Talk:Carl Nielsen

Illustrations

Several of the images which were recently included in the article have now been removed, mainly as there was no evidence of publication and were therefore not accepted as public domain in the United States. I have now discovered there is an illustrated biography which no doubt contains several of these images and a number of portraits: "Carl Nielsen 1865-1931. En billedbiografi. A pictorial biography", Johannus Fabricius. Maybe one of our Danish friends would like to check this out. If not, I'll research it myself when I return to Denmark in August.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• You'll have to note the year of publication as well... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Yes, I realize that (there are in fact several early editions) but I have discovered there are several early publications on Nielsen with photographs. A few days ago, I even found a published portrait photograph of Nielsen from c.1920 in an old Danish encyclopaedia I have here in Luxembourg but I didn't want to create any trouble when we were almost at the end of the FAC procedure. If I am in doubt, I know Nikkimaria (and you yourself) will be there to help. I'm now also hoping to bring Jean Sibelius up to standard for his 150th anniversary on 8 December.--Ipigott (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead photo again

The photo used in the lead is scanned from a book and suffers a bit from the grid artefact in the book (a result of the printing method) and rather low contrast. I have uploaded an adjusted version in the hope that we can decide to use it instead:

Carl Nielsen photographed in 1917	Carl Nielsen photographed in 1917
left – as originally uploaded right – adjusted

• @We hope: You dealt with the original, is this new file description OK?

This is fine-you've copied the links to the book and noted that this is a derivative of the original. The first page of the book that proves it's from 1917 was uploaded to that. Anyone who wants/needs to know is directed to the original where they can see the book's first page. We hope (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Dank: if we decide to use the adjusted version, we should also update the headshot in the tfa paragraph: File:Carl Nielsen 1917 crop.jpg. I can provide a corresponding version of that too.

Any comments? --Mirokado (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Pinging User:Crisco 1492. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, that would be fine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I have updated the cropped image for the tfa paragraph and changed the image used in the article. --Mirokado (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Encylopedia or Advertisement?

The entire section that I've pasted below reads more like an advertisement of current and future events. Does it really belong in Wikipedia right now? I say absolutely "no". Once all of the information below becomes historical then it will be appropriate to add to the article. As it is, this whole paragraph wrecks the article in my opinion. I think it should be removed for now.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The section in question, moved up for context:

Several special events have been scheduled on or around 9 June 2015 to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Nielsen's birth. In addition to many performances in Denmark, concerts were programmed in cities across Europe, including London, Leipzig, Kraków, Gothenburg, Helsinki and Vienna, and even further afield in Japan, Egypt and New York. For 9 June, Nielsen's birthday, the Danish National Symphony Orchestra announced a programme in Copenhagen's DR Concert Hall featuring Hymnus amoris, the Clarinet Concerto and Symphony No. 4 for a broadcast extending across Europe and the United States. The Danish Royal Opera has programmed Maskaradeand a new production (directed by David Pountney) of Saul og David. During 2015, the Danish Quartet has scheduled performances of Nielsen's string quartets in Denmark, Israel, Germany, Norway and the UK (at the Cheltenham Music Festival). In the UK, the BBC Philharmonic has prepared a concert series on Nielsen beginning on 9 June in Manchester. Nielsen's Maskarade overture will also be the first item for the opening night of the 2015 BBC Promenade Concerts in London, while his compositions feature in five other concerts of the Prom season. The city of Odense, which has strong connections with Nielsen, has developed an extensive programme of concerts and cultural events for the anniversary year.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are extraordinairement incorrect. The article underwent a detailed review for FA - in which you did not participate - and no editor agreed with you. WP:IDONTLIKE is not a reason for excision. By the way, your edits of tense were very confusing; please think twice before making such edits, particularly in an article which has been rated FA. And don't please copy links to Notes on to the talk page - as you see this makes the page very confusing. You need only to indicate the paragraph which concerns you.--Smerus (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I also gently point out that it is rather a chutzpah for you to claim on your userpage that you have contributed to making Carl Nielsen a Featured Article? You have I believe never edited it before today.--Smerus (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say I helped to make it a featured article. I said I've contributed to it (after it went on the air). The "detailed review for FA" was pathetic, I'm sorry to say, considering the number of errors (as in words missing) that I fixed, and the punctuation was wholly substandard. By the way, your commentary toward me personally is anything but "gentle". It is more like right in my face. I didn't particularly care for the "extraordinairement" commentary.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Then I advise you do not call yourself 'extraordinaire' - you will reduce the risk of other wicked souls like me making the same cheap crack. Best,--Smerus (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are a wicked soul, I can sense it in your every word. For once we agree. Best, --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And you are clearly a complete asshole.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Calm down ·maunus, there is no need for foul language. I have no animosity toward Smerus, I simply answered his facetious comment with an equally facetious comment of my own. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• There is no particular problem with the section in question as long as it is edited soon to reflect that the events have passed - and possibly removing reference to any that proved not particularly notable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Michael W. Parker for your interest in the article and for your edits. I realize the details of the celebration concerts may seem a little premature but I think an article in connection with a 150th anniversary should at least be supported by a few details of the concerts programmed in key locations. The tenses were carefully reviewed during discussions on FAC but, as Maunus suggests should be revised to reflect events which have actually taken place. I will try to take care of this. I note that one or two of your edits may well be in conflict with the revisions made during the review process, for example the spacing of the suspension points, but I really don't have time to go into all the detail now. I hope we will be able to work together in future on this and other articles, especially if we share an interest in music.--Ipigott (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We do share an interest in music. And thank you for the nice explanation. As it is the article looks great and is fully worthy of FA status, thanks to your efforts and those of other editors. It is a true team effort here on Wikipedia to deliver a fine article such as this one. Mentioning the future celebratory events isn't really a problem as long as it is edited for historical context later. It feels good knowing I had a small part in making this article even better. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bfpage for your praise and your interest. I'm no expert on bacteria but I see we share an interest in art. Hope to see you around.--Ipigott (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome and deserving of whatever recognition that I can give you. It is an enormous effort to make it to featured status and I can't even bring myself to even consider making such an effort. As for an interest in art...thank you so much. I have a gallery in Pittsburgh but stay out of the art articles as much as I can because of COI, www.barbarafrenchpage.com ismy artist page. If giving you my url is inappropriate, please delete the link. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  17:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind, but...

I've found a high-resolution, excellent - and, so far as I can tell, copyright-free-in-all-territories - photograph of Nielsen in 1908. I think it'll be a better lead image, don't you? =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please post it here first (as I did recently too). Difficult to respond without seeing it... --Mirokado (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Um... Heh... File:Carl_Nielsen_c._1908.jpg File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg - it's far sharper, has an unambiguous copyright state, and probably featureable. =) The other image would be good as a secondary image, but I think it better to start with the highest-resolution image. Plus, the 1917 image faces right, which is a little awkward to have right-aligned. It has some colour to it, but that's authentic; I'd say to leave that. Could darken it slightly, as that's just an exposure tweak, doesn't affect authenticity. A few minor stains; those could be easily edited away, indeed, I probably will have by tomorrow this moment now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I like this.--Smerus (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I like to try and get a featured picture for new FAs when something suitable's available =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to intervene on this but the original photo was one of those which was rejected during the FAC on copyright grounds, if I remember correctly. For the moment I've reverted to the former lead photo. But perhaps Nikkimaria could take a new look at your restored image and let us know if there are still copyright problems. I realize the photographer died over 90 years ago. I am returning to Denmark in a couple of weeks and hope to check out early illustrated biographies of Nielsen as the initial date of publication appears to be needed in many cases.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the section of the file description page showing - with evidence - that it was being distributed as a carte de visite in 1908? Widespread distribution counts as publication. Further, the Danish copyright rules do not require publication to start the copyright timer counting down in the first place. Kind of annoyed - I spent some time with Crisco 1492 making sure the copyright status would hold up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Adam's right - if it was distributed in 1908, it's fine copyright-wise, and he's got evidence of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

An excellent image. Is that a silver cane he's carrying? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't like to speculate material from a black and white photograph, even if it is technically black and yellow. It's certainly a very nice cane, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've reinserted the image; since we have a carte de visite from 1908, we've got the proof of publication we were lacking during FAC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Glad to see all this has been sorted out and we have the go ahead from the right people. Your enhanced image is certainly a considerable improvement on what we had before. My apologies for being over-cautious. I'm a novice at these copyright problems.--Ipigott (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I probably should have linked to where I discussed copyright with Crisco right away, which would have avoided this. Just came as a bit of a surprise, but, thinking about it, I work with images a lot; you don't, so you not spotting the carte de visite thing being important is hardly a surprise. My fault! =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Image note

I found larger copies of three of the images. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Can you upload them with source info, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Already did. One was from the same source, justt he larger version was missed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, File:Carl Nielsen - 1879.jpg, File:Carl Nielsen family at Fuglsang, Lolland.jpg, and - while admittedly not much better - File:Saul og David (Carl Nielsen),, Stockholm 1931.jpg. I might do a little cleanup on the second image if you think it's worth it - could get rid of the pale vignetting easy enough.

