Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 40

Pierre Boulez
CBE
Pierre Boulez CBE
	Pierre Boulez, composer, conductor, founder and director of IRCAM, in 1968
Born	26 March 1925; Montbrison, Loire, France
Died	5 January 2016 (aged 90); Baden-Baden, Germany
Works	List of compositions

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Infobox

I propose a PDbox or however we may call it: a minimal infobox of those limited informations which were so far held as Persondata (name(s), honourific(s), date and place of both birth and death, and why the person is notable which may be summarized in a works list). Normally, printed encyclopedias have this information in the lead sentence, but our MoS does not support mentioning places of birth and death, and age at death. Such a thing was installed for Handel in 2014 and has worked well. I don't think the discussion on individual articles is productive, therefore propose to discuss here more generally: Do project members support a PDbox for classical composers.

More precise question: Do project members agree to accept such a thing, instead of reverting when it has been added in good faith. Agree that there is nothing bold about the addition? What made me come here were two reverts in the last days, and one more happened while we discuss, Georges Bizet. I do not propose to have it on all composer articles.

I tried one for Pierre Boulez (whose work I admire and wrote about) as follows:

Pierre Boulez CBE (French: [pjɛʁ bu.lɛːz]; 26 March 1925 – 5 January 2016) was a French composer, conductor, writer and pianist. He was also the founder and director of the Paris-based Institut de Recherche et Coordination Acoustique/Musique (IRCAM).

In his early career, Boulez played a key role in the development of integral serialism, controlled chance and electronic music. This, coupled with his highly polemical views on the evolution of music, gained him the reputation as an enfant terrible.

As a conductor, Boulez was known mainly for his performances of Béla Bartók, Alban Berg, Anton Bruckner, Claude Debussy, Gustav Mahler, Maurice Ravel, Arnold Schoenberg, Igor Stravinsky, Edgard Varèse, Richard Wagner and Anton Webern, as well as conducting the work of his contemporaries such as Elliott Carter and György Ligeti. He received a total of 26 Grammy Awards during his career.

History

The proposal was made - under a different header - as an attempt to achieve a compromise. PDbox was my first idea to name the thing, Brianboulton called it identibox when he installed it to Percy Grainger. Other names could be min-infobox, compromise-box, YOU name it.

Several previous discussions were archived, most recently

Discussion

Support as proposer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the title to reflect what we are talking about here: an INFOBOX. It's not persondata, so lets be open and honest about what is being proposed here. For the record I oppose this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it is Persondata, only that the data lost there - and we had long arguments about that - could be made visible, which is better anyway than hidden. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I don't agree offhand that what is clearly a minimal infobox is necessarily a "PDbox" unless we are going to create a brand-new template called "PDbox" with only those parameters. However I Support an as-proposed, at-least minimal infobox (name(s), honourific(s), date and place of both birth and death, and why the person is notable which may be summarized in a works list) on most any composer's article if someone desires to include one and there is no overwhelming objection to it. (In other words, if in any particular case consensus is divided rather equally, I would say include it for the reader's sake.) Such infoboxes have valuable informational purposes for the reader. Softlavender (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- "name(s), honourific(s), date and place of both birth and death, and why the person is notable": much like a lead does then... - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This lead has no places, no age at death, no indication which date is the date of birth, no way of finding this person as a birthday child of 26 March because year/month/day are not templated, no link to his works. Other Wikipedias have different means to fix that, the Germans have the places in the first sentence and a link to the day-month expressions and another to the years. The Italians have a template that translates to a lead sentence, see it:Maria Carbone. I think our easiest way. is still the one proposed, because it is compatible with other articles readers see, for example Patrice Chéreau. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

ps: I often mention in singer articles: "... appears in the Jahrhundertring, staged by Patrice Chéreau and conducted by Pierre Boulez". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well add the ~~bloody~~ places or age of death to the lead then! There is way too much time and effort wasted on forcing the matter here: I tell you what, as you seem to be interested in what other Wiki's do: how about using the entry from your native German wiki. That would be a wonderful way to go. As to the rest "no way of finding this person as a birthday child of 26 March": I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, let alone any practical reason for doing what I think you may be talking about. The obsession with these things is as disruptive as it always is, and despite your claim to that you wish the "wars" could begin to end, you seem to be the one being disruptive by forcing the issue in so many places. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I have no force, certainly not to make you understand the difference between a date in prose, and one that has year, month and date as different entities, and that I try to have this discussion in one place, instead of individual articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

We have the date in the leadand the body. Computer "readers" have the date in Wikidata. There is no need to have it yet again in the IB. And as others have said, this is a point to be discussed in individual articles. That's what the MoS prescribes, and what Arbcom agreed with. If you don't want to have the discussion, then stop being so needlessly pushing your disruptive agenda. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

" you proved my point that I have no force to make you understand the difference of a templated DOB and a date in prose": you have "proved" nothing Gerda, because I have no idea what you are talking about. Try explaining, rather than forcing! - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried just above, and explaining that the German Wikipedia at least would link de:26. März 1925, while the Italians have the day and month separated from the year in their template. I liked to see how this user understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you've not explained anything. I understand how to put something in a template, obviously, but not WHY. People can read the basic text: they do not need it templated, so WHY would we need to template it? What need is served that isn't covered by a combination of open text here, or the templated stuff on Wikidata. - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have explained, but I couldn't reach you. Perhaps my language problem. You say "we" and "need" a lot, but how about the needs of others, like here? Nothing we do here is "needed", it's all voluntary. Why not supply information even if you (personally) don't need it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Still no explanation of why we should template it? To correct what you've put above: the information normally is supplied, so it's disingenuous to try and say that others are withholding it. It's the format of that supply which is under discussion, so try again: why should we put the date in your templates, rather than in plain text? – SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand "withholding". Why not give prose to you, and a template additionally to those who may want to translate, sort, compare, find people born that day ...? It's not only a format but wider possibilities. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So in order to facilitate the tiny, tiny minority of readers who want to search for the mind-numbing trivia of all those born on a particular day, we need to add an IB? Let me try and get my head round why on earth we should bother doing that just so you can force an IB into articles. Aside from the utter pointlessness of that, I think it is something that Wikidata can deal with much more efficiently than here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

But that argument works both ways. In order to please the tiny number of editors who dislike infoboxes for no other reason than they don't like infoboxes, should we sacrifice the unknown number of readers who want to see an at-a-glance summary? Google searches direct readers to Wikipedia, not Wikidata, and most readers will never be aware of it. And what about the uses that nobody anticipated? Researchers used the fact that data appeared both in our infoboxes and in the text to train natural-language-recognition software, producing a dramatic increase in the accuracy of that software. I'm not asking that you share my enthusiasm for such projects, but I do ask that you respect that others, like me, genuinely hold their views in good faith and admit the possibility that other opinions may be as equally valid as your own. As I've said many times, I'm rarely bothered when I notice an article without an infobox, but I do see red when a new editor adds an infobox to an article, then has it reverted and is fobbed off without a proper reason beyond "there's no consensus". Every edit made could be reverted for those sort of reasons and it's truly destructive to the new editor when their work is removed without the courtesy of a proper explanation. Failure to do that is one of the key indicators of when stewardship turns into ownership of articles. This Wikiproject has a wealth of expertise and experience that could make new editors very welcome. It's in the best interests of Wikipedia that we don't let our own behaviour put off new contributions, even when we personally don't agree with them. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

