Talk:Jean Sibelius/Archive 3

Jean Sibelius
Jean Sibelius
	Sibelius in 1913
Born	Johan Julius Christian Sibelius; 8 December 1865; Hämeenlinna, Grand Duchy of Finland
Died	20 September 1957 (aged 91); Järvenpää, Finland
Works	List of compositions

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Infobox?

STALE

Stale. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2020 (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 suggest to give Sibelius what Bach and Beethoven already have: data on birth and death in one visible place (replacing the deprecated persondata) and a prominent link to his compositions. Note that the image can be larger if wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Is that the pitter-patter of tiny raindrops I can hear in the distance?

Add me to the pro column, too. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Sgvrfjs at least seems to be one of the principal article authors. I'm sure User:Ipigott won't object to an infobox either. I personally don't see the value in one and thinks it looks better without but I respect the views of whoever writes an article. Can I ask why the infobox was removed in the first place? I'm sure whoever removed it thought it justifiable. I thought there was interest in getting it to Featured status but work on it seems to have diminished.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion it isn't needed. The dates are very prominent in the first line, so duplicting them at the top really is pointless. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Can nothing more (non trivial) be added to the infobox to make it more worthwhile here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I'm not too keen on the infobox either and as I have rarely used the device myself, I am not too sure what else would be useful. Maybe Gerda Arendt could assist? As for further work on the article, my recent attention to covering women in leadership and in architecture has been taking up most of my time. But it now looks as if I can get back to Sibelius for the next few weeks. There are still a few gaps in the history - which I can soon sort out - but the main problem is still to develop a good overview of his compositions. Perhaps Sgvrfjs could start to help with this if his academic duties permit?--Ipigott (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Yes, I understand, you've been very busy with that. Is the idea to get Sibelius to GA in time for 8 December? I'm going to get Sinatra to GA too but I doubt I'll go for FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's still what I'm aiming for. What I find surprising is that there has been so little interest from Finland. Do you know of any Finnish contributors interested in classical music? After battling through with Nielsen, I had hoped there would be wider interest in Sibelius, especially as he is so well known in the English-speaking world.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

An info-box is a rotten idea. Useless, amateurish clutter and flies in the face of the clear and express wishes of three music projects. I wish to God Gerda would kindly stop trying to force these moronic excrescences on composer articles. Tim riley talk 16:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't like them, Tim? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Biographical info-boxes are excellent in the right place - cricketers, politicians, bishops etc where life stats can be summed up in a box. For composers they are the proverbial chocolate teapot, Tim riley talk 19:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You never know.... Chocolate Sibelius], anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I do stick by the idea that if an editor bothers to take an article to GA or FA it should be their decision on an infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable rule of thumb, and it's suitably encouraging for those editors concerned. But I fear Wikipedia's capitalist malaise will always be at odds with its essentially socialist ethos. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of an infobox in this article, both for providing a quick and easily findable summary of key biographical information on Sibelius' (much of which is not in the lede), and for making that data machine-readable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks, Andy, for tidying up the images, etc., in the article. While I am not as strongly opposed to boxes as Tim, I really don't see what is so different about Sibelius for the article to require an infobox when top classical composers such as Chopin, Mozart, Lizst, Verdi and Wagner seem to get on very well without them. If you think essential items are missing from the lead, then please let us know what they are so that they can be included. The entire article is in fact machine-readable (otherwise it would not be possible to put it though machine translation). What is different about boxes is their format, based on a set of previously specified criteria contained within a template. As you are a strong proponent of WikiData, do you not agree that the information included there is sufficient for data-processing purposes? (I must say I am rather surprised that WikiData does not include his symphonies among his notable works, gives his language as Finnish (although his mother tongue was Swedish), and, as far as I can see, does not mention the fact that he was married or the name of his wife). I always get completely tangled up when I try to edit WikiData so perhaps you could help out if you feel these items should be mentioned.--Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: You're absolutely right, since you mention it, that this article is no different to Chopin, Mozart, Lizst, Verdi and Wagner with regards to an infobox - they all should have one, for the same reasons. Indeed, they're no different to the majority of biographies, or of articles, on Wikipedia, each set of which have infoboxes. Your point that "the entire article is in fact machine-readable" is indeed true, but only in the very limited sense with which you qualify it. As I said, an infobox would make specific items of data machine readable, in ways that the whole article is not. This has been explained more than once before, at length, so I won't repeat the explanation here. You misunderstand how Wikidata works, but this is not the forum to address that; it has its own village pump and other talk pages. You're welcome to add any missing info there, per the principles of WP:SOFIXIT; your entanglement will reduce with practice. (Perhaps it's missing because there's no infobox for the tools used to build the Wikidata item to parse?) We are supposed to discuss here why this article would benefit from an infobox. I have done so, and you have not refuted that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

