Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

No Infobox

Why is there no infobox for this page? It looks rather strange, compared to other figures' articles. NipponGinko (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

it is done now, it's kinda clunky the fact that it doesn't get info immediately from wikidata but oh well, just did it manually Antniomanso (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

got taken out :/ Antniomanso (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably because not only is it not required, it's not really needed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

well yeah they don’t really bring new information to the article, but i always found them super useful for the way they condensate important facts in the start of the article, for example on korsakov you have to scroll through his whole biography section just to find out where he died, unnecessary with a simple infobox Antniomanso (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can call much of what goes into an IB "important", in encyclopaedic terms, except the small amount that can also be seen in the opening line of the article. IBs tend to focus on trivia (and where someone dies is trivial in most instances). The example you added recently was stuff full of equally pointless little factoids that don't assist readers in gaining an understanding of the man, his work or his place in the development of music - the long list of non-notable relatives, for a start: how to they bring understanding to a reader? - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with SchroCat here - the proposal seems a detriment rather than a benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

i added the IB based on the portuguese one, where it goes fetch all info directly from wikidata instead of manual entry, but ofc part of the information could have been ommited instead

and based on personal experience (and academic peers as well), the trivia facts prove themselves quite useful in IB format instead of even-the-short-intro format when one is researching through unmeasurable articles, as the trivia is in a very predictable and concise format Antniomanso (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for Portuguese, but highlighting trivia doesn't seem like a positive. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven have infoboxes, Rimsky-Korsakov certainly should. The point is not to summarize trivia. It is to create a guide for readers with links to pertinent articles. Rimsky's wife and two of his kids have their own Wikipedia articles, and two generations earlier, one of his relatives was sleeping with the empress. An Infobox is a great way to send people directly to the information they need. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The editors who oppose an infobox have all turtled and gone back into their shells. User:SchroCat deleted the Infobox without discussing it here, and he refuses to discuss it on his page. So too with User:Ian_Rose who reverted an Infobox addition without discussing it here first and also will not engage on his talk page. So where does that lack of cooperation leave us? Should we start a request for comment? Is there some other process we can use to unjam these logs? Trumpetrep (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear. Not at all (and please don't try to personalise matters). I have given my opinion above (thus I have discussed it here) and I won't discuss it on my talk page because this is the right venue for a discussion. There is no lack of cooperation from anyone, but not everyone has to jump just because you've posted something. Your rationale for wanting a box is deeply flawed (the point of an IB is not "to send people directly to the information they need", for example), and no-one is going to add an IB on that basis. If other people want to chip in to change the current consensus, they are able to join in the discussion to add; there is no rush if it helps building consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The consensus about Featured Articles on composers is generally not to use them – they add nothing of value and are not helpful to the reader. A few FAs on composers have them but most do not. You are entirely incorrect in saying that i-boxes are there to send people directly to different articles. That is precisely the opposite of their purpose. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and in particular MOS:IBP and MOS:INFOBOXUSE. Tim riley talk 14:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's quite a contortion of my statement that Infoboxes are "a guide for readers" into the notion that they are "there to send people directly to different articles". The fact that they may contain links to other Wikipedia articles is a secondary benefit. The purpose clearly is to give a quick snapshot of important information for readers. Moreover, where is this "consensus about Featured Articles on composers" that you speak of? Is this a "Featured Article"? Why should a "Featured Article" be any different than a non-featured article?

I requested a Dispute Resolution for this issue. Perhaps you can weigh in there. The form said that I should notify all the editors about the process. It seems best to do that here rather than on user pages. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If you let you eyes stray up the page you will see the words "Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". You probably haven't had time yet to read the Manual of Style guidelines but please do so carefully. Tim riley talk 15:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "An Infobox is a great way to send people directly to the information they need": there's no contortion at all - it's clear what you said in the first place, even if you have now clarified it. Yes, this is a featured article (it's flagged as such in the box at the top of the page). The featured status also provides a fairly solid consensus for the absence of an IB (although, as we all know, consensus can change - but that needs to be by discussion, not forcing the issue through edit warring)

Dispute Resolution is a singularly poor place for an IB discussion (particularly one where a series of falsehoods have been given), which should take place here not elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk)

It was a Featured Article. Is that like being President, and the honorific follows you around for time immemorial? More importantly, where is this so-called consensus about infoboxes in "Featured Articles on composers"? The Manual of Style has an entire section on Infoboxes. It specifically states, "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."Trumpetrep (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No, It is a featured article, as the big box at the top says.