More crap on ownership? Play a different and more honest tune: this one is old, tired and untruthful. - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose categorically. This is an infobox whatever it is called. As Gerda will recall perhaps from Arbcoms past (in which certain editors whom I will not name were forbidden to propose, and some of them even to discuss, infoboxes), the case for or against an infobox is to be discussed in each individual article. I don't see any reason why this project should be drawn into igniting a dispute which will spread across WP - for of course if the rationale is to replace Persondata then this disingenuous proposal could be spread to every biographical article in Wikipedia. I note that other projects which this proposal would affect directly (e.g. Opera) have not been informed of this latest attempt at Infobox infiltration. The right place to dicuss this idea is wherever Persondata were discussed, not in this lowly project. Apart from that I agree with SchroCat's points, (but being of a peaceable disposition, would delete the expletives). I beg that Gerda will save us time, rancour and blood-pressure by dropping this tedious quest, here and elsewhere.--Smerus (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am tired of the individual articles. They take away too much of our time, yours included. Chopin, Mozart, Sibelius: how much editing wasted that could go to cleaning up Busoni! We have a few hundred more composers ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, as we are in agreement, why not stop pestering? It is you who raises the issue time and again, not me. No project can either forbid or impose an infobox, under whatever soubriquet it masquerades. Therefore your proposal is utterly pointless.--Smerus (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right: no project can forbid. However, infoboxes are reverted with the argument that this project votes against them, which ignores that a composer is also a human being, possibly a performer, writer, director, politician, you name it, - for whom other projects are responsible which have a different view. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've informed projects opera, classical music and infobox, but not France ;) - Uncertain about biography (From the archived discussion: "Of 6,741 persons scanned, only 224(3.3%) lacked infoboxes.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - per the discussions on the article talk page. This infobox has to be one of the most ridiculous looking boxes I have seen in a while. Cassianto ^Talk 12:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Care to explain what made you laugh? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Who's laughing? The ridiculousness of your eyesore above was enough to make me cry, let alone laugh. Cassianto ^Talk 19:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose but: Rather than the proposed solution, I think Gerda's alternate suggestion of localizing the Italian template and amending the MOS to allow for its use makes sense. I've always found it odd that en.wiki does not allow place of birth and death in the parentheses, given that many other encyclopedias do. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I liked the idea when I first saw it, but when thinking of details of implementation I saw that it would make for very rigid first sentences. I would prefer to leave that to a box, and be free in the wording of the prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this could be avoided by limiting the templated portion, to allow for that freedom: Name postnominals (native name; DOB, POB – DOD, POD) prose. This way only the name and parenthetical, which are already formulaic, is set. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Italians also have the name split in given name and surname, gender, activity and nationality. - I would miss birth name, especially for women, but live happily without gender and nationality. How would you do it, and accommodate IPA, name in other languages, all these things? - It looks complicated to me, while using something we have already seems so easy. - Once you'd solve the logic of the template came the logistic to implement it in existing bios: even more complicated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Birth name, IPA, etc are not hard to deal with, just insert where I had "native name" in the parenthetical. It's not complicated to set up. Implementation would be done on a case-by-case basis, just as with infoboxes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, don't think the "boxes" are ready for an over-all approach, and would keep to the article-by-article approach. I commend Gerda for trying, but I'm not in on it. Reason: for instance the Chopin article: it was decided not to have one, not even a minimal one: the reasons why are still valid, and shouldn't be overridden by a general agreement to force them in, whether it is a good idea for that particular article or not. Maybe good to remind that the "boxes" are only as time-consuming as one wants them to be. An option is to "let go" and let others decide whether, for a particular article, there will be a box or not, and what information or image in which format it should hold if there is to be one: that's what I've been doing most of the time lately (I think Bach, a few months ago, was the last one where I got somewhat involved in the discussion, haven't even read a discussion since as far as I can remember). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Support and Comment I always find it frustrating to see people arguing about infoboxes from purely aesthetic reasons. The infobox's structural rationale is Wikidata. There's no question that it needs to be in articles. If people hate it so much, then hide it - but to not have an infobox I feel is in opposition to what Wikipedia is about. - kosboot (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a deeply, deeply flawed argument (and ignores that fact that only one person seems to have mentioned the aesthetic aspct). "infobox's structural rationale is Wikidata" is just wrong. It is possible to edit WikiData directly, and the IB is not needed to populate the required information. Even if it was required, once the information is in Wikidata, the existence of the same information in a IB is superfluous: it will already be in WikiData. You may have other reasons for having it there - be they aesthetic or otherwise - but the rationale is not all about WD. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. To rehearse the familiar reasons, infoboxes place trivia in a very conspicuous location (in this case: "CBE"), induce oversimplification of nuanced issues, discourage actual reading on the part of the public, and invite bad edits from casual editors who don't know the topic, yet fight hard to keep their edits in. Opus33 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Support question about dates of deaths at the help desks are a direct result of not having this info at a glance....we are losing many readers to other websites that have this info. Do what is best for the readers...not what some editors things looks best. The decline of readership of this topic is directly tide to the lack of info people can see at a glance. Still puzzled at why this group likes to hide basic info from our readers in this fashion...I guess they believe all readers read the full article...they are dreaming!! -- Moxy (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How bizzare: the dates of birth and death are IN THE FIRST LINE! It's just not true to say that we "hide basic info from our readers" when it's in the first line. Could you post one or two diffs from the ref desks showing people asking about this? Could you also provide some evidence of research that shows people are leaving as a direct result of either us not using an IB. - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Readers do not want to do math in the FIRST LINE THEY SEE (basic common sense) ...its great you added the age of death to the lead.... but this does not solve the problem that we will loss readers to a page that has this info at a glance. You make a good point on your talk page "Sadly more true of Wikipedia than anywhere else, where collective groups can press a tiny agenda without objectivity, without common sense and without recourse to the use of intelligence" .. This quote is exactly what i would say for this group.. Very ironic I would say...LOL -- Moxy (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You've not answered any of the questions or backed up any of the claims you've made with diffs. Please do so. Just for the record, I'm not a member of this group. Nothing ironic at all. Diffs please, or we'll draw our own conclusion from your big claims. – SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you want me to show you? That people ask for info of this nature at our help desks ...this is why they are there. You are free to make any conclusion you like.. hopefully its one that helps our readers...not impends them. try a real rebuttal as in rebut the concerns raised...but that said .. I will see if I can find some of the old request.....not a fan of holding editors hands like this. Its clear some dont understand different people get information in different ways. They need to teach this at the high-school level....to many people not aware that there are many ways of consuming information. -- Moxy (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with you holding anyone's hand. If you make big claims you have to be able to back them up. This is fairly bog standard stuff. BTW, the claims you need to answer are that "question about dates of deaths" are often asked at reference desks; "we are losing many readers to other websites that have this info"; that there is a "decline of readership of this topic"; that this supposed 'decline' is "directly tide to the lack of info people can see at a glance". Big claims with absolutely nothing to back them up, as far as I can see. I wait with baited breath... – SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I though this was common sense...no BIG claim here at all...people ask questions at the help desk (the norm)...and reader will leave Wikipedia if the info they seek is not there (all would do this). But since this is apparently not common knowledge I will look for the old talks on the matter...just so you can see the same concerns raised here as there. "In general" we need more editors that "get it"....over having to hold there hands for every point made....need critical thinking taught in schools. -- Moxy (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no common sense in your claims: they are claims with no evidence or connection to common sense or common knowledge. Think of it of having a big {{cn}} tag on each of the "claims". Perhaps looking at it this way may help you overcome the position of having someone pick up on these. – SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So to be clear...you would not navigate to some other website if the info your seeking is not available on Wikipedia? You would pull out a calculator and do the math? I dont think most would do this at all (the common sense point i am trying to make)....but I will take the time see what old talks I can find...in the mean time think about the ways people consume information...do they do it in bit sizes bit...or do all people read huge pages on info to fine one point? We should facilitate the needs of all our readers. -- Moxy (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether your claims are verifiable or not. You can either prove what you've written, or you can't. It's probably best you start looking for the diffs to back up your claims, rather than try and pick holes in me. – SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes your right ...not all understand the basics of how people use Wikipedia or consume information in general. Will try to help in this regard....last thing we want is Wikipedia to go they way of Britannica. -- Moxy (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

