Jump to content

Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Infobox 3

Discuss infobox yes or no

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is currently no consensus to include an infobox in the Frédéric Chopin article:
  • !votes – 10 supports, 11 opposes in a discussion that ran for two weeks from 15 February 2015, and has attracted no further comments in the last 12 days.
  • merits of the arguments – ignoring the general arguments in favour or against infoboxes (infoboxes are an editorial choice meaning that by definition general arguments balance out against each other), the merits are in the specific arguments (i.e. arguments that don't apply to infoboxes in general, but are specific to the Frédéric Chopin article): several of the standard infobox data can not be summarized in a few words for Chopin: (birth date? relationship?...) other data, that are straightforward (e.g. height), are of questionable relevance. Even among proponents of the infobox questions like which data to include, and which layout to prefer remain undecided. It has not been established by consensus or otherwise that either a detailed infobox (collapsed or not), or a "strict essentials" infobox is seen as an improvement to this article.

For these reasons the article should not have an infobox until it is first decided which content/layout of the infobox would have most support, and there is a clear consensus to include it (which is thus far not established in the current sections below).

Other thoughts:

  • decorum (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Editors reminded) – a stricter adherence to "all editors are reminded to maintain decorum (...) when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" seems commendable, while there are a few remarks in that sense regarding the current discussion, e.g. introducing the infobox in the article without clear consensus (at least before closure of the ongoing discussion); talk page decorum: removing comments already replied to by others, going off-topic, etc.