Is there any chance you could learn to indent properly too please, rather than dropping back to the left constantly; instructions can be found here; it's important for screen readers which aid those with accessibility problems. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"Sending" is not exclusive to external content. For instance, Rimsky married Nadezhda Purgold who is an important enough figure to merit her own Wikipedia article. That is top-line information. However, a reader will not learn it until they've read several hundred words and made it to the third section of Rimsky's biography section.

The infobox can deliver that information to the reader right up front.Trumpetrep (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As an observer, I can't see a reason not to include an Infobox. While not required, it does make it easier for users to obtain quick, timeline info SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Trumpetrep may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules and guidance. I have provided links to the relevant MoS section and hope s/he will carefully read it. SchroCat is quite correct, IMO. Tim riley talk 15:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Since Dispute Resolution is apparently not the place to do this, how about we do a quick tally here? There are currently 4 in favor of an Infobox, and 3 opposed. The Manual of Style expressly allows for Infoboxes. Featured Articles almost all use them. There's supposedly a consensus that there is a carveout for Featured Articles on composers that disallows Infoboxes but no one has produced evidence of this. Why should the minority's view hold sway? Trumpetrep (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, see WP:VOTE. We don't just count votes to decide consensus. That's particularly true if you claim "Featured Articles almost all use them", which is patently false. (Also again, please learn to indent). - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, voting is not the same as consensus. However, it is a helpful indicator of where the consensus lies, and in this discussion, it is in favor of an Infobox. So why shouldn't there be one added to the article? Update: I just clicked through a dozen of today's Featured Articles. Not a single one lacked an infobox. Can you find a Featured Article from today that does not have an infobox? Trumpetrep (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it's not even close to being an indicator because it's about the arguments, not about voting - did you actually read WP:VOTE? And even if we did look at voting, 4-3 is 'no consensus', rather than a consensus either way. Just let the discussion run its course without forcing the issue.

Of course I can find FAs without IBs. From the first line of the music bios alone at WP:FA: Charles-Valentin Alkan, Walter Bache, John Barbirolli, Arnold Bax, Thomas Beecham, William Sterndale Bennett, Hector Berlioz and Georges Bizet. I stopped at that point, but I think you get the idea. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And can you find a composer FA among them? In between carefully reading the MoS perhaps Trumpetrep might check the OED on "consensus": "Agreement in opinion, feeling, or purpose among a group of people, esp. in the context of decision-making. Also: the collective unanimous opinion of a number of people." A 4:3 split vote isn't a consensus or anything like it. Tim riley talk 15:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox not required as it will not show anything that should be found in a well-written lead section. Jack1956 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Both Bach & Mozart have infoboxes. Both were featured. As Sherlock Holmes said, "An exception disproves the rule". I agree that a vote ≠ consensus. All it does is show where opinions are. Since there is no actual rule disallowing infoboxes on composer articles (featured or not), why not add one?Trumpetrep (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Two do and an awful lot don't (and they are featured, not "were" featured: being featured is a standard that articles achieve after rigorous review processes, and articles retain that status until they go through a delisting process). The reasons have been explained by people above. I am not sure that continually repeating them just because you keep asking for a box would be helpful. Please just let other people post their opinions without constantly asking the same question: if you don't respect their opinions, they are unlikely to respect yours. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Could we persuade Trumpetrep to tell the truth rather than fabrications? Neither Bach nor Mozart is an FA. Both B class. Tim riley talk 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It literally says, "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is a former featured article" on its Talk page. It seems I made a mistake about Bach. I did not know that Featured Article was an honorific that remained with an article when it was no longer actually featured on the front page.

