanks, which would be rather inappropriate in my view. Tim riley talk 15:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Gerda, your intention to drag in a recently deceased editor to detract away from the matter in hand is bloody disgusting. Please stick to the matter in hand. CassiantoTalk 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Repeating from above: we need to read only one comment, the first one in this section: "Its an invalid notice anyway and can be safely ignored." Please leave me alone with assumptions about my intentions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC) If you want your intentions to be left alone, then stop making references to the deceased. They don't care, they can't answer, they are dead. It's too morbid for comfort to keep hearing you turn helpful discussions into an obituary and people are sick of hearing it. Secondly, you indicate that you agree with Only in death – a coincidence, I hope – that "Its[sic] an invalid notice anyway and can be safely ignored", so why have you supported a removal? Surely, you should be neutral on the matter? CassiantoTalk 06:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC) I am not neutral to keeping an invalid notice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Then I find your posts deliberately confusing. CassiantoTalk 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Surely all invalid notices should be removed? "This article has no refs–oops, except for those 16, I guess that this unref notice is invalid" usually militates in favor of removal, not an indifference towards the presence of a known-to-be-invalid notice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC) It is a misnomer to say that this page has "no existing consensus" even if "there is no previous discussion". In my opinion, that fallacy is the impetus of this debate's failing! No page on Wikipedia exists without the collaborative assent of others; itself, the foremost act of consensus building across the project. In the absence of local discussion, editing discretion is always subject to the accepted best practices achieved by some earlier consensus. In particular, it is unequivocally clear that the decision to include an infobox, or not, is a style preference. As such, deference is generally given to the earliest edit to establish the preference. In a dispute without factors of mitigation, (like policy or an overriding consensus), the status quo should be, and most often is, upheld. The hidden comment should merely reflect the established preference, without prejudice, unless and until it is superseded itself. Therefore: depending on the prevailing style, at times the hidden comment could say, in effect: Consensus for this article favors the inclusion of an infobox. It should not be removed unless the preference is superseded by competent means like an office action or a reversing consensus on the talk page. Whereas: at times, it could perhaps say: Consensus for this article favors the omission of an infobox. One should not be added unless the preference is superseded by competent means like an office action or a reversing consensus on the talk page. Thank you, and best regards.--John Cline (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC) And thank you, John! A gracious and impartial suggestion that could well form a basis for a protocol we could all sign up to. Tim riley talk 13:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry John, but the decision on including an infobox is a matter of content, not style, and ArbCom made that clear in its decision at WP:ARBINFOBOX (a good example is "infoboxes combine elements of content and style, but the decision whether to have them or not is presumably a content issue, not a style issue" at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. The fallacy in your argument is that any part of the content of an article may be absent at some point in its development – for example this article had no "Legacy" section for at least six years – but that does not imply that consensus is against inclusion of such content. Similarly, the absence of an infobox does not imply any consensus not to have one. In fact the maxim is "silence is consent" and any editor ought to be free to add content, including an infobox, to any article if they believe it improves the article. If they are reverted, they should expect a reason founded in policy from the reverting editor. That is how we should all be editing and these hidden comments fundamentally undermine that process and encourage OWNership. The comments you propose breach the guidance at WP:HIDDEN. For articles where a consensus has been reached in accordance with policy (see WP:INFOBOXUSE: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.") it is not appropriate to state "One should not be added"; any such comment should do no more than draw the editor's attention to the debate where the existing consensus for the article was established. For articles where no prior debate has taken place, no restriction should be placed on an editor's ability to improve the content. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Presumably" does give a little leeway (and it's not the first time Arbcom have possibly erred). I have seen others refute the "content" argument, stating it is a formatting question. – SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC) All this Wikilawyering by editors who haven't hitherto contributed to the article doesn't address the commonsense point that if an info-box is agreed to be otiose in a featured article on composer X there is a 99.99% chance that the same considerations will apply to composers Y, Z et al. If a box is added to any it will be quickly removed, I should think, and though the adder can of course if he /she wishes make his/her pitch to seek a consensus for its restoration it seems to me a sad waste of his/her time when he/she is unlikely to succeed and could be using his/her time to more useful effect. That's what the hidden pointer is there for. Tim riley talk 20:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Yes, it would be far more convenient, Tim, if you could somehow arrange that only the OWNers of an article get to have a say in its content. That's not gonna happen. Find me a citation for that "99.99% chance" because I'm calling bullshit on it. I'm surprised that someone like yourself doesn't understand that similar articles can be very different in their suitability for having an infobox. You only have to look at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven/Archive 6 #Infobox and Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 13, for example, to see reasonable debate leading to opposite outcomes – both discussions being precipitated by an unaffiliated editor who had no prior edits to the article. Please let the normal processes of bold editing and sensible discussion take their course; these articles don't exist for the convenience of their editors, but for the benefit of their readers. --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Why do you always dive for the gutter with an unfounded and stupid accusation of OWNership rex? It's tediously predictable in every IB discussion. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it's ownership: it's a difference of opinion, not proof,of ownership. I may as well accuse you of attempting OWNership on the top right-hand corner of all articles for the sense you make with it. – SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC) The argument was taken to the gutter by "All this Wikilawyering by editors who haven't hitherto contributed to the article". Anyone who thinks that having contributed to an article is a prerequisite to participation in a debate is expressing OWNership behaviour, and they need to be called on it. Do you think that only editors who are part of the "core group" should have the ability to make decisions on an article's content? --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) The omission of an infobox at an article's creation does not establish a preference. Inclusion of a hidden comment or an edit summary expressing a preference does, and, in the absence of overriding mitigation, it should be respected. The examples I offered above are for illustration only; to show flexability in use of hidden comments. They are not proposed in any way. The decision to include a "Legacy" section is not shown as an editing preference anywhere on Wikipedia. Decisions regarding the positive use of an infobox v. its desirous omission as well as AD v. CE, mm/dd/yy v. dd/mm/yy, and "References" v. "Citations" v. "Footnotes", to the positive use of the serial comma, as I have done here, are all preferences that are given deference and they should be respected along with all of the others. In concluding my regards, I leave this observation: the saddest component of this embarrassing dispute is that it is manufactured by the most highly esteemed, (for experience, knowledge, and capability), of our editing community. You guys, most certainly, already knew of everything I spoke, and also know whatever I could devise about Wikipedia and her best editing practices; yet I am here – sucked in to the time-sink this debate has become, (over years). I've done well in avoiding it until now. I mark it a fools errand and the time spent in its service, wasted – I could have already mowed my lawn which I will now accomplish in late fashion. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC) So John, you think that it's OK for an editor to "mark their territory" by inserting a comment forbidding others to add an infobox? It clearly puts your comments into context. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC) I hope you were speaking in jest, <redacted>.--John Cline (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC) I'm a well-known teetotaler, John Cline, so your aspersions are unfounded. I find your amateur attempts at psychiatry offensive, but I'll give you a chance to redact them before I take up your behaviour at ANI. --RexxS (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC) I don't believe an ANI thread is warranted by my comment, and my decision to redact it is not motivated by your threat to open a thread there. It is sufficient that it was offensive to you that I apologize, and that it detracts from this discussion that I redact it from view.--John Cline (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) IMHO, whoever it was in here somewhere suggested an FAQ here on the talk page that showed a link to the last debate and the consensus reached, that IS how they handle the pages with actual controversies, such as, for example Talk:Barack Obama. No need to clutter the edit box at all. Montanabw(talk) 22:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC) I generally agree.--John Cline (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Forgery There is no way that this was not intentional [2] — it happened a full 12 hours after any accidental edit which would exonerate such behavior. As for the comment by Cassianto [3] — I will report any further unwarranted incivility to AN/I. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) I think you're getting me confused with someone who actually cares about being taken to ANI. I think you, CFCF, should man up and stand by your iVote rather than buckling to peer pressure; I say peer pressure as that is the assumption one makes in the face of their being no explaination at all. Leaving a cryptic edit summary to do with forgery does little in helping to understand why you struck your vote. CassiantoTalk 07:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) I may have mistaken you for someone who cares about getting banned. Anyway I don't need to give a rationale — even though it was because: WP:HIDDENTEXT, there was no consensus for keeping the article without an infobox, and extreme hostility in the face of constructive arguments. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Banned? For what exactly? CassiantoTalk 10:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) For disruptive editing, inflammatory remarks (including the recent edit comment you made [4]), and simply not following the community pillar and policy WP:CIVIL. Breaking these repeatedly is a bannable offense no matter what you want to pretend. But to be really frank, what is the purpose of being so extremely rude? I would like to let you know that your actions are most likely leading to the opposite result of what you want — if you're being rude to anyone and everyone with an opposing view, you're only losing support from new people who come here and only see you being rude towards those expressing valid criticism. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Disruptive editing? Where? Please provide diffs. Inflammatory remarks? Where? I saw nothing in the diff you provided? And please don't be so naive as to think people will alter their views around infoboxes based upon my "extremely rude" attitude. Montanabw opposed and I wasn't rude to her? CassiantoTalk 20:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC) FWIW, my edit adding a reply to Tim Riley: "I look forward to continuing this discussion in a less boisterous venue" was intentional. I cannot explain how User:CFCF's strikout of his own remark was removed at the same time, but User:Izno was correct, this was not intentional. I make it a point never to mess with another editor's comments, and routinely revert second-party edits with a polite request not to alter another editor's wording. I am sorry that this editing glitch has caused so many ruffled feathers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC) I don't know if it is in any way connected, but Sagaciousphil had problems at around the same time when a minor edit of hers ended up deleting the whole page. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I think the two are intrinsically linked, Jerome. CassiantoTalk 07:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC) There was indeed some kind of weird glitch that caused lots of editors a variety of problems with no apparent consistency causing all kinds of bizarre errors. Perhaps CFCF should extend a tad more good faith? SagaciousPhil – Chat 19:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC) I disagree entirely SagaciousPhil — it is not normal to assume major disruption of the interface at all times. The edit in question was very strange — there were no external factors that could explain it: had the period between my edit been shorter it would still have called up an "Edit conflict" — and the other alternative is that it was caused by deliberately choosing to go back to an earlier edit. WP:AGF is not a WP:Suicide pact, and when I see what clearly seems to be disruptive, bad faith editing I will call it out for what it is — regardless if 1/100,000,000 edits such a thing could be caused by a software bug — especially one which I have never encountered before. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC) There being, to the best of my knowledge, no record anywhere of an apology for anything from any member of the Infobox artillery, I suggest that Jerome and Phil might graciously take the above as a proxime accessit and then we can move on, leaving the page unmolested, there being no consensus for a change. Tim riley talk 14:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)