For all interested parties: please familiarize yourselves with the outcome of the infoboxes case, in particular Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Editors reminded. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Surely building consensus for what editors see as an improvement has nothing to do with "respect" for previous editors. The information proposed for the infobox is anything but "trivia". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
...but thanks anyway for the compliment which I accept also on behalf of User:Dr Blofeld and others who contributed.--Smerus (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
you're very welcome. Perhaps he also has a view. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox per the extended discussion above, and particularly because of the point made about contentious nationality, which can adequately be addressed in a medium-sized paragraph, but not in an infobox.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the current form -- I am neutral on the use of infoboxes, but I agree with those who point out that this example uses trivial (e.g. height) and contentious (e.g. nationality) data. I'd like any consensus to be explicit about the omission of these. --Stfg (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose in current form. I am with Stfg on the need to limit any infobox to essential identifying data. The inclusion of height is a provocation, and a pretty stupid one (along with weight, hat size and favourite colour). Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Some composers can be quite heavy, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's undue weight, no? --Stfg (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support infobox with the information as shown. I wouldn't worry if height were omitted, particularly if unsourced. I'm pretty certain that Chopin's nationality is not contentious: "born Polish, French citizen 1835" or something similar would be a reasonable summary and quite beyond dispute. --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support infobox, preferring the original daguerrotype image for its historical importance and better quality. We should not include height in the infobox as it is irrelevant without the context of the Sand quote about "...this little creature..." (where it is in any case not mentioned). --Mirokado (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox as redundant and possibly misleading, in this particular article. I agree with User:Smerus [1]. The article's lede summarizes the most important points clearly, the rest is explained in the article's body. I also oppose the uniformity on Wikipedia. See Help:Infobox: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Why would it be "possibly misleading"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
[2], #3. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC){
Yes, I see your point. But you think it's totally impossible to agree on a summary description of his nationality that would not be misleading? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia - any reference work - must be at the service of its readers/users. If it is simply - or even primarily - to become a vanity project for those of us who contribute to it it will wither and die sooner rather than later, as the present generation of readers falls away. There is some superb scholarship and some first class writing in the Chopin entry (as well, you might conclude, as just a little smidgeon of the other stuff .... ) Some readers will love to read it and have time to do so. Others will simply wish to check whether he was French or Polish, seventeenth century or eighteenth century, for a "pub quiz" ... simple easily tabulated things. Wikipedia needs to cater for both groups (and at different times many of the same people will find themselves sometimes in one group and sometimes in the other), in order to maximize its reach and, for that matter, maximize the proportion of this year's wiki-readers who next year may find they have the time and inclination to become competent or better wiki-contributors themselves. Include the info box for those who thought they only wanted to give ten seconds to checking out the fellow's place of birth, and they may even be seduced into reading the excellent intro section as well, and maybe the entire entry next Sunday when they have more time. Reward them with a wall of prose and there are some who will never have the time or inclination to read through to the second sentence of the first para. You should not dismiss those people simply because they have difficulty reading English, which may be your first or second language but not necessarily theirs. If you were ever involved in any sort of lecturing or teaching you will have spotted that different people absorb information in different ways. Some prefer to listen, some to read, some like pictures, some like charts, some like the challenge of long sentences installed in three page paragraphs, some like to start with a group discussion, while others want to leave that till they've read up on the subject in the library. If your mission is to inform, you should try and be inclusive of all types of learner, and not just of the ones that remind you of yourself. I believe one may be meant to add "IMHO" at this point. Hmmmm. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
and another thing A lot of these reactions appear to conflate two questions:
"Infobox - yes or no?"
"someone put something in the infobox that in my opinion should not be there"
