Talk:Edward Elgar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Edward Elgar is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2011.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 11, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
June 18, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
November 9, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article


I am happy to create an infobox if people here would agree. I understand that biographical infoboxes are often controversial at WP:CM, but I would suggest something along the lines of what I have encountered for other composers elsewhere, that is: picture, birth date, place of birth, death date, place of death, list of compositions, and signature. Views? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@L.R.Wormwood Have you seen the comment at the head of the code for the article? ("please do not add an infobox without first obtaining consensus on the article Talk page: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Guidelines"
FWIW, I'd vote against it, for the reason cited in those Guidelines: "... infoboxes are often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians ... because they often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content" (see the preceding section: "Hidden comments").
-- Jmc (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
RE: User:Jmc "Have you seen the comment at the head of the code for the article?": What do you imagine I'm doing by posting here? It is difficult to see how providing an infobox with Elgar's birth and death dates, and his signature, would "oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content", but you are welcome to your view, I suppose. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, something like that for Beethoven, or Bach. I have noticed that the majority of articles for composers do in fact have infoboxes, despite the guidelines, and really I have no idea how this could be at all controversial. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it becomes "debated" (not really controversial) when the infobox offers too many options that allow personal choice and preference; rather than specific details: i.e. Richard Wagner that also listed: notable works and years active. Which of course opened up a whole can of unnecessary worms. I think if you stick to your proposal, there would (should) be no contest, since the content is non-debatable. Furthermore, I do not agree with the above "cherry-picked" wording from the WikiProject Classical Music Guidelines. It is taken out of context. Infoboxes in these situations are neither required nor prohibited and are delegated by consensus on the article's Talk Page. Plain and simple. Leave out the "Notable works" and "Years active" and you should be fine. There's nothing "over simplified" by stating: picture, birth date, place of birth, death date, place of death, list of compositions (link), and signature. Maineartists (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. We can add a hidden comment asking that people obtain consensus before adding additional fields, if that would assuage the concerns of some users? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Without expressing any opinion on whether an infobox would improve this article, I am aware that the hidden comment breaches our guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text #Inappropriate uses for hidden text, specifically "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit." There is no guideline or policy against adding an infobox to any article. It is, however, better to propose any change to consensus on an article prior to making changes that may therefore be contentious. Nevertheless, I note that this article has no prior consensus on the issue of an infobox, and it is unacceptable for a WikiProject to attempt to impose its general decisions on particular articles, per WP:CONLOCAL. I've therefore amended the hidden text to something more policy-compliant. If consensus is reached to add an infobox, I'd support replacing that with any agreed request to editors concerning an expansion of the infobox. On the other hand, if consensus is reached not to add an infobox, I'd support adding a link to this debate to the hidden text as an aid for future editors in understanding how such consensus would have been reached. --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No further comments, so I'll just add one. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cassianto: Could you explain your changes here? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not making any changes, you are, so the onus is on you to discuss your changes. Rather than edit war, maybe you'd care to discuss here what benefits you think your infobox brings to this article? Leave the article without an infobox in the meantime. Thanks. CassiantoTalk 13:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Cass, perhaps User:Tim riley, the main editor here, would step away from his retirement for a moment to reiterate why he chose not to have an infobox. Time wasters like this are why I said to hell with text content work. We hope (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Your page is littered with references to your opposition to infoboxes. I have no idea where this bizarre controversy originated, and why you are prepared to waste time over this. I say it improves the article, what is your reply? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
And I have no idea why YOU are prepared to waste time over it either. Comments are permissible and the above is mine. We hope (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
As we have discussed, an infobox such as the one I have included makes useful information more visible, improves consistency, and the appearance of the article. I realise this is an issue which you feel strongly about, but since it's not entirely clear why, and since infoboxes are widely used in articles for composers, I would be interested in reading a summary of your opposition to their use. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you think repeating the dates of birth and death, right next to the first line of the lead section, improves the "consistency, and the appearance of the article"? Can you also tell me why you think this "makes useful information more visible"? I would suggest that you are talking horse shit. CassiantoTalk 15:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
"Consistency" across articles on composers, obviously. In my experience, it's much easier to locate information like birth and death dates, and places of birth and death, if it's displayed clearly in an infobox (which is where I instinctively look). Swear at me again and this is going straight to AN/I. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
What makes you think I give a fuck about ANI? Maybe, once there, you'll be able to justify breaching WP:3RR. Just a thought. CassiantoTalk 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cassianto: And where did I breach 3RR? Show me and I'll self-revert. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stick to the topic in hand, L.R. Wormwood. I'll ask again: please explain why you think repeating the dates of birth and death, right next to the first line of the lead section, improves the "consistency, and the appearance of this article"? Can you also tell me why you think this "makes useful information more visible"? Please stop talking bullshit and answer the questions. I know this is a tactic of the pro-infobox lobby, but it won't wash with me, I'm afraid. CassiantoTalk 18:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
"Please stick to the topic in hand" You suggested (mistakenly or dishonestly) that I had broken the 3RR rule (which I hadn't) in order to intimidate me (and thereby prevent me from going to AN/I). If I'm off topic, it's because you have brought us off topic. I have explained myself, I'm not repeating it for you, and I'm not engaging with you because you clearly can't hold your temper over this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be in favour of an infobox here, but not at the expense of another flare-up of infobox wars. If anyone is interested in my reasoning, I have prepared an essay at User:RexxS/Infobox factors that collects many of the factors that I feel ought to be considered when deciding whether or not an infobox would improve an article. I'm sorry it's a long read, and I'm sorry it's not yet complete, but it may help in clarifying some of the arguments brought to bear here. @We hope: comments such as you made to L.R. Wormwood do not advance your case and are contrary both to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes #Editors reminded, and the general principle that inflaming debate leads to more entrenched positions, not mutually acceptable solutions. I hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