These questions about reader behavior are empirically answerable. In an unrelated discussion of how to structure some navboxes in medical articles, WhatamIdoing pointed out that the foundation can perform tracking on click-throughs for particular links given sufficient editor interest in analyzing the data. You could, say, pick samples of articles with and without infoboxes that are generally well-matched in terms of notability and article quality, and then see if the click-through rates for key links to related topics are different if the link is presented in the infobox vs. only in the lead prose. If people are willing to put up with articles temporarily not to their liking, you could even temporarily add/remove the infoboxes and track any resulting changes in traffic or click-throughs, as a kludgey A/B test. It's not clear from the discussion I linked if the foundation can also provide other common web-analytics types of data, like the average time a reader spends on an article before navigating elsewhere, but those are other options to consider. There's some relevant analysis of reader behavior in this paper. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

One empirical detail: Beethoven, helped by the Google Doodle, had a spike on 17 December, so the List of his compositions, linked from the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Los of data out there Dustin Lange; Christoph Böhm; Felix Naumann (2010). Extracting Structured Information from Wikipedia Articles to Populate Infoboxes. Universitätsverlag Potsdam. p. 7. ISBN 978-3-86956-081-6. and Refining the Wikipedia Infobox Ontology Fei Wu Computer Science & Engineering Department, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA -- Moxy (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Lots of data, but nothing that backs up your "claims". Please, if you are going to make such big claims in future, please ensure you check them out before and that what you post is truthful, because you haven't done that here. – SchroCat (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So in 4 mins you read 3 articles? being truthfully are we? The fact you think its a big claim that people will go to others sites because info is not here is a fallacy in thinking at its best. Sure your doing the right thing fighting for less access to info for our readers? -- Moxy (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

~sigh~ I'd R ead one of the papers before, and the others you were dropping on your talk page as you found them, which is when I started reading them. Your words don't stack up, and your willingness to make such unguarded undo untruthful claims doesn't reflect well on you. Enough BS, I think: try and do your homework before you start typing next time. – SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

'Support'. per Gerda. Caden ^cool 18:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not here, but you know where to find me if you want me Caden ;)

::Nice bit of stalking there Caden. Cassianto ^Talk 19:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have Gerda on my watch list. How is that considered stalking Cassianto? Caden ^cool 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you have Gerda on your watchlist? Is that even possible? Cassianto ^Talk 19:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I sure do. Is that a problem for you or are you just naturally always paranoid? Caden ^cool 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you are, once again, talking bullshit Caden. I'm not one for holding up such thrilling discussions, so I'll happily move on. See you at my next article, perhaps you'd like to move on too? Cassianto ^Talk 20:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a serious allegation Cass. Either you prove it or you zip it. Caden ^cool 20:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you ask, here, here, here, here, here, here, continue ad infinitum. Perhaps you're going to tell me these are coincidental? Cassianto ^Talk 21:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL Having ANI on my watchlist proves nothing Cassianto. Try again buddy. Caden ^cool 21:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Support infobox by whatever name per Gerda, Moxy, Softlavender and so on. Round 10,000. Plus manipulating wikidata is a whole separate thing from working on articles, often working across multiple language wikis, which may not all agree with each other (I've been trying to get them to change the definition of "cattle" to something comprehensible for a couple years and have thrown up my hands in despair) infobox contents serve that role nicely and you don't need a programming degree to do them, just copy and paste a template that's not really any more complicated than the citation templates. Nothing new in this debate, really; my only other comment is that mobile devices are now also part of the mix and growing to be a larger percentage of users by the month; infobox parameters also are useful in that interface. Montanabw ^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 18:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Support infobox. Sounds like the enWP version of dagger and asteriks here. Structured ledes help readers and make article more readable and attractive. That's it. Polentarion Talk 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Can we all just cool it? This whole discussion is much ado about nothing. This project can neither endorse nor inhibit infoboxes or any other paraphernalia - nor can any other project. Gerda's request that the project somehow endorses in advance anything that she puts up, whatever the comments on the talk pages of the article concerned say, is absurd and a grotesque attempt to usurp the opinions and rights of other editors. If I proposed that this project declared positively against infoboxes, whatever editors on an article page said, she would be the first (rightly) to denounce me. Her admission that she finds it tiresome to argue page by page is a code for saying she is tired of being voted down. Tough. If she creates an article she can put anything she likes on it as long as it conforms with WP standards. If editors don't like what she has done they can argue it on the talk page. If she wants to put something up on articles other people have created, she can argue it on the article talk page. Nothing which is agreed (or disagreed) here can have any binding effect on individual articles. Gerda, please understand that provoking other editors and bringing out the usual flash mob (for it seems to be always you that start and the others that follow) does nothing for WP, nothing for your reputation and wastes everybody's time. Do as you wish with articles you create, and please desist from trying to dictate or impose on others. It's just common courtesy.--Smerus (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Smerus, you don't have to talk to me in the third person. I am cool, almost icy. I requested nothing, I asked a question. I would like to achieve that when a good faith newbie installs a short infobox it doesn't get reverted (as happened today) but discussed and hopefully improved and accepted. Can you word that better than I could? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, you will have seen that I move my address relating to you from 3rd to 1st person. The procedures of WP don't discriminate between newbies and hardened cases, and the behaviour of both species should AGF - so of course any actions of the latter relating to the former should be undertaken with a full context and explanation. But a newbie is no more 'entitled' to add an infobox without discussion that they would be to remove one without discussion. That's the way it is. By all means try once again an RFC (as suggested below) on infoboxes if such pointless agony is what you really wish for yourselves and to impose on others. But don't use this - or any other project - as a catspaw. Also - don't get too cold.--Smerus (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for getting a little more heartwarming. I do not agree about being equally "entitled" to add and to remove. You will not tell me that I am equally entitled to give you a present and to rob you. A user makes the thoughtful present of an addition (of whatever, a paragraph, an image, a reference, an infobox) and gets reverted saying something like "not helpful". It happened to two people who added an infobox today, the TFA and Monteverdi. Can we have less of that? How? If I wanted an RfC I could have had it two years ago. Hope dies last. I have a FAC open, Christ lag in Todes Banden. It's chilly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Support given that the vast majority of articles have infoboxes. I would suggest to @Gerda Arendt: that if there is no WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here that they begin a wider RFC to discuss the matter of infoboxes on biographies. A few hardended editors ganging up to keep them out of certain articles is not, I'm sure, reflective of the wider community ideals about the dissemination of useful & understandable information (which is precisely what infoboxes are for!)Giant Snowman 12:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Strong Support to end this stupid argument once and for all. It's time for WP:WikiProject Composers to move beyond its archaic and counterproductive dogma against infoboxes. The projects related to classical music are the only places I am aware of that continues to edit war over infoboxes. As the original author of Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes, I long argued against including infoboxes in articles for many of the same reasons this project has long opposed their inclusion. However, wikipedia has since evolved on this issue and infoboxes have become a commonplace tool that has been embraced encyclopedia wide. That infoboxes play an important role in generating valuable Wikidata is an irrefutable fact. We have lost this war and continuing it is a pointless exercise which will only continue a culture of strife, bitter arguements, and edit warring; in other words one big unhappy unproductive timesuck. Not to mention that anti-infobox arguements of late have been resorting to WP:OWN arguments (I created that article/ am the primary author so don't you dare put an infobox in my article). This issue is never going to go away and infoboxes are here to stay. If you can't see the writing on the wall then you really are blind. Further, banning or not including infoboxes creates a set of articles which oddly diverge from the rest of the encyclopedia. While I am still not a fan of infoboxes and will personally never create one, I respect consensus and a need for common structures in articles across the encyclopedia. Others can add infoboxes to articles which I have worked on without fear of an edit war. It's time to recognize that the rest of wikipedia has moved in this direction and we must too. Stop the war now.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not a member of this project and have only written one composer biography. There are other biographies I have worked on that have IBs - where they are useful - and others that do not carry the IB - where they are not useful. I am not sure that the "dogma" of which you speak is confined just to those who do not wish to see them on every single article or biography. I'll also take the time to reject the OWN accusation: that's just not true in many, many cases. As to generating WikiData: the IB is only one mechanism to generate something that can be manually inputted, and the arguement is a straw man. It's not a "war": no-one is wounded or dying here - it's just a disagreement about a minor formatting issue on an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a pattern of Wikipedia:Edit warring lasting eight years over this issue across many many article; often involving the same editors. It's a war.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a shame that you describe it that way: there are bigger things to deal with, and this isn't a "war", regardless how disruptive it may be intermittently. - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that you are an editor who isn't often involved with these articles, I don't see how you could reject a history of OWN arguments or characterize the history of this conflict in any way since you aren't familiar nor have you participated in what has transpired in a significant way. I on the other hand have been witness to the drama over eight years. Case in point, see Talk:Joseph (opera) as one typical and recent time suck argument with WP:OWN comments arguing against an infobox (on two separate occasions). This is the sort of behavior we regularly see between Gerda and the anti-infobox editors in this project and the opera project. You can find similar issues across multiple talk pages and in the archives of both this project and the opera project. I hope this resolution does pass, because I would hate to see an RFC invoked and good editors on both sides of the issue being put through a not so pleasant process.4meter4 (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to dismiss my opinion. I have said that I am not a member of this project, but that is because I am not a member of any project. It does not, however, mean that I am ignorant of what has been going on, or that I have been uninvolved in some of the discussions. I have seen much of the interplay between gerda and other editors, and note—as Smerus did above—that she is often the one who initiates the problems by pushing what can be a divisive agenda. It is a small band that is attempting to systematically insert IBs, regardless of the merits on the individual articles, and yet I see no similar group systematically removing them on any basis, let alone the much accused OWN tag that is thrown around so often and with so little justification. I see no consensus in this so far, and I doubt that much will come out of it, but it’s a shame that the removal of PERSONDATA has been used as an argument in attempting to force the IB where they are no value. – SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't dismissing your viewpoint outright, but merely pointing out that you may not be intimately familiar with the facts. I don't think you can dismiss the WP:OWN arguments because that is the MO of User:Smerus and User:Folantin in these type of discussions. On multiple articles they have outright argued that the primary author of an article (often themselves) should have final say over whether an article can have an infobox or not. That is a repeated violation of wikipedia policy. I am certain this fact is one of the reasons Gerda brought this topic here in the first place, to avoid these kinds of inappropriate shenanigans.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? "Inappropriate shenanigans" "on multiple articles"? You better offer me an apology for such blatant smears. I've commented on precisely one article over the past two years - if you discount a couple of general remarks I made about Wagner at WP:WPO. In fact, I've deliberately tried to avoid these discussions, including this one. So thanks for summoning me with your baseless accusations, User:4meter4. Of course, nothing must be allowed to get in the way of the WP:QAI team's quest to own the top right-hand corner of every article on Wikipedia. Funny how it's always the same small group of people who show up as if by magic to push for the boxes. Tag-teaming and sock-puppetry are rather more serious violations of Wikipedia policy than an editor who's created the bulk of an article disagreeing with a group of fly-by-night parasites who've contributed no page content whatsoever. No wonder Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention.--Folantin (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@4meter4:: I'm afraid I take grave exception to this and would politely request your apology. I have never "argued that the primary author of an article (often themselves) should have final say over whether an article can have an infobox or not" (or at least certainly not since my green years of five or six years ago when I may have foolishly advanced such an argument). I in fact would condemn such an argument utterly, and I challenge you to produce any statement of mine in recent years which advances such an argument. I do in fact feel that Folantin's point about others trying to OWN corners of every article has some justice. My objections to infoboxes are generally and ocnsistently on the grounds of clutter, misinformation, and needless repetition of information in an article lede; coupled with the complete absence of any objective evidence that infoboxes serve any sort of useful or appreciated service to readers. I also resent the flash-mobbing of WP:QAI members that turns up at discussions like this, adding much heat but little light; but that seems to have become part of WP street-life, alas. Do not please taint me with your prejudiced view of those who choose to disagree with you. It does not advance your case.--Smerus (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