For the, avoidance of doubt, my own support is wholly in response to the first of these questions. I do not see that it makes the discussion easier to handle if you start muddling in the second. If someone wants to launch a discussion about what to include in an infobox for Chopin, that's fine and eminently worthwhile to discuss. Line by line if folks have the patience. But it is not, I think, the topic presently under discussion! Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The reason I (and perhaps others) raised it here was that many of the objections to infoboxes are based on fears of perceived misuse, e.g. for trivia or to oversimplify controversial issues. The yes-or-no question thus cannot be separated from the what-in-what-out question. --Stfg (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think you can answer the two different issues in distinct lines of discussion all the same. If this were a formal RfC, I would say that as much was mandated in the wording of the question itself. But this isn't, afterall, an RfC and I think we can all see which positions support the use of an infobox in general, which do not and which ones speak to the ancillary issues; you and Brianboulton were both pretty clear in your opinions. Snow talk 12:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I understand reservations about excessive detail, if a proposal did in fact include such a detail as height, but the overall utility of an infobox in this case is fairly obvious and well-attested by the current versions of the mock-ups. On a side-note, my personal opinion on the element that could most stand to go is the signature. I've never been sold on the broad encyclopedic value of prominently featuring a signature. None of our readers likely to by authenticating Chopin's signature on a historical document and if they were, they wouldn't be taking their ques on this subject matter from us. Snow talk 11:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The whole point of the box is to be redundant for a fast overview - Do what is best for our readers to gain info is what we are here to do. -- Moxy (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Brian and Smerus. It's just redundant in its current form. I support infoboxes where they're actually of informational value and not just furniture as Victoria says. I preferred the original Chopin image by itself. I would be less objectionable to the infobox suggested by Gerda below though, but the current one is just pointless. Above all I just don't get why this is suddenly an issue, the time would be better put into getting some of the others up to FA status.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lowest common denominator dross. It has little use here that can't be replicated by a little exercise in intelligence of approach. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm a contributor to this article and I was only just alerted to this, as have other contributors including Tim and Schro. It's hardly a fair consensus is it? Do all of the other composer FAs have infoboxes too?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Not really relevant (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). But I for one am still interested in opinions on this matter. So long as the consensus version is not edit-warred over, there's no harm in discussion continuing, though I think this is largely a WP:SNOW issue; the long-term reservations of some surrounding infoboxes in composer article's not withstanding, infoboxes are pretty ubiquitous, especially for biographies. Consensus seems to have already pushed things there now, but even if it hadn't, it would have sooner or later. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 22:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's very relevant. If there's a project consensus actually in place deciding NOT to use infoboxes then it ought to be respected and treated consistently. If there is actually no consensus any longer to eliminate them, then that should also be consistent. So pointing out that none of the others have them at FA level is very relevant, Chopin should not be the exception.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Repetitive, ugly, and needless. A complete blot on the otherwise perfect landscape of a wonderful article. This kind of eyesore is akin to the sort of thing a local authority would erect at a beauty spot telling people "how beautiful the area is", thus ruining it. Yes, we know the name of the area as we wouldn't be there; yes, we know it's beautiful; so why tell us things we already know? — CassiantoTalk 08:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible some readers might visit this article for the first time, knowing nothing about such a beautiful area? Or perhaps this article is here purely for the benefit of Wikipedia editors. Martinevans123 (talk)
Whilst working out why are you responding to every single editor who dares to cast an opposed vote here, I shall answer your point: Those editors "who don't have the time to read" as the editor below refers to them as, will find that everything contained within the "magnificent" info box is given within the first few lines of the truly magnificent lede. The current info box is not fully representative of the article as a whole and the article would require little or no scanning in order to find the desired information as given within the info box. I'm not opposed to info boxes per sey, but for certain biographies they are utterly pointless in my opinion. CassiantoTalk 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I've hatted a lengthy procedural argument which does not inform upon the present content discussion. Snow Talk 08:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
But I'm not "responding to every single editor", am I. Other editors see the info box as useful for quick reference. not just me. I'm not a die-hard campaigner for infoboxes "per sey". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be, so just stop. Let people have their say and respect their responses by not questioning their opinions. CassiantoTalk 18:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I've raised questions on three of the ten "oppose votes", not because I don't "respect" other editor's opinions, but because I think the arguments they present are flawed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about you it's about the article. Your counter opinions matter to nobody other than you. CassiantoTalk 19:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the only editor who has offered counter opinions. It seems perfectly acceptable practice. I'm the one who happened to counter your opinion. I'm not pretending it's "about me". Martinevans123 (talk)