But as to that, 63% of the "Featured Articles" that are bios of individual musicians have infoboxes. That seems like another exception to this purported consensus. That's not to mention that a similar discussion about infoboxes has sprawled over Mahler's talk page. Similar discussions have occurred on Monteverdi's, Britten's, and Berlioz's pages. I'm sure there are many more. They seem to get shut down by the same handful of editors. I was completely unaware of this aversion to infoboxes until today. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It literally says former, so it's not a featured article. Neither is it an honorific; as I explained just above, "Featured" is a standard of excellence - the highest we have on WP and a sign that the article has been through rigorous review processes to get it up to that standard. Trumpetrep, it seems people have to explain things multiple times before you take them on board: can you just slow down and read what people are saying without assuming you already know it, it will save a lot of back and forth with the same minor points being explained on multiple occasions - the point about indenting your comments has been made three or four times now, and you still fail to do it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it was a featured article, and it has an infobox as do Chopin, Schumann, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, and Mendelssohn. Per your standard of the "Featured Article" honorific, the vast majority of the music bios have infoboxes which would seem that the consensus is for their use. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because the box would misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about the subject. In addition, as the key information about the subject that could be included in the box is already discussed in the Lead and in the body of the article, the box would be a 3rd mention of these facts. Particular problems with the suggested box include: (1) The birth and death dates are given in better context in the opening sentence of the Lead section, including the explanatory footnote. (2) His place of death is not such "key" information that it should be one of the 9 things we highlight about him at the top of the article or on someone's phone screen. (3) Era: this link does not explain much about R-K's style, choices or techniques, unlike the Lead section, which ls much more descriptive and useful. (4) This link to a list of R-K's compositions does not help the reader prioritize or contextualize them. (5) Again, this factoid about his children is not one of the 9 most important things a reader should know about him. (6) His distant relationship to Ivan R-K is not one of the 9 most important things a reader should know about him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there has been now been some WP:CANVASSing going on to try and sway the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

How is an athlete or politician's bio different from a composer's? They all were born, died, and did various things in between that merit a guide at the top of the article. User:Jack1956 suggested an infobox wouldn't contain anything that wasn't in a "well-written lead". Yet, the lead does not contain a portrait. It does not contain a signature. Both of those are in a box off to the side. So, the article already has a kind of infobox with a picture and an autograph in it. Furthermore, a well-written lead will not mention Rimsky's wife and children by name, as this one does not. So, we've already established that there is no actual consensus to avoid infoboxes on composers, and that a "well-written lead" will not contain everything an infobox will. It's unclear why there is such resistance to an obviously utile addition. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As for "Canvassing", the text describes precisely what I did: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." I welcome as many users as possible to join this discussion. That is why I submitted this discussion to Dispute Resolution. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I see Trumprep has spread his/her campaigning to the Mahler article. I hope s/he will refrain from telling untruths there as well as here. Tim riley talk 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are good. Most people use them. It's not a campaign. Someone tried to add an infobox to Mahler's article in 2011, 2012, and 2020. It's interesting to see the same names frequently crop up in opposition, including my dear departed friend Jerry Kohl. As I've demonstrated, infoboxes provide a function that leads do not, and there is no consensus that they should not be used on classical composer articles. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The unsupported claims of three Wikipedians mean diddly squat for such a claim. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have taken, jointly or on my own, 59 articles through FAC to FA. Of these I think about half have i-boxes, giving career stats etc (prime ministers, bishops, plays, shows, locations, authors and so on) where we can put substantive information into an i-box. Where I or my co-authors could not find useful encyclopaedic information for an i-box we have omitted them. In a few cases, e.g. Schumann, as there was an existing i-box I was not so arrogant as to remove it, but left it in place despite thinking it pretty useless. (The much missed Jerome Kohl, never one to miss tweaking my tail good humouredly, never demurred about the eschewal of an i-box for FAC composer articles that I put forward.) Tim riley talk 23:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a nice track record of quality Wikipedia edits, Tim. If 50% of those have infoboxes, that disproves any notion that they are defects in an article's quality. If you will happily edit an article with a box, why would you prevent the creation of one when other editors see it as beneficial? That's the mystifying part of this debate. I understand you don't think it's worthwhile, but other people do. (I learned far more from Jerry than he did from me, but I could often convince him to change his mind when the facts were on my side!) Trumpetrep (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

All people are born and eventually die, but the activities they take part in in between are different, and are best presented differently. A sportsperson is often summarized by statistics - what titles they won when, what medals they won at which games, their goals/runs/etc scored. Politicians often have a run of "served in office X between dates A and B, preceded by Jane Doe and succeeded by John Smith", which are well suited to tabular presentation. But the accomplishments and activities of composers are more typically best provided by prose description. Efforts to shoehorn them into data-pair presentations tend to result in oversimplification of complex datapoints and/or overemphasis of minor datapoints that happen to be simple to display. The argument regarding the lead goes towards the latter: if a particular claim was not deemed sufficiently key to warrant mention anywhere in the lead, it definitely isn't sufficiently key to warrant even more prominent positioning.