IBs are a long way short of crucial for WD, and I've found that a manual editing of the Wikidata page for an item is the best way to go to ensure the "facts" are correct. With the dissemination of base gobbets of information, ripped from context and understanding, appearing in things like the boxes on the right hand of a google search, it means that sadly some people looking for knowledge stop at the Google search page and don't bother to visit us, and thus they don't ever actually learn anything, outside the most banal of drops of out-of-context data. Wikidata is a huge problem for me: it mistakes data for knowledge and facts for understanding, without ever understanding the difference. It is the triumph of factoids over understanding, and a horrible, horrible concept. On the few occasions I have ever visited the alien pages of Wikidata, I've found the pages there to carry serious errors, but that's the problem of trying to get computers to rip "facts" from anything: they always get the wrong end of the stick! There is no site-wide consensus that we need to populate the shimmering turd that is WikiData. – SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If people find the information that they want by reading Google, we should be pleased that they - and we - have succeeded; the purpose of Wikipedia is to allow them to do so, and it is not for us to put artificial barriers in their way so that our article visit counts are inflated. But that's also not about the benefits of an infobox in this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You are of course right in saying that WD and all it entails is a huge straw man when it comes to discussing IBs in any article, including this one. – SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but should I ever need anyone to make up things for me to say, I'll ask someone with the wit to do so intelligently. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah good, straight to personal attacks: thanks for that. If you are unable or unwilling to see how you've ensured the WD point is a straw man, I'm obviously not the one to explain it to you. – SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I support the infobox, appropriate for music biographies, and a simple, clean format seems to have worked well for Bach and Beethoven, here, Sibelius would benefit, particularly as he is not as well-known as some of the other composers, and that "facts at a glance" will be particularly helpful for the reader seeking basic information. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes include material not always needed in the lead, depending on what is added, it is a value judgement that things that might be in an infobox and not the lede, or vice-versa, are "unimportant. The lead and the infobox present two different styles of information and with some slightly different purposes. But you have heard this argument before, so let's just look at the question of how to improve the proposed design and then make a final decision. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I oppose an infobox in this article. Among many other objections, the information inside is (or would be) entirely redundant and would emphasize unimportant factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section already emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You say "redundant" and I don't see that. Three aspects:

Birth date: In the lead you read 8 December 1865. In the infobox, it looks the same but isn't, it's {{birth date|1865|12|08|df=y}}, which tells each part of that date with granularity, is sortable and can be displayed in different ways in different languages. I fondly remember this edit by a missed editor who was no particular fan of infoboxes but understood that.
Data of birth and death: In encyclopedias, you commonly find the life data together at the beginning. Our MOS is against it. Persondata was a way to still have it, however hidden. Persondata is deprecated, and I believe that a short infobox is the most elegant way to show them at a glance.
The perhaps most important thing about a composer is a link to his works, which is not in the lead at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with Gerda that it would be excellent if our WP conventions allowed us to follow the example of the ODNB and Grove, putting dates and places of birth and death in the opening sentence: "b Hämeenlinna, 8 Dec 1865; d Järvenpää, 20 Sept 1957" (Grove – no ODNB article, natch). However, a clunky info-box clogging up the opening is not the answer, and as SchroCat has explained, above, the "data" aspect is negligible and even deleterious. Let us have I-Bs when they add value (career stats etc) but when they just look gratuitous, as for composers, don't let us make WP look amateurish. – Tim riley talk 17:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Gerda that the places of birth and death are usually of any importance. I think that our presentation is better than the ODNB and Grove. We say, in the opening sentence, what country the person is from. If it is of especial interest exactly which city, town or village they are from, we also can mention that in the Lead. The place of death is hardly ever of great importance to a biography article. We DO already give the date of birth and death in the opening sentence, so it is obviously redundant to say it AGAIN in an infobox. Persondata is deprecated, because it is no longer useful. That does not mean that we should repeat the information again; see SchroCat's explanation above. Finally, all composer articles discuss their works. If there is a full list of their works, then a link to them should be in the body of the article below. I disagree that a link to a *list* is more important in the Lead than an *overview* of their *most important* works, which should appear in the Lead section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like we are at an impasse. I will add that I do often find it cumbersome to locate a composer's 'list of works' link in the body of an article (and indeed, I use these lists more than any article), and so having a systematic place to find such vital links (such as in an infobox) seems to me to be advisable. However, I see there is passion on both sides, passion that frankly predates my efforts in the Wikipedia community. As such, I'm tapping out on this question and will continue to focus on my long-term project of expanding the quality of Sibelius tone poem stubs (currently working on En saga). Thanks to everyone for their attention to the Sibelius project! Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for The Oceanides and the detailed thoughts about infoboxes there. I am not aware that I showed passion, by pointing out that a birth date is of a different quality when given as {{birth date}}, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ps: if you want to see passionate discussions, look at threads about the nationality of Kafka, Chopin, Mozart, you name it. Having the clear facts of places of birth and death complements a label such as Finnish, and makes understand in which sense Bach may be called German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the [rationale behind] the comment "disagree ... that the places of birth and death are usually of any importance". Except for highly mobile (usually modern) people, birthplace is also usually growing-up place, i.e. the cultural milieu in which the person formed as a person. Place of death in a historical context like this also most often tells us at least the approximate milieu, at a glance, of their later years as a respected professional (except in odd "died as a pauper only to be appreciated later" cases). It's de rigeur information even in highly compressed biographical entries, e.g. in many biographical dictionaries. When the PoD is something unexpected, like a Frenchman dying in Turkey, it hints that there's something probably major about their life that one didn't know from general impressions about why the person is notable. I also don't think that "legislating" article-by-article whether to include basic biographical information in infoboxes is a sensible approach. It's obviously a site-wide consensus matter, even if some less central details might vary from category to category or sometimes on a specific-article basis. I really think the WP:CLASSICAL project needs to get over its long-term bickerwar about infoboxes and just catch up with the fact that WP and its readers want them, and wants them to present basic info pretty consistently. In no other topic do I see such a consistent hostility toward infoboxes or to including basic information in them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I really think discussions along these lines tend to divert attention from our main concern of providing referenced information on the subject of the article. I am continuing to contribute bit by bit in the hope that we can at least reach GA by 8 December. But I become ever less enthusiastic when all people can talk about is infoboxes.--Ipigott (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, @Ipigott: I'll be doing the same, albiet for En saga. Sorry to not work on the biography directly, but hopefully better articles on the compositions is a productive activity and movement in the right direction. Can't promise, however, my En saga additions will be complete by Dec. 8, but I will likely transfer content from my sandbox into the main article once I complete a few other tasks. Happy Sibeliusing! Sgvrfjs (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