Enough. CassiantoTalk 19:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me Cassianto, but there is no policy or community standard which limits the number opinions to which Martin (or any editor) is entitled to respond in a given discussion, nor have his responses been ubiquitous (or even particularly numerous) in any event. What's more, I'm not sure what has led you to the rationale that respecting the responses of another contributor necessitates not questioning their opinions; quite the opposite, meaningful participation in Wikipedia's editorial discussions depends very much on the ability to do both at the same time. Please refrain from trying to limit the expression of your fellows here (or anywhere on the project) unless their behaviour has become unambiguously disruptive (which is clearly not the case here). If someone replies to your comments, you are free to respond to the substance of that argument or ignore it altogether. What you are not allowed to do is tell them that that they've hit their "quota". Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 08:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me Snow, there doesn't need to be policy, this comes down to manners. Why should those posting an oppose vote be forced to justify and explain their opinion by those who want the idiot box put in. How many of those who opposed do you see badgering those who votes support? CassiantoTalk 08:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It would seem that you and I have very different thresholds for "badgering". What I saw was Martin made a completely civil and very concise response to your perspective, even going so far as to adopt your metaphor to talk about it on your terms; frankly I found your argument impressionistic and ill-suited to the context -- Wikipedia articles aren't pristine, unspoilt vistas, they are here for the utilitarian purpose of informing our readers, and sometimes that leads to solutions that just don't greet the eye the way some would have. But that's how we get things done on this project, we share our concerns with one-another and we hash things out (maybe even find a reasonable compromise on occasion), and Martin's (really pretty incidental in scale) critique of your argument was delivered in a completely civil manner. It was your reaction that seems unnecessarily hostile, in this editors opinion. If that's your response to the very first criticism your perspective gets here, when that comment couldn't get more minimalist or less objectionable, you're only going to lose support for your position, because people are going to start to get the impression that the same lack of tolerance for a multiplicity of perspectives that previously led to an ArbCom case in this area is alive and well, which will prejudice them to what you and others have to say about the alternative you hope to support. In any event, let's remember that this space is still under the auspices of the rulings of said ArbCom case, and that there will probably be little tolerance for once again turning this into a heated personal issue when it is in fact a content discussion. Note: I only just now followed that link at the end of Martin's post and saw the image (I had previously assumed it linked to one of the numerous previous discussions about the editorial utility of infoboxes). I have to say that's more provocative than I'd like and it contextualizes Cassianto's response a little more favourbly, so I felt I'd better amend my statement in that regard. I reiterate, however, that this is need not, and should not, be such an impassioned topic. After a long time and a great deal of community intervention, discussion had finally stabilized in a mostly civil place. Let's try to discuss reasonable compromise solutions, not disparage the breadth of the "opposition". Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 10:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be only reading what you want to read. I'm not saying he was uncivil, I'm saying that his insistence on counter-commenting on people's opposing views here, was the wrong place to do it. It's irrelevant in this section if he disagrees with the comments posted, that's simply the other editors view. IMO, he (and others) should respect an opposing/supporting vote in this section and pipe down for the sake of not wishing to make this section a battleground. There are other sections on this talk page where things can be discussed. I am worried that this iVote would degenerate into another idiot box tug-O-war session, which would result in nothing being achieved only another half-witted thread at ANI. Also, in regards to the link to Hitler which Martin uncivily likened me to, this only smacks of Godwin's law which was the path this discussion was inevitably going to go down. My view of not liking an infobox on certain articles really likens me to someone who killed millions of Jews, women and children. It is that kind of incivility that I didn't want here. CassiantoTalk 11:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you can contextualize the image for me by telling me what film it comes from? Are you certain that's meant to be Hitler? I thought it was merely meant to imply "don't you think?" in a very exaggerated fashion. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 11:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you can work it out for yourself; that's of course if you're stupid enough to not believe it was a comparison to Hitler. CassiantoTalk 12:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm taking that to mean that you aren't drawing your conclusion from knowing that this image is supposed to be Hitler, and the likeness seems vague, so I suspect you've made an assumption here that is incorrect. It was still not terribly appropriate, but I think the intended sentiment seems to be miles away from where you interpreted. All I can suggest at this point is that you both back of the hyperbole. On a side note, can I just point out that when you use the words "idiot" and "stupid" too readily in Wikipedia conversations, even when you couch them in an indirect manner, it kind of marks your comments as being predicated on emotion and lacking in nuance. At least it does for me, but maybe that's just my idiosyncrasy. I rather suspect not, though. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 15:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If the cap fits... CassiantoTalk 15:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Hitler. Not David Suchet in Blot on the Landscape then. Thanks for your full appreciation of my attempt at humour. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Infoboxes are magnificent for people who don't have the time to read the article, casual readers, trivia game contestants, and people who can understand little English. They provide a gloss over regarding the persons picture, D.O.B and D.O.D, age of which they died, what they are generally known for, and normally a signature. All valid things that hurt no-one but may help someone. Stylistic dislike from some aside... GuzzyG (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Hftf (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maintaining automatic numbering