As to the canvassing issue, WP:INAPPNOTE notes that non-neutral notifications and those targeting specific users thought to have a particular viewpoint are problematic - the example mentioned above is both of those. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

A bad Mozart article would include "Getreidegasse 9 in Salzburg" in its lead. A good infobox includes that fact. It appears in the infobox 360 words before it appears in the article. Likewise, his wife's name appears in the infobox 2600 words before it does in the article. That is why these tools exist.

As to the athlete comparison, Mozart's career was marked by several distinct periods and professional associations, just like an athlete. That could easily be tabulated in an infobox. Just as an athlete's college is in his infobox, a composer's teachers are an important part of their identity. The comparison is more apt than you realize.

Moreover, there's something disingenuous about the nature of this discussion. Until today, I had no idea this was even an issue. There's a lot of wasted duplicative effort over an issue that has already been arbitrated and discussed ad infinitum. The overarching tenor seems to be a consensus that these article should have infoboxes, and a passionate minority that thinks they should not. It doesn't seem like an issue that is worth warring over.

Since the arguments against Infoboxes are so insubstantial, how is it not worth including something that most editors think is a useful tool? To put it another way, no one is arguing for something unencyclopedic like embedding social media content or relying on message boards as sources. We're arguing for a widely accepted style that is used all over this site. There is no harm created by employing it. So, why oppose it? Trumpetrep (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The arguments are not insubstantial, despite the fact that you don’t agree with them. Less than half WP articles have an IB, so their use is not as much of a de facto state as you may think. And the reason we discuss them at each article is both practical (the subjects, and therefore the drawbacks of the IB, are different at each article), and partly procedural (both the MOS and ArbCom state that is the way it has to be, because each subject is different). Attempts to litigate that IBs need to implemented at all articles, or all biographies, have been rejected on numerous occasions by the community as a whole. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of arbitration, was the well-publicized community discussion held? If so, can you link to it? I've learned a lot today about what some folks consider peccadillos. I'd like to read the community discussion that happened after the Arbitration.

That's a separate issue from the question I've been asking which remains the same: What harm does adding an Infobox do? Since so many editors prefer them, and understandably add them without thinking it's an issue, what is the benefit to reverting them?Trumpetrep (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Learn to indent, for crying out loud - it's essential for people who need screen readers and it helps everyone else understand who you're replying to - long threads like this one become completely unmanageable if people don't bother to do it properly and it's just disruptive to keep ignoring it. I've left the link on your page twice to help you understand how to do it.

As I said above, there have been several centralised discussions Three of the more recent ones that I have been involved with are here, here and here, but there are several others which you can find by searching the archives. As to what harm they do, that's covered in the links there, but we're not discussing IBs in general, we're discussing the consensus for an IB on this specific article, no more. As to the claim that "so many editors prefer them", this misses the point entirely. It's should never be about what editors prefer, but about readers - remember them: the people we are actually here to serve. Unfortunately the Foundation has never dipped one of its short arms into its over-deep, very full pockets to do any research into asking readers what their impressions are. Its notable that the only people who turn up at IB discussions aren't readers, but editors - even when an article is on the main page and we get the huge influx of non-editors looking at the page, it's only rarely that a reader will ask about the lack of an IB.

ps. This is not the place for a general discussion about IBs. Per note at the top and (particularly) ArbCom, this page is to discuss matters relating solely to this article and whether the status quo should change, not a general discussion about IBs. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, SchroCat. So, it sounds like that discussion the arbitrators recommended never took place. Regarding this article's infobox, you have not participated in the Dispute Resolution for the issue. Would it be better to proceed by a Request for Comment? Trumpetrep (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)