For almost a week, nobody was even talking ;) - I think if you two would agree that the above box doesn't hurt but may serve some readers, and would take it to the article with a note that no further parameters should be added without a talk page request, there would be no need for further talk on the topic. Look at Beethoven, stable for a while already, Handel even longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Entirely agree. A sensible suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant, except there is no consensus to add it. It's not a subject anyone wanted carrying on, but it seems GA is intent on dragging it on further. – SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I had a "dead hubby horse" once, but fortunately I thrashed it mercilessly back to life. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The only change I really hope we can make is a copy of the signature under the image - as I suggested several months ago!--Ipigott (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we have it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"I really think discussions along these lines tend to divert attention from our main concern of providing referenced information on the subject of the article. I am continuing to contribute bit by bit in the hope that we can at least reach GA by 8 December. But I become ever less enthusiastic when all people can talk about is infoboxes." -I agree completely and couldn't have said it better myself. I know from Sinatra just how offputting it is when people start this while somebody is trying to write the article. Everybody please stop this and let Ipigott get on with writing it and we can revisit it at a later date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose this bloody eyesore, per the reasons outlined by Ssilvers above. Cassianto ^Talk 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Support, I think Dr. Blofeld's comment very fair and not an eyesore at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC) ...haha, very good Martin! Cassianto ^Talk 22:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This idée fixe of Gerda's is a crashing bore. She has been banned before for throwing her weight about on this topic, and as Attlee said to Laski, "A period of silence on your part would be welcome". An info-box is a lousy idea for this article - a pointless, unhelpful waste of space. Tim riley talk 07:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Support typical bio infobox. Mobile users especially depend on them for a concise précis of the basic facts (even I do, and I barely use mobile web stuff if I can avoid it). There's solid, site-wide consensus for the use of infoboxes, especially in non-stub bios. ArbCom has already determined that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at a topical wikiproject cannot blockade their use, so let's just get on with it, and implement it the way users most benefit from it, not the way infoboxes' opponents would hobble their utility. That said, if in this particular case there's something terribly misleading about including the birth and death place, I guess I could see leaving it out of the infobox, even if normally I'd oppose doing so (per previous threaded comment above). PS: It needs |occupation=[[Violinist]], [[composer]]|era=[[Romantic music|Romantic]], [[20th-century classical music|early modern]] (as noted in a similar RfC elsewhere, use of |occupation= would be anachronistic for pre-modern composers, and |known_for= has been suggested instead). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"There's solid, site-wide consensus for the use of infoboxes" No there isn't. The "solid, site-wide consensus" is summed up in the MoS: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". "ArbCom has already determined that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at a topical wikiproject cannot blockade their use" They did, but you misinterpreting it here. This is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on this page not to have one, or at least not to add one. - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't you mean: "there is no consensus here"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Then you'll need to explain where you see this consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The lack of IB has stood for some time, which gives it a de facto consensus (per WP:EDITCONSENSUS if memory serves). That status quo remains until a new consensus is formed. Even though the consensus is being challenged in this thread, the long-standing consensus remains. - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"De facto" because no one asked for something and it was never discussed. It just doesn't really look like "consensus", does it. I'd call that bit "history". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's why we have WP:EDITCONSENSUS: the history of no complaint provides the consensus. I didn't write the rule and I cast no opinion on it either way, but it's there and keeps the staus quo running smoothly if there are disputes, at least until or if a new consensus is formed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is it's rather misleading. Yes, it may stop things changing rapidly. But it's debatable if that's always a good thing. It certainly doesn't stop disagreements, as we can all see here. In fact, some editors may feel aggrieved by this "de facto" so-called "silent" consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As I say above, I offer no opinion on the rule either way, but it is there. I have seen it used in numerous discussions, including when someone removed an IB. I suspect that editor also felt aggrieved by the "silent" consensus when it was used to defewnd it's inclusion. I don't think it's there to stop disagreements, but is there to reinforce the status quo while the discussions continue, thus avoiding edit warring, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine most articles for composers have now long been created. So it boils down to whether or not they were created with one? That sounds rather accidental and without any logic. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The consensus can change, which is why there are IBs in some articles, as the same group of editors are seen pushing foe the inclusion time and time again. – SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"History" - like the fact that the article got its first infobox on 1 Agust 2006? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