May I ask how many QAI members you have counted in this discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You may.--Smerus (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How many have you counted, Smerus? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You know what, what with those QAI members who have retired, or withdrawn, or have been exposed as sock-puppets, it's too complex for me to work it out. Also it's as tedious for me to look up the QAI page as it is for you, Gerda, to have to argue your case on talk pages. But hey - aren't you are a member of QAI? Then you know the state of play, and can work it out yourself. But I did however find this on my travels from March 2015 - perhaps you or other editors will understand it better than me.--Smerus (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I count 2, one of them myself, Montanabw the other. I have notified only projects of this discussion, because you asked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've now corrected you: I am au fait with the facts. I still dismiss the spurious OWN accusations: it's a favoured tactic and holds as much water as the potential accusation that 'the pro-infobox warriors are attempting to OWN the top right-hand corner of all biographies'. It's a red herring that is used way to often to stir up trouble and try and blacken those who stick to the word and spirit of that MoS that "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". I'm afraid I am not going to see eye-to-eye with you if you keep plugging that spurious line. (And if you want to see that line of "my (friends) article, my choice", feel free to look here) - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Striking my comment above. My apologies to User:Smerus and User:Folantin for mischaracterizing their current perspective on this issue. I am stepping out of this conversation since it really isn't my desire to get in the middle of a contentious issue or create any ill will between editors. Frankly I don't create info boxes myself, so it isn't an issue I am passionate about. i am just tired of Gerda getting attacked all the time for edits, often innocuous ones, that she is making in good faith. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted with thanks. I'm afraid I have a very different perspective on Gerda from you: having deliberately tried to avoid these sorts of discussions over the past two years I'd note that every one I have been dragged into has been initiated by Gerda. Maybe she should have listened to the advice of this uninvolved arbitrator two years ago [1]. Whatever the case, I think I'll now withdraw from this discussion. Cheers --Folantin (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto. Thanks 4meter4.--Smerus (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Start over

Folks, we'll never resolve the issue of whether to have or not have an infobox. Might it be possible to come up with a way to deal with the issue in such a way where we can forestall another discussion like this? - kosboot (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes: the simple answer is to resolve that this project will never make blanket recommendations for or against infoboxes or anything that resembles them - and that it will foreclose any proposals for discussion that seek to subvert this.--Smerus (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, we already have a way: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". --Folantin (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what the hidden text said for Pierre Boulez, "nor prohibited", it said nothing like "first obtain consensus", so I added. Was reverted like a vandal. Can we find a better way? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Gerda. The current guideline means infoboxes can be placed on every article under this project's aegis and nothing would be wrong with that. Is that the accepted understanding? - kosboot (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It also means that infoboxes can be removed from every article. --Folantin (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If it means that, then I feel the resolution is faulty. Either say "no" or "yes" but don't create a situation that fosters edit warring which the current wording does. - kosboot (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Errrmmm.... That's the basis of Wikipedia: that all can add or remove. No article is automatically "born" with anything – text, images, IB, citation formats, etc, and the stuff that goes in there is done on the basis of consensus of all. If an IB isn't a benefit to the article (and no, not all IBs are beneficial), then there should be a discussion and if one is added that isn't beneficial, then it's right and proper that it's removed. – SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me commenting once more, but I must say that I agree with every word that SchroCat says above. May I just suggest that no addition to an article of "text, images, IB, citation formats, etc, and the [legitimate] stuff that goes in there" automatically requires prior consensus, and that if an IB turns out to be beneficial, then it should be added? --RexxS (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