Would editors please note that, in numbered lists using the # notation, indented replies should be prefixed with #: etc, not with :: etc, and that there must be no blank lines. Blank lines and colons without # signs disrupt the automatic numbering. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

shame, I sometimes like the blank lines best. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the effort to keep this clean, Stfg. I've actually removed the enumerating format for present time; I needed to hat a contentious procedural discussion that had no relevance to the content issue, and couldn't implement it without breaking the numbering, which in this instance was not serving any integral purpose. If you disagree, do feel free to revert (or try to get the features to place nice, of course). Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 08:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Snow Rise. That's fine. --Stfg (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss infobox design

Frédéric Chopin
Born
Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin

(1810-03-01)1 March 1810
Żelazowa Wola, Poland
Died17 October 1849(1849-10-17) (aged 39)
Place Vendôme, Paris, France
NationalityPolish; French citizen 1835
Education
Occupations
  • Composer
  • Pianist
  • Piano teacher
Notable workList of compositions
MovementRomantic
PartnerGeorge Sand (1836–47)
Parents
Signature

Dislike of parameters is a good reason to discuss those parameters. My version was shorter. I added the works list to this box, which would provide access to his compositions in a prominent position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Love your idea of adding the Chopin works list! A brilliant idea! Nihil novi (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This infobox was started by 118.210.75.162 and edited by Nihil novi, Smerus, myself, Favonian, Jsharpminor, Martinevans123, Stfg and Mirokado, and restored by RexxS, AMEB2003 and Montanabw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: If certain parameters aren't desired (height, unless relevant) then they can stay out of the infobox until resolved. No reason to throw out the whole infobox. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. FA class doesn't mandate an exhaustive infobox, just a solid and accurate one. Montanabw(talk) 08:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a comment about the picture. There was some discussion about this at the time of FA, as I recall. Cropping it has imo two drawbacks. You lose the composition of the original by Bisson - which itself is significant as it was typical of the period and places Chopin in the context of early photographic practices. Also, as the quality of the original is somewhat grainy, it looks even grainier in the close-up. I therefore argue in favour of retaining the earlier photo, whatever the outcome of this discussion. I also repeat my comment about the irrelevance/inappropriateness of including FC's alleged height - for which I think we still don't have any citation, in any case. Unlike the other information in the proposed infobox, it has no bearing whatsoever on his career or significance. If you include this, where do you stop? - we will have bright sparks proposing the colour of his hair or eyes, or his favourite breakfast....--Smerus (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that the older, sepia image is better and there is no real need to include height. However, no need to raise the logical fallacy of a slippery slope argument here, just because a parameter exists doesn't mean we have to use it. Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me also make a comment about nationality. As can be seen from discussions above and at the time of the FA this has been a hot topic. I am amongst those who believe that 'Polish' is the right answer if you only have one word. But he did become a French national , and the French in particular often treat him as such. Therefore, if you are going to highlight this information in an infobox, (and if it goes ahead), I believe you should say something like: 'Polish: obtained French nationality in 1835.'--Smerus (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments. 1., agree with Smerus about nationality. Typically infoboxes don't lend themselves well to artists who are born in one country and become citizens of another. 2., the birthdate is an issue. 3., File:Frédéric Chopin by Bisson, 1849.png is a 9 mb high rez image, presumably a daguerrotype, and if truly the only image, then we should use it. File:Frederic Chopin photo.jpeg is a 536 kb very grainy cropped version of the original and retains none of the background. 4., "Piano teacher" gives me pause. 5., To Americans who don't use the metric system height means nothing and begs the question of how tall was the piano? 6., threaded discussion is here and this section should be renamed and it would be best to move all responding comments from the section above down here. A neutral party should watch this discussion and refactor as necessary, so as to allow consensus to develop. 7., Suggest allowing the discussion to run for 30 days. Victoria (tk) 20:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The purpose of an infobox, if any, should be to serve as a quick reference to those things that a drive-by reader might want to look up quickly, but with no intention to read the text of the article. That's surely one reasonable use of an encyclopedia. For most composers, this would include dates of birth and death, nationality (but if contentious, either say so or omit), famous family members and partners (very famous, not merely GNG notable; think of the Bachs and the Couperins), movement, link to list of works. No biometrics please, these aren't boxers or footballers. Education isn't really needed in a quickref. Nor is signature -- yes, it's in the FA already, but perhaps it's undue so high up anyway (?) --Stfg (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with your comments. (Can never really get my head round signatures. Maybe they should be reserved for writers and art forgers? Although this article is quite interesting, even if based on the discredited fringe science of graphology). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Room for flexibility: Anyone opposing the infobox because they have issue with a parameter is simply poisoning the well; We can start with a very stripped-down design and than add as consensus allows. There is room within the parameters to deal with disputes. Nationality can be omitted in favor of stating a birthplace and a death place. Dates that are disputed can be noted as disputed by simply using raw text instead of a templated parameter. The convert template can handle the height issue if it needs to be in there at all, which I doubt. Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • An infobox with very little content would be an infobox that I wouldn't take the trouble to defend if removed. But here is an infobox with a dozen pieces of information available at a glance. I can see from previous debates that nationality has been the subject of debate, but I'm quite certain that (1) modern Poles identify him as born in their country and (2) he spend much of his brief adult life in France and became a French citizen. It's not too difficult to précis that without being any more "misleading" than the opening sentence and I'd prefer Smerus' formulation to MontanaBW's in this instance. The article agrees that Chopin's date of birth is generally accepted as 1 March 1810. An earlier commenter said they were "curious as to whether or not Beethoven and Chopin were contemporaries" and it is a valid query that infoboxes are good at answering. We don't need to know about the parish baptismal records discrepancy to make the comparison with Beethoven's birth and death dates. And if consensus considers that the 22 February 1810 putative birthdate is significant enough, it's no hardship to state "1 March or possibly 22 February 1810" in the same way as the lead does. There's no contention over Chopin's place of birth; his age, place and date of death; his occupations; his liaison with George Sand; where he was educated; his parents' names, and more, although I've never been a fan of having signatures in infoboxes. I hope that this will accepted in the spirit in which it is intended: a possible way forward that other editors could live with, even if not their first choice. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Identibox