RexxS I stand by my comments. We hope (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You have made precisely no comments at all. Beyond indicating personal preference, and a slightly odd obsession, you have raised no valid objections to the infobox. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I could say the same for your obsession to include a box on this FA-that it's slightly odd. We hope (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Marvelous. I was referring to the fact that you've decorated your user page with evidence of your dislike of infoboxes, but I don't want to be drawn into a bickering session with you over this. I honestly had no idea that doing this would provoke such a reaction, and I don't want to take up anyone's time with a dispute over something so trivial, so I'll withdraw. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose infobox: The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "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 the infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes 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 most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the text of the article. (7) It distracts 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. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Shall we do RfC to close this? The contributor above aside, at the moment I'm just getting some fairly undeserved abuse. Changed my mind, a waste of everyone's time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Quoted from above: "I honestly had no idea that doing this would provoke such a reaction, and I don't want to take up anyone's time with a dispute over something so trivial, so I'll withdraw." L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose infobox as irrelevant and unnecessary and not including anything that wouldn't be in a well written lead. Jack1956 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose -- Per this. CassiantoTalk 16:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as per Jack1956. This information is in the lead; it doesn't need to be repeated in a box to the right. We hope (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This information? His place of death? More important: the list of compositions? Missing SchroCat who would have added it, as for Pierre Boulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Strike, per below. We don't know what he would have done. He added the place of death to Pierre Boulez. I provided a diff, but Cassianto deleted it, so please look it up yourself if you don't believe me. The list of compositions is still not in the lead, there or here. More facts: I do not stalk. I am no part of an "infobox-lobby", if such a think even exists. I made a list of articles where infoboxes were reverted because I have a bad memory and would forget Maritana. I cared about an infobox for Bach, Beethoven and Boulez, because I venerate these people, even met the latter. I miss Tim. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
As We hope suggests, has anyone bothered to ask the very person who's responsible for this article's excellence, Tim Riley, whether he minds an infobox being added? He, more than most, I'd say, has a right to say what goes in and where. CassiantoTalk 08:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The readers should say what goes in and where, not we writers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
And so we come to the place where Tim Riley, the main editor who left here due to these box conflicts, is to be given no credence when he chose to have a photo only here. Let's go now to those connected with FAC, who had to read the article to be able to support (or oppose) its promotion. No one there saying "Oh my, you DON'T have an infobox?"
Every time these disputes break out, we hear the nebulous argument that "the reader" wants them. This isn't a newspaper or magazine and there are no pages for Letters to the Editor, where the readers give the editorial staff feedback. Unless "the readers" are heard from on a talk page or the like, there's really no way to determine what "the readers" want and no one can honestly claim to speak for them.
It's claimed that SchroCat would have added a link to a list; there is a link for this in the article. SchroCat left because of infobox and MOS issues at the same time Tim Riley did; unless someone's able to summon the spirits as the witches of Macbeth, the statements re: "the readers" and SchroCat can't be proven. They're "citation needed" because there's no reliable source to link them to. What we have as reliable sources is Tim Riley's decision not to include an infobox when he wrote the article and those commenting at FAC when they approved Elgar as a Featured Article with no box. This will stop only when ARBCOM either re-opens the infobox case or is willing to begin a new one. We hope (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh wow. Funny how on this exact page above a good nine months ago I wrote: "Unfuckingbelieveable how much pointless text is still being generated over this.". Still applies. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This text wouldn't be written at all if some were to learn, respect and accept the views and wishes of those who've worked the hardest on this article. I'd like to see what L.R. Wormwood has done for WP:FA? CassiantoTalk 08:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This is closed. WP:LETITGO and stop mentioning me. I realise I've waded into something which is (unaccountably) very controversial, but you ought to understand that your behaviour is extraordinary. Also, read WP:OWN. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't gossip behind people's backs and if I mention you then I will alert you to that fact by a ping. I'm not forcing you to respond and if you choose not to, then don't, I couldn't give a toss. With regards to OWN, I don't think for a minute that I or anyone else OWN the articles we write; however, I do believe that we, the writers of them, should be treated with some respect in terms of our beliefs and choices with regards to what has been either included or excluded, and not be bullied and bludgeoned by the likes of you who haven't bothered to lift a finger to write the article, or positively contribute to it in any way. Oh, and seeing as you like to reference WP:OWN, you may wish to take away with you this golden nugget which is contained within OWN which says: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." You didn't. Anyway, good luck in your future endeavours, what ever that is. CassiantoTalk 15:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I really try to be considerate by avoiding more than 2 comments in a discussion, but sorry, this "You didn't." is just wrong. The topic was introduced here on the talk, this thread, on 2 April. Only when no protest showed until 18 April, it was added. That was not a bold edit. Exit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Gerda, sorry, but the last thing you are is "considerate". If you were, you wouldn't stalk the talk pages of infoboxless Featured Articles that the main author has chosen not to include them on, and then advertise them on a sub-page (now deleted, thank god) designed to allow your followers to keep tabs on where they can cause trouble next. You then wouldn't rub your hands with glee in the background, with popcorn, when said followers proceed on mass to drive the main authors down to such an extent that they flee the project in absolute disgust. If you look back at the history, you'll see Wormwood never allowed discussion as they were warring to their preferred version. I can provide diffs, if required. CassiantoTalk 17:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The deleted list had only articles where infoboxes were reverted, articles from my watch list. What you conclude is unfounded, "rub hands in glee" hurts, for example. It's not true. I don't care if Elgar has an infobox, or any other, - I gave up with Pierre Boulez, more than a year ago. I hope others will follow that attitude, it saves time. - Discussion on this talk began on 2 April, the infobox was added 18 April. That was more than 2 weeks waiting for objections, fair enough, I'd think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There was no consesnsus to add an infobox, therefore BRD applies. Wormwood was bold, I reverted, then they reverted again, and then again. That is not BRD. Hearing no objections is not acceptance. That is where BRD applies, and in this case, it wasn't followed. CassiantoTalk 17:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Cassianto is right. That is exactly what happened. If people would follow the BRD cycle, then much of this back and forthing could be avoided. Would people please drop it now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edward Elgar. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