But the determination of whether something is beneficial or not is very subjective.- kosboot (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's the real world! There is very little that goes into an article that isn't subjective and open to discussion and debate, which is why our MoS is an inherently flexible beast. – SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Support anything that will bring to this never-ending argument to a resolution. And make no mistake about my own beliefs. I very much consider the "composers group" a walled garden within Wikipedia as it pertains to infoboxes. I understand both sides. But at this point, it's very much headed to Arbcom Infobox II. At Arbcom? Nobody wins. Some folks can duck out and avoid things. Some folks can defend themselves. Some folks can point to faults in others. (and we all have faults). But in the end - it would be better to find some sort of compromise here. Have a global RfA and abide by consensus if that's possible, but find a resolution outside Arbcom. — Ched : ? 06:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Fasting

As a practise for the future I propose that for a fasting period of 40 days

We supporters of infoboxes don't add one other than to articles we created. In other cases, we propose on the talk.
You opposers don't revert one other than to articles you created, but discuss on the talk.
Everybody tries to restrict contributions in a given discussion to two entries, - I practised that for three years and found it helpful. Smerus found the one time I failed, above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well this discussion is at least the second time you have failed, by your own account. I am glad you can smile at it, as you have apparently broken the bright-line rule the decision contained, which you were told could lead to a sanction. The two-comment rule was applied to you (not gratuitously undertaken by you as you imply) precisely because you were an infobox 'warrior'; why should it apply to other editors who do not seek to provoke such issues and discussions? The simple procedure to adopt (not only in this Project) is the present one; addition to or subtraction of an infobox in an article by any editor other than its initial creator should be subject to discussion on the article talk page. This procedure is generic and nothing to do with this project. What's with the '40 days', the 'you opposers', etc? You are trying as always to personalize and dramatize what ought to be a perfectly straightforward consensual procedure. By the way, you are 33.3333% (so far) underestimating the known QAI contributors to this thread.--Smerus (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't counting my failures in life, only the one failure to follow the number-of-edits-restriction (which I don't regard as one of the former). - QAI member Ched added after I counted. Ched made a mistake: another ArbcCom case would be no. 3. We had two too many already. Smerus, please follow the link you kindly supplied and read the straightforward closing statement (search for my name) of only five sentences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Suggesting to cut it out, both of you. Smerus per the original remedies of the infoboxes arbcom case, Gerda per the original & ammended remedies of the same case. This proposal is not likely going to fly, so better let the discussion not get any more heated, lest tenaciousness would become battleground attitude (which it maybe already has). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope, Francis, you are not suggesting that I have infringed any Arbcom decisions - if so you you had better clarify what you have in mind. And if not, it would be polite to apologize for implying same. --Smerus (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe cut out on the QAI contributor aspersions: these are comments on editors, not on content. They move towards "personalizing" the debate (so you're reproaching another party in the debate what you're doing yourself, which is akin towards battleground attitude from where I stand).

Further I see you modified your first comment in this section after I had already replied to it, in a way not compatible with WP:REDACT, so that's not optimal talk page behaviour either (I go from the assumption it happened inadvertently, so I don't make a big deal out of it).

Just a reminder to be cautious, and maybe cool it down a bit, in order to avoid this would ultimately be hashed out at WP:AE or WP:ARCA which is a less optimal solution as someone already pointed out above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thak you for this part-clarification, Francis, although you still do not explain why you have mentioned me in the context of Arbcom decisons. The only Arbcom decision relating to me has been a request for me to be polite, and I hope that I scrupulously maintain that stance. The modification was indeed accidental but I don't think much altered the point I was seeking to make. Please note that my references to QAI are not in any way individual aspersions - indeed I make no comments on the editors themselves - but relate to the way in which members of the project are to be consistently found engaging in discussions on infoboxes in articles to which they have not previously contributed or displayed any interest. It would be a help to me 'cooling' it if you could refrain from misconstruing my contributions and comments as minatory.--Smerus (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I gave you quite enough hints. If someone is requested to be polite, as an enforcable ArbCom remedy, one would expect them to be scrupulous about staying clear of WP:NPA. When I last looked that policy contained "Comment on content, not on the contributor".

What I suggest is that you make your next edits about the content of the proposals discussed in this section, not about the editors proposing or discussing them.

Further, outside the remedies naming particular editors in the infoboxes arbcom case, there are a few remedies not mentioning any editor in particular. It's not because you have been named in one remedy, none of these other remedies would apply to you. So, consider yourself warned and please return to the content of the proposals discussed here ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I shudder.--Smerus (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion is in violation of the ArbCom injunction "to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." This should have remained at Talk:Pierre Boulez. --Folantin (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that you are on the right track that one way out is for everyone to avoid any personalizing of discussion. I know that I let my own temper run away with me on this issue once when I began to personalize matters (as all here no doubt remember) Since that time, I have seen that many contentious issues -- not just this one - actually do a lot better when I can ignore who is saying what and just focus on the issue. It also quite quickly sorts out who is here to improve the encyclopedia (even if we disagree vehemently on an issue) and who just wants to fall into trolling and finger-pointing. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Project responsibility

In answer to the question above: No. The rationale behind the first revert, by Jerome Kohl, was: "Please discuss and obtain consensus before adding infoboxes to classical-composer articles" which points at this project. I asked if a box which contains only the former persondata was acceptable. I asked no more than that. I called it PDbox to differentiate (which was changed to Infobox, not by me, - I planned not to use the loaded and hated word). The rationale behind the second revert, by SchroCat, was: "The ADDITION of the box was the BOLD edit: discuss to gain a consensus to add the box"

I claim that the addition was in no way bold, but in line with composers such as Handel (2014), Beethoven (2015, community consensus) and Bach (2015, discussion). Asking again: what can be done that reverts of edits that are no vandalism don't come in the name of this project? The easiest way would be to not revert, which I suggested for the future. Can we leave some of the past behind? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Re. "what can be done that reverts of edits that are no vandalism don't come in the name of this project?" – simple: stay within the lines of the project's recommendations, and you won't be reverted in the name of this project.

What you shouldn't do is cause a trainwreck because you can't have it your way in an infobox related matter. To make myself perfectly clear: this is the point where I strongly recommend you to let go (first I suggested to let go, then I recommended to let go, now I strongly recommend you to let go). You forumshopped the Boulez infobox to this page (that is: before the discussion on that topic was closed on that article's talk page). It is never a good idea to suggest a rewrite of the rules so that you can "win" a discussion on another page. Then there are the infobox arbcom case remedies specifically trying to prevent this, only highlighting what a bad idea such trajectory is. I don't think it is an overstatement to call what we have thus far on this topic on this page a trainwreck. Then you blame this project for not taking its responsibility in the matter. I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC, leading to the current project recommendations on infoboxes, full of people taking their responsability. Far removed from trying to explode the rules by driving a WP:FORUMSHOP train in it at full speed.

Consensus can change on this project's 2010 RfC on infoboxes. Ruffled feathers over a removed infobox are maybe not the best starting point for a responsible discussion on a potential review of that consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand you. I didn't blame the project. I took the Boulez discussion here, because there's also Bizet and Monteverdi (not by me), and I think it's better to clarify one place, and to prevent more of the kind. I believe that we have more respectful ways to treat an addition of a fellow editor than a revert, which I at least reserve for vandalism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The ArbCom decision pretty much trashed Local Consensus as something we can use. (I'm not entirely happy about this as applied to other projects, but oh well...) The "discuss and obtain consensus before adding infoboxes to classical-composer articles" and "stay within the lines of the project's recommendations" is incorrect, ArbCom told all of us that the general rules apply to classical and composer articles the same as any other project. In other words, article by article, one at a time. That said, general discussion here can still, of course, be held; it is the individual article discussions that are to avoid discussing infoboxes in general. That said, the debates are unchanged. If we can all agree on one thing, it is probably that ArbCom solved nothing. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Re. "The ArbCom decision pretty much trashed Local Consensus as something we can use" – No. Where do you get that? It is nor present nor indirectly implied by the ArbCom's decision.