I've also updated the filename on the first of those three - I found a reliable source for 1879, as opposed to circa 1880. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Any further improvements to the images would be great. Thanks for your interest and expertise.--Ipigott (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Don't think there's much to be done with Saul og David unless it gets released elsewhere a bit larger, and I already did the 1879 image - not big enough to feature, but looking pretty good I think.

Let's talk about the family one, then. There's three ways to do it: We could crop it left right and top, which would tighten the focus on his family, and remove a lot of the damaged parts. However, that draws focus away from the manor behind them, and that manor is significant. A second option would be crop left and right, leave the top, which crops the least interesting parts of the manor. The third is to fix the fading left and right, copy the patch of shadowed ground over the rip lower left, fix that little bit of damage at the top, and keep the crop as it is.

None of these is particularly hard, really: difficulty is usually somewhat proportional to image size, and this is not that big. With a photo like this - not particularly artistic, but with a lot of illustrative value, I think it's reasonable enough to crop it in whatever way best brings out the information you want it to convey: Thumbnails have a constant width, so any cropping on the left and right will make anything not cropped show up a bit bigger in the article, but, of course, we lose the bits we crop. Note: I can do all three of these, and let you pick. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: It seems to me you are far more expert than I am on providing the best possible solution and in any case, others such as Smerus might also have a preference. And while I'm here, you might be interested to learn I am now working on Jean Sibelius which we hope to improve for his 150th anniversary in December. Maybe you could take a look at the photos there, see whether there are any copyright problems, and perhaps enhance them along the same lines? Absolutely no rush on this, Unlike our last minute spurt on Nielsen, for this we still have lots of time.--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to make any great claims for it, but the family image looks a bit better now. Flipping back and forth between https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/fe/20150620213634!Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang%2C_Lolland.jpg and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang%2C_Lolland.jpg being the easiest way to see what I did. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well done, you have improved the image without being heavy handed. --Mirokado (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Aye. I'd try to do more, but, frankly, with a low-res image and a lot of damage, it's often best just to remove distractions, and not try to do too much.. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg is now featured.

Thought you'd be pleased to know. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely pleased! This is the review. --Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Organizing References

I think, it's better to reorganize the sources. The Scores could be separated.

Proposal for Structure:

Sources

Books and Articles

• All sources

Scores

• Carl Nielsen Edition

178.200.103.17 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The Carl Nielsen Edition consists of both scores and commentary. It is the commentary we are referencing, which is whe all the citations are currently together. A problem with separating just the CNE sources woudld be that the positioning would appear to be giving them a special status. They are grouped in the citations because the short references refer to the edition and titles: the reason for that was to avoid long lists of authors in the "short" references. --Mirokado (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Greatest"

Now, I don't doubt Nielsen's importance, but is it an encyclopedia's task to appoint anyone a "greatest" ephitet? Moreover, aren't we comparing apples to oranges here? How are we going to compare Nielsen in "greatness" to, say, Gade or Hartmann? Would it not be preferable to speak of "one of the most significant" instead? But I'd like to hear opinions. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes you're quite right, although I think he really is the greatest. Nielsen comes first, together with Buxtehude who happens to be claimed by the Germans as well, then there is a wide gap, and then we have Langgaard or Holmboe or Gade... Anyway, I changed the word "greatest" for you into "most prominent". Which he is... Hartenhof (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'm not saying he isn't the "greatest", but I'm not too comfortable with such epithets since they are bound to personal preference, time, and cultural influence. Arguably, for instance, Gade was more famous in his days than Nielsen was in his. And let's not forget there was a time when many in Germany regarded Reger as the "greatest" living German composer. Again, not saying that he wasn't, but that's very far from modern perception. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Symphony No.3 title