References of Adolescence in Pre-World War II History[edit]

There is a concensus of editors (one forgot to sign his/her comment) that there's nothing wrong with the use of the word "teenager" in the article. Regarding similar changes made to other articles, MOS:INUNIVERSE has been cited. I have not participated in this discussion. We hope (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(I am bringing this up here because someone told me to bring it here instead of there talk page) Adolescence as a stage of life did not exist until after World War II; the research itself says adolescence is not only not universal, but is only caused by cultural influences that did not begin to emerge until after World War II, where it first began to appear in the United States. When I am removing mentions of "teenage" and "teenager" in this articles regarding persons from time periods before the World War II era I am correcting an anachronism that does not accurately describe how people age 13-19 were expected to behave and did behave during this time period. If you are so insisting on reverting my edits for the sake of accuracy at least change "teenage" and "teenager" to "adolescent", which is not any more accurate but is more formal.

I am mentioning this here not in the mentions of "teenage" in the page about Elgar itself but also in several other articles where the world "teenage" is used in time periods occurring before the end of World War II. This page is only one of many, and I am only bringing this up to change the use of adjectives that are not accurate within their time period. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Teenage" is a precise term referring to chronological age, and adolescence is a biological concept. Of course it existed before World War II. Antandrus (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Have you done the research or looked at contrasting research yourself? Do the research before you suggest that "teenage" is chronological and "adolescence" is biological, as opposed to either of them being cultural terms. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Teenage is defined as: "The period of a person's life between the ages of thirteen and nineteen inclusive, the teens; an age falling between these limits." so I see no reason to change it in this article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Teenager does not refer to just age; it also refers to culture and cannot be accurately used with the definition you just used if it is not used within appropriate historical context. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The notion that 'teenager' refers to culture as well as age seems to be a piece of WP:OR. Dictionary definitions are clear, and do not mention culture: OED has "One who is in his or her teens; loosely, an adolescent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smerus (talkcontribs)