Neither is an RfC ending in consensus (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC) usually seen as a "local" consensus (RfC implying Wikipedia-wide advertisement of the locus where the decision is in the process of being made).

Neither is an ArbCom case the place where pre-existing guidance, such as the one resulting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC, is modified or overruled (unless the ArbCom decision explicitly says so, which seldom happens and was afaik not the case here).

The ArbCom decision was pretty clear: consensus on a case by case basis, unless if and when a more general discussion, not tied to the by article discussions, leads to a more general consensus (there is no such more general consensus yet). The outcome of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC is compatible with the "by article" approach, with the specific requirement to reach talk page consensus prior to introduction in mainspace for a limited series of articles. That specific requirement for that limited series of articles can not be overruled by a local consensus (at least an RfC of the same breadth as the RfC that put that requirement in place would be needed). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

How would a new user know about "talk page consensus prior to ", assuming it was valid? Users add infoboxes to composers because they miss something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

<squeeze> None of the diffs in the first paragraph of this subsection were edits by newcomers. I recommend discussing the "newcomers" aspect in a separate subsection, so as to end this protraction of the Boulez example. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If they don't know in advance, they soon find out when their edit is rightly reverted (this obviously stands for everything for which there is a consensus, not just the IB). A hidden note is used on many occasions which go towards warning the IP to go to the talk page first. IPs miss many things (including the point of an encyclopaedia, what standards are, what the prcesses of discussion are etc), which is why many of their edits—including those made in good faith—are rightly reverted and the process explained to them. – SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The hidden notice on Boulez only said "not prohibited", nothing of "prior consensus". Who says that the users who added to Bizet and Monteverdi were not new users? And even if, I don't like new users to get reverted and told "not helpful" that they did something wrong when all they did was something they see on the majority of Wikipedia articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What you do or do not like is neither here nor there: if people add, remove or change things that others disagree with they will probably be reverted. That is the practice of the project and how articles here develop, and it doesn't matter if they are a first time newbie or an experienced long-standing editor. No-one is doubting the additions by newbies are done in good faith, but that doesn't mean they are the best course of action for the articles they are doing it for. - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

A revert is acceptable with a good argument and/or explanation. A revert like the three that brought us here is not comprehensible to someone who doesn't know about this project's history.

Pierre Boulez: see above
Georges Bizet: "unhelpful changes"
Claudio Monteverdi: "please see the Talk page (under "WPBio Template 'needs infobox' parameter") and obtain consensus there before adding an infobox" (which refers to a discussion of two people from 2007)

I find none of these comments clarifying the situation that classical composers and a few other biographies written by a few editors need special treatment different of the rest of Wikipedia (such as Beethoven). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So what? I think we've all seen just as little justification in an edit summary for the inclusion of an IB, yet I hear no faux wails of complaint from you for those edits. Yes, some editors add IBs without sufficiently outlining their thoughts in an edit summary; some editors remove IBs without sufficiently outlining their thoughts in an edit summary, and both those actions get reverted without sufficient explanation in the edit summary. Take it to the talk page of that specific article to discuss it, which is (again) the very basic Wiki protocol on how to proceed. It's two sides of the same coin Gerda, and constantly trying to bemoan the action of one "side" without acknowledging that the other "side" are equally culpable of doing the same actions doesn't help anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me to see a difference between adding something (a box, an image, a ref) and refusing another editor's attempt to help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's an overly simplified way of looking at it. Even if someone is trying to help, in all good faith, their edit may not be an improvement: that goes for both the inclusion of an IB to an article where previously there wasn't one, and the removal of one that has existed for a while. I suspect that if a new IP editor removed an IB from one of "your" articles–using the same rationale of their edit the encyclopaedia—they would get squashed fairly quickly, and with as little gentle explanation in an edit summary. – SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like to be your suspect ;) Kindly give me one example of an edit I made with a "little-gentle" edit summary, any context, which would support your "suspicion". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read what I have written: I have not said you are guilty of such, or even that you would be the one to make such a comment. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I read what you have written, but perhaps misunderstood. I would prefer to respond on your talk page to find out (because it has nothing to do with this question) but I feel I can't. Did you just say that you suspected me to write a "little-gentle" edit summary? I don't feel guilty of such a thing, therefore asked to supply an example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
As I've clarified: I have not said that you have done such a thing, or that you would do such a thing: I have said that an IP who removes an IB is likely to get reverted and sat on by others. This should now be clear enough. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Do I understand right that you mean not necessarily I would do the "swashing" and edit summary? (The dangers of the passive voice.) You are of course right that until recently I could not even have done it. - I think we have trouble hearing each other because you mean by revert any undoing (any edit), while I mean "removal of information" which needs explanation, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not information being removed; its repeated and redundant information being removed, no? Cassianto ^Talk 17:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly: the information is not being removed from the page, because it is still on the page, probably in two different places. An IB is NOT necessarily of benefit to an article. In some cases it is vital to have, in others a cheap, worthless addition that detracts, misinforms and misleads. - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary, "There is a lack of intelligent flexibility in trying to force them onto all articles", seems not only little gentle but also wrong: Nobody can force, not even on one article, and nobody I know would go for "on all articles". I only came to discuss if the project can accept or tolerate (or find a better word) a minimal infobox (or PDbox or Identibox or find a better word) which only displays what the article had hidden anyway until it was migrated to Wikidata where no reader I know would look, as RexxS outlined above. We better serve here, not refer to Wikidata where the information is present, but hardly presented "at-a-glance". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Mob mentality (or the "my drive-by-flash-mob is bigger than your drive-by-flash-mob") does force the issue. You may claim to have come here to try and force the issue (and yes, I use the word advisedly), but several people have pointed out the Arbcom ruling, which basically reinforces what the MoS outlines: discuss the things on a case-by-case basis. I know that some people would prefer a de rigeur forcing of IBs onto every article, but that currently has no traction here, none in the MoS and none in the Arbcom decision. The "at a glance" arguement is balls: the main info is glance-able in the lead, normally the first line or two, and with context and nuance added (and who knows, people who "glance" at the lead for an odd fact may enjoy reading the first line so much they stay to read the whole lead). The "metadata" arguement is balls: edit Wikidata to get it in, and to get it right. If you want to talk about accept or tolerate, then how about you accept or tolerate that other people have a different opinion on these things than you do, and get aggrieved with the endless divisive and disruptive attempts of a small group to force the issue time after time. - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

We all know that an RfC just attracts drive-bys as a rule. They are generally kind of useless for these major issues. The bigger issue here is that there is no end in sight to this dispute. Has one single person on this thread changed their pro- or anti-usebox position in all this time? What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? I think that Gerda's suggestion that where there is an article creator or lead editor is involved, a certain degree of respect is due. But beyond that, maybe we just need to open a poll and !vote, because consensus is clearly not looking real possible. Montanabw ^(talk) 11:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you're proposing: if people on this page haven't changed their mind regarding this issue, opening a poll here (without invitation to outsiders) will solve nothing: it would be rather WP:POINTy. When opening a poll and inviting others, the recommended process is RfC. Re. RfCs being "generally kind of useless for these major issues": I disagree. Example: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. I'm fine with everything staying as it is now, which includes "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general", and "a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article" when one wants to get rid of the article by article proceedings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm musing out loud, I suppose. The RfC you point to closed over five years ago and we've been to ArbCom and back since then, so clearly it solved nothing. It conclusion, AFAIK, was "editors are free to ignore this discussion." We need mostly to stop all personal attacks and particularly need to understand that the parties in this dispute are not going to go away on either side, so how to we ratchet down hard feelings? Not personalizing the issue is a start. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course. BTW, that's the only way I can make sense of the ArbCom's duality about inciting to have a general discussion, but forbidding to let such general discussion develop from an individual case: that second approach is a recipe for personalization (amply illustrated on this page), which leads to messy discussions without outcome. So I'd be happy if the current discussion could somehow be reframed without continuing to drag out the Boulez example: i.e. taking a fresh start without it being a battle on the dead man's grave. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Take 2 (forget the Boulez whateverbox battle)

(see previous subsection for the explanation of this subsection's title)

I think it is a sound argument to have the same rules across Wikipedia, and not this project sticking out by its "default to no infobox" rule.