In the original 1913 score, the word "espansiva" is not capitalised. A minor issue perhaps, but this is a FA. Just saying ... 94.226.68.239 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141012000331/http://www.kb.dk/en/nb/dcm/cnu/download.html to http://www.kb.dk/en/nb/dcm/cnu/download.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://odensesymfoni.dk/Webnodes/da/Web/Odense%2BSymfoniorkester/ENGLISH

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714205734/http://museum.odense.dk/en/museums/carl-nielsen-museum/the-carl-nielsen-museum to http://museum.odense.dk/en/museums/carl-nielsen-museum/the-carl-nielsen-museum
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215013356/http://www.fuguemasters.com/nielsen.html to http://www.fuguemasters.com/nielsen.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714205734/http://museum.odense.dk/en/museums/carl-nielsen-museum/the-carl-nielsen-museum to http://museum.odense.dk/en/museums/carl-nielsen-museum/the-carl-nielsen-museum

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150424143402/http://storbritannien.um.dk/en/about%20great%20britain/carl-nielsen-150th-anniversary/ to http://storbritannien.um.dk/en/about%20great%20britain/carl-nielsen-150th-anniversary/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150612101121/http://www.carlnielsen.org/en/events to http://www.carlnielsen.org/en/events
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150612101121/http://www.carlnielsen.org/en/events to http://www.carlnielsen.org/en/events
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150501003626/http://tso.ca/en-ca/Discover-the-Music/Programme-Notes/Symphony-No-3-Sinfonia-espansiva.aspx to http://tso.ca/en-ca/Discover-the-Music/Programme-Notes/Symphony-No-3-Sinfonia-espansiva.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219110116/http://odensesymfoni.dk/Webnodes/da/Web/Odense%2BSymfoniorkester/ENGLISH to http://odensesymfoni.dk/Webnodes/da/Web/Odense+Symfoniorkester/ENGLISH

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518081109/http://www.historienshus.dk/topmenu/topmenu%202/om%20odense/personer/carl%20nielsens%20mors%20familie to http://www.historienshus.dk/topmenu/topmenu%202/om%20odense/personer/carl%20nielsens%20mors%20familie

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The website has been updated and I could not find a search box! Perhaps this page will reappear later. --Mirokado (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 9, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-06-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Carl Nielsen (1865–1931) was a Danish musician, conductor and violinist, widely recognized as his country's most prominent composer. Initially playing in a military band before attending the Royal Danish Academy of Music in Copenhagen, he premiered his Op. 1, Suite for Strings, in 1888, at the age of 23. His early music was inspired by composers such as Brahms and Grieg, but he soon developed his own style. By the time of his death, he had produced 419 known works; some of these, such as his opera Maskarade (1906), have become integral to Denmark's national heritage.Photograph: Georg Lindstrøm; restoration: Adam Cuerden

Inclusion of minimal infobox

I would like us to consider adding to the Carl Nielsen biography article a minimal infobox, consistent with what we did for Jean Sibelius (relevant discussion Talk:Jean Sibelius). Apologies for having acted too rashly by adding the infobox yesterday (you can view it here). I like these minimal inboxes for a few reasons: (1) inclusion of age at death is very helpful; (2) inclusion of signature (which is a nice design touch and a historical artifact in its own right); (3) quick access to the composer's list of compositions page, which I (and I imagine other users) utilize all the time (and which is cumbersome to find in the navbox at the bottom of the page or mid-article ... lots of scrolling); and (4) a minimal infobox avoids the cruft of the longer/detailed one and represents a nice compromise between the two purist schools of thought.

Pinging a few editors who would seem to be interested in this topic: Ipigott, Smerus, Nikkimaria, ModernDayTrilobite, Ssilvers, Melodia Chaconne, Songwaters, AnyGuy, Aza24, and Mirokado. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. It would definitely be a helpful convenience to readers who want to quickly see his dates or the list of his compositions. Songwaters (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Silence of Järvenpää I support this. There is little more for me to add that hasn't already been said to support this motion, but I believe the reasoning for adding one is sound. AnyGuy (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See Signpost report: "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: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the information in the box must already be discussed in the body of the article and the Lead section, and likely has also just been seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format would distract readers and discourage them from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa), and vandalism frequently creeps in that is hard to detect because of the lack of referencing in the box. (5) Boxes in liberal arts biographies like this attract fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (6) IBs in arts bios distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)