Frédéric Chopin
Born
Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin

(1810-03-01)1 March 1810 (or possibly 22 February 1810)
Żelazowa Wola, Poland
Died17 October 1849(1849-10-17) (aged 39)
Paris, France
Occupations
Notable workList of compositions
Signature

Similar to the one suggested in 2014, no height, no nationality, focus on life data and the works, - The term was coined by Brianboulton, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Similar

  • Oppose for now because the proposal made at 7:46 UTC is being so quickly followed by a second proposal at 21:35 UTC. Consensus takes time to develop and there's no reason to rush from one proposal to the next. Pinging Courcelles, who protected the page, to keep eyes here, moderate if necessary, or to ask another uninvolved admin to step in. Let's please allow the 420 some watchers on the page to chime in if they wish. Issues such as nationality and the image have been raised and decisions are only slowly forming. It often takes time for consensus to form, but we don't have a deadline. Suggest archiving this thread and bringing back to the table later if necessary. Victoria (tk) 21:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've struck the oppose above made on the basis that the second proposal came in too quickly after the first. The identibox is fine as is; I can support it. One more, and probably unnecessary comment, is that the analogy to curtains was simply made in desperation to think of something mundane and possibly inane to bring down the temperature a little. Victoria (tk) 16:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This was suggested on 6 April 2014, here with the other image, to show alternatives. If we can discuss only one idea (but why?) we should discuss this one first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Possibly we're moving into !voting too quickly, but it's useful to know that an advocate is willing to cut it down to size. This suggestion seems to me to be moving in the right direction, acknowledging the concerns of the opposers. I would cut it down still further -- omit occupation and signature, but possibly reinstate George Sand since this connection is very well known. --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
More sensible suggestions. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
My feeling is that we must give adequate time to decide. To use the analogy above, is it necessary to hang a curtain - because most of the houses have curtains, because they are useful, fashionable, whatever? Or can we wait patiently to decide? If the overwhelming consensus is to have a curtain, the type of curtain can be decided at that time. Anyway, I have this article on watch only because I meant to post during the FA review, and have now used up my self-imposed rules about infoboxes curtains for the next year or so. Victoria (tk) 22:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
"A house without curtains is like a woman without eyebrows" (Romanian). For some reason I'm always reminded of Frank, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Arguably, an infobox is the absence of a curtain: it gives the passer-by a peep into the house. Nihil novi (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I cannot honestly say that I like the 'identibox', it would be churlish for me to object to something that meets most of my objections and seems to have some general approbation. I therefore thank Gerda for introducing it (and Brian for the concept) and would give it, in principle, my support. I make the following comments:

  1. The signature could of course (and I think should) be detached from the identibox and placed in a separate box below it.
  2. I do not see justification for including George Sand in the identibox, as suggested by Stfg. She is indeed a part of Chopin's story, but in fact an incidental one; she played no part in his greatness, had no demonstrable influence on any of the aspects which make him notable. In fact, for summary purposes, she is no more relevant than his height. The occupation(s) are however germane, so should stay.
  3. On 30 days curtain-hanging - why prolong the agony? If we are close to consensus, let's nail it to the wall and celebrate.--Smerus (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Smerus. I'm cool with leaving Sand out of it. --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I should have added above that although Chopin's relationship with Sand is an interesting biographical detail (and we may sometimes forget that this is a biography!), I would concede that it's not key to an understanding of his music, and I doubt whether many casual readers would be looking for that piece of information. I believe there is an art in deciding what pieces of information make an infobox most fit for purpose without bloat, and I'm happy defer to the general consensus on that point. We'd lose little by omitting it. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Another point. Although Chopin was born in what is now Poland, it wasn't Poland then, but the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. As an example, Grove Dictionary (the leading English music dictionary) has him as born in "Żelazowa Wola, nr. Warsaw", and I would propose "Żelazowa Wola, near Warsaw" for this box as being accurate and informative without risking confusion or misleading. In fact it is I think more informative as none of us otherwise have a clue where ZW is to be located. Also, we just need Paris as place of death, as I believe "Paris, France" is generally regarded in WP as overspecification (if we mean Paris, Texas we'll say so). Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I also say that "age 39" seems to me to be pointless and/or patronizing - the dates are there and the mental arithmetic involved is trivial. As there seems no encyclopaedic purpose served by this statement of age, it seems mere cruft.--Smerus (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Compare Michelangelo. The calculation of age at death is a standard feature, but if you as the main contributor say it seems cruft you can have it without ;) - I think if we want to avoid "Nationality" we should mention Poland and France, but could do it as in the example by adding "present-day", - of course an option. I would mention "near Warsaw" if we had a village without a link, but here we have one. Nothing wrong with mentioning it, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Frédéric Chopin
Photograph by Bisson, c. 1849
Born
Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin

(1810-03-01)1 March 1810 (or possibly 22 February 1810)
Żelazowa Wola, near Warsaw
Died(1849-10-17)17 October 1849
Paris
Occupations
Notable workList of compositions
Signature
'Age at' - my impression is that this feature comes from pop-star or actor biographies on WP, where the age can change automatically by using HTML. It doesn't have relevance for dead people, and is not 'significant information'. If you have 'near Warsaw', which would be fine by me, you don't need 'Poland', in the same way as you don't need 'France' after 'Paris'. You could have "Żelazowa Wola, near Warsaw (present-day Poland)" but that seems to me clunky and over the top; certainly clutters up the box. Anyone seeing it might think. 'but of course Warsaw is in present day Poland', without getting the point that it wasn't Poland (as we now know it) in 1810. I mention parenthetically that it is this difficulty between concision and accuracy that is a major factor in making me wary of boxes, as opposed to ledes where the subtle implications can be better set out. But I am sure we can find the right balance somehow and I hope that might prove a benchmark for any future discussions, if they emerge, at other articles. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Michelangelo isn't a pop-star ;) - I dropped the image for now (commented out) for the alternatives, here what I understand, - imagine the link to the works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't create the Michelangelo infobox, but maybe the editor who did was also a fan of Sting. I am not sure why the Chopin image has been taken out, Gerda - now the whole thing looks redundant. (Which chimes with my original objections to such boxes in general). In particular, there's no point in having Frédéric Chopin in bold when the box would be, I assume, just under the title. Is the idea that this little box would go under, or above, a separate frame with the photo? Yours mystified, --Smerus (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The image has only been taken out for this talk page (as I thought was clear by for now, but I am used to be misunderstood, - I think we don't need the same image three times in one thread). - Michelangelo is just one example out of many, compare other great people, I will not clutter here by adding more names. Hope the mist is enlightened ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
OK now I understand. (I turned 65 two days ago so my brain is slowing down. :-( ). Then the identibox in present state (with picture) would be fine by me (with link to the works if you like).--Smerus (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, does "imagine the link to the works" mean you plan to include it? It seemed to be popular in the above discussion. --Stfg (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, - to not get these things lost in text I restored it above, also the image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
We show age at death for every deceased person with an infobox, not just pop stars, so long as the dates (or years) are known. We also display the subject's name above the infobox, in every article that has one (possible excpetions may be found, if the infobox in impropely constructed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I know that we normally show age at death for deceased people, and age for living people, but would survive an exception in this case ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have posted what I believe is consistent with Smerus's view expressed above, minus the signature and without the "age at death" which, with due respect, seems a little redundant when dates are given. I don't think that the occupations of "composer" and "pianist" require wikilinking. I am not suggesting that this need be the final version, but it's about as far as the "indentibox" concept goes: clear identification of the subject, when he lived and what he did. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have just touched up the places, in line with discussion above.--Smerus (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The identibox just looks horrible..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Phew! Thank goodness that's all settled now. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Doctor, I am inclined to agree with you, but there you are, life sometimes calls on us to make sacrifices for the public weal, (enabling us to feel relatively smug and saintly).--Smerus (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Life is too short to argue over silly things like infoboxes. I really don't understand the need to have one for every article for the sake of it but people are different I guess. If we must have an infobox though I'd rather it was fuller than the identibox, or at least a fuller one and suppressed with a show option. I do think it's time though that the programming was changed and infoboxes are controlled externally and users have the option to hide them or keep them. This silly dispute keeps happening and it's a waste of everybody's time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your 'optional display of infoboxes' seems an appropriate long-term solution - although it has the drawback that editors (like myself) who don't want to see infoboxes but are concerned about the accuracy of articles will still have to keep the infoboxes on their watchlists to ensure that they are kept cruft-free.--Smerus (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The method of doing this has been explained, more than once by me, and by others, in past discussions. Here, for example, is an occasion when it was explained to you in July 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
And as I said last time "Yes but it doesn't stop disputes happening over info and navboxes. The option should be there in preferences to suppress them. " And it's not as if all infoboxes are annoying furniture pieces. A lot of infoboxes are very useful, particularly on aircraft, ships and places. A hide all option isn't really a good idea. Now if we had something to hide them in biographies and simply place a nice photo there instead a lot of editors would like that. I just think we need to be flexible and cater for different preferences, which is all this really comes down to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I would also be interested in making the appearance of articles as customisable as possible. Of course a registered user can add table.infobox {display:none;} to their common.css, but they would lose the image. A change to preferences wouldn't help 95% of the visitors to the site, because they are not registered and don't have preferences, so we need to look at longer-term solutions to customising Wikipedia's appearance. If WMF could be persuaded to allow cookies to be set, then we could make some progress, but they seem resistant despite many major sites using them routinely to store visitor preferences between visits.

As for the watchlist problem, I keep most of the articles I edit or comment on on my watchlist and I'm prepared to help out with keeping the article tidy. I've just reverted an IP who added extra parameters that had been discussed and rejected in this thread (although I left Place Vendôme as I thought it was better than just Paris - feel free to discuss). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_15&oldid=1136744327"