Let's give a hypothetical example. Someday an editor discovers James Ensor is a composer too, with music that is broadcast every once and awhile (like they did last sunday on my favourite radio station). The editor looks up the references and adds some sentences to that effect to the James Ensor article. Then another editor picks up on that and adds it to the pre-existing infobox, and/or adds {{WikiProject Composers}} to the article's talk page. Then another editor comes along and nukes the infobox, while it is now an ~~"composer"~~ infobox on a "composer" page without preliminary discussion on the article's talk page.

So, I'm asking: wouldn't it be best that the same rules apply everywhere: when there's a dispute over an infobox: sort it out on the article's talk page, but without prejudice to the infobox already being in the article or not.

If we can agree on that, can we update this project's infobox rules to that effect? Or do we need an RfC or some other sort of discussion platform before we can do so? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but why do you place it under a header with "battle", while there was only an effort to clarify? Please also try not to mention the dead man's name in that way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

What battle? I can't remember any. In other words: Gerda, please drop the stick on the individual article's infobox, or, in the ArbCom's words (including a link to WP:BATTLEGROUND if you hadn't noticed yet): "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In the hypothetical example, the infobox could even be nuked without material change to its content per the current rules of this project: I updated the example above in this sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Francis, you spoke about the dead man's grave (fine, won't need to mention him again, we can use examples Bizet and Monteverdi, and if that's not enough Mozart and Sibelius), but then you put his name in a header along with "battle": please change that, a neutral "Take 2" is enough. I guess you are aware that (any) project's rules are not binding, but rather a guideline. - Every day I have several bot entries on my watch list saying that persondata is migrated to Wikidata. I am not worried about loss of information for articles with an infobox, which are the majority I encounter, but for the others. That is the "sticK" you seem to see. - Different question: How would you feel about a clerk or counselor moderating a discussion like this one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Any editor is able to edit Wikidata to ensure that the information there is up to date and correct. I'd strongly advise people to check WD for articles they work on: sadly it picks up so much crap from various sources that much of the information is either incorrect, or dumbed down to be misleading. So much for the stuff we're flogging to Google et al. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to stay on topic in this subsection:

It is not about articles that have a section discussing the infobox on their talk page. To that end I chose a hypothetical example in the OP of this subsection;
Nor is it about (changing the rules for) infoboxes in general. This is a talk page of a project that has "to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page" in its infobox rules. This subsection is only about whether or not we want to keep that particular rule for articles falling under this project.

What I'd like to avoid especially is the path that leads from "discussions about (one or more) single article's infobox"es to "a discussion about infoboxes in general", a path that is specifically forbidden by ArbCom decision, and a path which experience has shown never to lead to any good. Neither do I think a particular project's talk page the place to hold a widely un-publicized discussion about general infobox issues.

So, in this subsection no summation of general infobox benefits or downsides please. WikiData is also a topic that has nothing only applicable in the "composers" field of interest, so also no topic for this subsection. Only about whether or not the particular rule about "no infobox prior to talk page consensus", which afaik only this project adheres to, even without a mirroring "no infobox removal prior to talk page consensus", is still useful, and if we would agree this non-standard rule is no longer deemed useful, what we should do to get rid of it? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, God, no, not again. Oppose. Won't somebody please drive a stake through the heart of this debate, or shoot it with a silver bullet, or splash holy water on it, or something? Honestly, after months or even maybe a couple of years of avoiding Wikipedia in large part because I got so sick of the endless squabble over infoboxes, I tiptoe gingerly back in, and what do I find? This. OK, having seen my shadow, I'm headed back to my burrow. Sheesh. Drhoehl (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Take 3 (depersonalized general discussion)

Once again, there is too much personalizing going on. We also all know that if this goes back to ArbCom again, all that will happen is a few people, probably an equal number on each side, will get assorted "punishments" that mean nothing in the cosmic scheme of the universe, the people who are the most mean-spirited and cruel get off scott-free or with the mildest admonitions to be "nice", we all will be grumpy and even more pissed at each other than ever, and at the end of the day, ArbCom will tell us that we have to sort it out on a one-article-at-a-time basis, and we will be right back here. So let's just skip all that and refocus:

Speaking only for myself, I feel that the pro-infobox folk have tried any number of compromises (more data, less data, collapsing, different formatting, etc.) and it seems that the anti-infobox folk think that putting a line around an image with a bit of data somehow dumbs down and compromises the integrity of the entire article. I'm pro-infobox, so perhaps I'm missing something here, but it looks to me like there are two separate issues: 1) Look and layout of the article generally and lead in particular 2) Use of basic data and formatting for machine reading (i.e. Google, etc.) and for the casual reader. A third issue, and perhaps the elephant in the room, is that the formatting and syntax is perhaps perceived as difficult to editors who are not savvy with wiki markup; I know that I actually find infoboxes rather challenging to insert, time-consuming and easy to screw up, but I persevere because I like the result. So: Is there ANY hope for some kind of middle ground here? Montanabw ^(talk) 10:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone wants to "editing wikidata" outside of the article itself... Wikidata is a rather bizarre place! I have tried several times, for example, to render this bit of weirdness into something logical and am constantly reverted by someone who insists a cow can be two-thirds of a species. (Makes the infobox discussions seem erudite and enlightened). So, as far as I know, it seems we need to embed something into our articles as we write them, as if you want real incomprehnsibility, try this. Montanabw ^(talk) 10:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

As said, I'm all for depersonalizing discussions. This is however not the place for a general discussion about infoboxes imho:

This is the talk page of WikiProject Composers, hardly the place for a general discussion on infoboxes.
This discussion is thus far not a "well-publicized community discussion" about "whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article", which would be the actual remedy (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Community discussion recommended)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Except that we are discussing infoboxes in composer articles generally, and what I said above applies. The last round at arbcom destroyed the very concept of "local consensus" (which kind of bums me out because it has implications in unrelated projects that is not helpful to harmony elsewhere) and my point is that the folks here at the composer's WP need to find some way of meeting in the middle because, as we saw above, everyone else is so sick of this stuff that they are ready to scream (and so are we, but we are more stubborn, I guess). We could do an RfC at every individual article, but I suspect that the "flash mob" situation noted above would happen. I favor trying to figure out if we can reach a win-win "gentlemen's agreement" (pardon the gendered reference) that stops the regulars from these endless discussions. Montanabw ^(talk) 11:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments before commenting.

Above I already replied to "The last round at arbcom destroyed the very concept of "local consensus"", which imho is nonsense. I asked where you got that, because I can't see any of the sort in recent arbcom discussions. And so on. Circular discussions are better avoided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Random subsection title

(watching, but only now:) I understand the arbcom rulings, mentioning "single article" and "given article", literally: discussion on article level, no rules for groups of articles such as composers. So I tried on individual articles, Bach, Sibelius, Boulez, for example. Bach was a suggestion on the talk even before the case, 21 March 2013. - I came here now to see if we can arrive at some agreement which reduces this waste of time of rehashing the same arguments, often too general, from article to article. I believe that the infobox of Nikolaus Harnoncourt is fine, and see no reason why the other conductor who recently died, Pierre Boulez, should not have at least the information about his birth, death and works, should not have them because he was also a composer. I read among the all-too-general oppose arguments that an infobox invites fancruft, but I think the same is true for articles in general, and it's our job to watch them and keep it out. Bach has an infobox for a while now, Handel even longer, and no fancruft came up. Fear not ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is basically a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line of argumentation. That is a valid line of argumentation, the only problem with it afaics is that other editors aren't easily persuaded by it (I'm not in this case, for clarity, while of course I only want to talk for myself). What is specific to Boulez that makes his article suitable for an infobox? I'm not sure, at least I see no major objections for an infobox for this particular article: the content that can be provided in the infobox isn't vague (which would be an objection). Maybe somewhat more clarity on how to include (or not include) the "founder of IRCAM" information could be given: the casual mentioning in the image caption seems less than ideal to me. What to do about the composer bit? There's maybe something that doesn't work well for the simplifications an infobox inevitably imposes: gets attention as well as being indicated as a "composer" in the infobox and a list of works: I'm afraid that for me (contrary to what this big man would have wanted himself) Boulez is primarily a conductor. Objectively, I suppose, there are more recordings sold of his conducting than of his compositions. I wouldn't be surprised also if press comments about his conducting largely overshadow those about his composing. So maybe after all there is some unclarity specific for this biography that makes it less suitable for an infobox. Anyway, the infobox presented above doesn't very well handle these balances. I think the "what he is" and specifically the "what he is known for" information should be moved away from the image caption of the infobox to clear "known for..." parameters. Maybe even not using the specific "composer" infobox, but rather a "musician" (or "classical musician") infobox that may have better ways to display this information. In sum: for this infobox: no I'm not convinced it would be an enhancement brought to the article. Please consider proposing a better one if you want to see it included. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, Francis, we have a misunderstanding. I didn't want to discuss Boulez (again, the article talk is good for that), but see no reason to revert an infobox like that with the rationale that he is a composer, and you need consensus first. (The reverted infobox had more parameters than the one minimal one I suggested for a compromise.) Boulez, like many others, is not only a composer, but a performer and conductor. The key question is open: can articles under the wings of this projects stay different from the rest of Wikipedia, and by what reasoning. - My approach to move forward is: Don't revert but discuss, because the addition of an infobox is not a bold edit; do that especially if the person who added it could be a new editor.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is about the specific rules regarding infoboxes in this WikiProject's guidelines. It is neither about "infoboxes in general" nor about "the infobox of a single article", and this is the place to discuss that particular Wikiproject's guidance. (NB: the Harnoncourt infobox mentioned above does not fall under that guidance and that may explain why it is less problematic, so indeed it may be taken as an example that the particular WikiProject guidance for composers maybe causes more problems than it solves)

FWIW, I don't think the WikiProject's particular guidelines on this point are going to be changed anywhere soon. AFAICS the time is nor ready for it yet, compare my first contribution to this discussion above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a change of the guidelines (which has been tried in previous years, see archives) is not too likely at present. However: the guidelines don't force to revert, and individual members of this project could think about it and simply stop reverting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Another suggestion: there doesn't seem to be a Discography section (or separate Discography article) on Boulez yet: maybe if that were produced the conductor/composer balance would be made clearer in article content, and thus easier to handle in an infobox. For instance his Wozzeck recording, setting a standard afaik, shouldn't go unmentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"The reason academic arguments are so vicious is that there is so little at stake." -- Henry Kissinger --Ravpapa (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Re. "... individual members of this project could think about it and simply stop reverting" – I oppose the idea of recommending editors to ignore established WikiProject guidance. Again, I commend Gerda for the originality of the idea, but I don't think it is going to fly. IMHO that's also best: either something belongs in WikiProject guidance, or it doesn't. Recommending editors not to follow guidance is not something that can "appended" to guidance. As far as it is an individual invitation to individual editors, I must reject the idea too. Seems a bit subversive, too much battleground-like slant if you ask me. If attempts at rewriting the project guidance are unsuccessful, live with it, don't go around suggesting people shouldn't follow it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Where would the "guidance" say you have to revert? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please Gerda, WP:Drop the stick, there are uncountable things not forbidden by guidance that are wholly supported by the same guidance. Suggesting a WP:BEANS-like comment for something that is supported by guidance, is counterproductive, and, again, somewhat battlegroundish if continuing to insist on something that apparently isn't going to fly (as you recognized too). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, individual Wikiprojects cannot make their own hard-and-fast rules which go counter to Wikipedia policy. I believe Snow Rise first verbalized that, and in this context I believe. So anyway, infoboxes are optional on any article, on any biographical article. Their presence on any article is, like any content issue, subject to consensus. What I have seen happen on several occasions of late is that Gerda (or someone) will initiate or propose an infobox, objection will ensue, and then a robust discussion will follow, with plenty of opinions on either side, but no WP:DR, which in fact is the missing element, and therefore no resolution. I suggest that if Gerda or anyone wants an infobox on any article, that an official RfC be initiated on that article's talk page -- one that runs for the full 30 days and is then closed by an uninvolved admin. In my opinion that's the only way we can end these endless stalemates. Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that I was the first to say it, but I definitely agree that this is established policy, and this is definitely the context in which the issue came to a head. The relevant policy considerations are outlined in WP:Advice pages:

"Well-written WikiProject advice material...takes into account the fact that most articles are within the scope of multiple WikiProjects, and seeks to avoid conflicting advice, which can lead to unproductive "territorial" disputes between projects, and between projects and editors with WikiProject-unrelated editing concerns. However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay."

And there should be long memories for these issues here, since it was WikiProject Composers played host to some behaviour that was so disruptive in this regard that ArbCom had to step in to make it clear that WikiProject advice could not be presented as de-facto guidelines, nor used to "trump" local consensus for indvidual articles that a project's members consider within their purview. If the "infobox wars" are showing signs of heating up again, my best advice to everyone is to remember that this area is still subject to WP:AE reporting. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Noting that if Softlavender's suggestion above were accepted it would be an extrapolation of this project's infobox guidance to infoboxes in general, with the added stipulation that the talk page discussion should be in RfC format (this project only recommends that if "anyone wants an infobox on any article" to initiate a discussion —not necessarily an "RfC"— "on that article's talk page"). The practical consequence being that if anyone is WP:BOLD to add an infobox, that such infobox addition is seen as the first step in a WP:BRD cycle by those aware of the project guidance. Gerda's objection above (if I understand it correctly) is looking for a way to get to a system that ignores the "R"evert part of the BRD cycle – on which point Softlavender's suggestion is of no help (it would only make the procedure after the "R"evert part of the BRD cycle way more heavy-handed).

Further, I'd stop giving such suggestions "about infoboxes in general" on this WikiProject talk page (see higher up in this discussion). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The header of this section was inserted by Francis Schonken after several users responded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed it to "Random subsection title", hope that is OK. Otherwise, remove, or change again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok with me, but you will have to ask the others who commented. In the former version, you mentioned "ignore", and that's indeed what I think would help. (In one of my choirs, we have guidelines from 1950, never changed, - we just ignore them. I couldn't be a member of that group if they were taken literally.) Treat each other kindly - when a newbie inserts an infobox don't revert but explain that wp:composers has certain guidelines - or simply do nothing. The world isn't in danger because Verdi has an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems like moving from one extraneous argumentation to the next. Well, this is a wiki with daily updates to its guidance. If in 1950 the choir guidelines would have been put on a wiki, editable by all involved, it probably would have evolved with the choir. So no, I don't think such extrapolations are of much help here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You could word guidelines for 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I do, which I see as a shared responsability. Please cut down on innuendo. Please drop the stick. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)