And? The consensus obviously changed to one of removal. And now the IB has gone, someone is challenging the consensus to return it. Martin, this is all fairly run-of-the-mill procedural stuff that happens on a daily basis and doesn't help in bringing this particular thread to a close. – SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cat, this is an observation. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring most of this argument between third parties in the wake of my comment, my response is simple: Most non-stub articles have infoboxes, in topic areas for which infoboxes have been developed, and most discussions involving whether to add one conclude to add one, thus demonstrating, as a matter of obvious ground truth, that there's solid, site-wide consensus for the use of infoboxes, no matter what the bureaucratic documentation says. Guidelines exist to reflect consensus as it develops, and are modified over time to do so as needed; they do not dictate what consensus must be. See WP:POLICY for more information. Also, as the progress of WP content and functionality is primarily an additive process by definition, the lack of something in an article does not at all reflect WP:EDITCONSENSUS, ever, if it has not previously been discussed in that context with a clear consensus for the absence in question. That way lies madness. Every article would be stuck forever at the version of the first major contributor if you didn't get their permission to add something first. WP does not, of course, work that way, at all. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There's just too many basic errors there for me to be bothered to comment. Suffice to say it does not advance the discussion of whether to add an IB to this article. – SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

All three relevant Wikipedia projects have a consensus to exclude I-Bs from composer biogs. We refer to it in the hidden comment at the top of the relevant pages, beseeching I-B zealots to take note. Tim riley talk 17:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Dating from 2010. See also, from 2015: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 38#Reversions and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#A Statistical Note on Infoboxes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Suppressing other editors' viewpoints is the worst form of tyranny on Wikipedia" PMSL! – SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick translation for non-English speaking editors, Gerda: PMSL = "I find that quite amusing". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ROFL. I'm reminded of the jive translation scene in Airplane!. "Golly." — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Info-boxes cannot normally be useful for composer (or other arts) biographies, because by their very nature they cannot contain the important information. They can tell us whom the subject married, what he or she died of and where, and similar peripheral info, but not what he or she is famous for, except in the most general terms, i.e., in this case, writing music. Not very helpful to the poor visitor to Wikipedia. Nobody in possession of his or her faculties is going to suggest we list in an info-box for e.g. Mozart the key works he is famous for: it would stretch down the entire right hand hand column of the article. An I-B is excellent for many biographies: I dabble in bishops and politicians, where IBs briefly listing major offices held are helpful to the reader, but to all I-B zealots, please look at the I-B for William Shakespeare and ask yourselves honestly if what is in the box tells you anything an extraterrestrial would need to know about why the Bard matters to homo sapiens or in the words of WP's guidelines "summarizes key features of the page's subject". It mentions his son Hamnet but not his play Hamlet. Helpful? A key feature? Hand on heart? Tim riley talk 18:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Hand on heart", an infobox could easily contain a drop-down list of most important works. That would be really useful, for all "arts biographies". And for me that would sensibly include composers too. There's no reason why infoboxes have to be applied in a "one-size-fits-all" fashion. Hidden warnings to "I-B zealots" seem to assume, suite unfairly, that this is how it has to be done. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There, Martin, you unerringly identify the problem: "most important" according to whom? Info-boxes would then be POV choices: not very helpful and not in accordance with WP's ideals. Tim riley talk 18:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

According to a consensus of interested editors, of course. Just like everything else around here. It's not "the problem", it's a challenge to reach an intelligent compromise for the benefit of the reader. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well said. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think adding an infobox would be a benefit to the reader? Cassianto ^Talk 19:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, e.g. because User:SMcCandlish gave a few comments above. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well I'll counter that and say that as another reader, I find this particular infobox most unhelpful. So unfortunatley, that straw man hasn't worked. Cassianto ^Talk 19:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a straw man. It's a perfectly valid reason for that user. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't need a link to it; I'm perfectly aware what a straw man is, as is the case here. You are trying to detract from the argument by bringing up something that is a false argument. Stating that this infobox is "a benefit to the reader" is a non-starter. Cassianto ^Talk 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry? I'm trying to win your argument for you? Why not just ask User:SMcCandlish if his opinion is a straw man. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Who said his opinion was a straw man? That's his opinion and he is entitled to it. It's simply your view that the IB was "a benefit to the reader" that I'm saying was a straw man argument. It isn't a benefit to *every* reader and clearly detracts away to an argument that is wholly false. Cassianto ^Talk 20:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Benefits don't have to be to "every reader" to still be benefits. User:SMcCandlish gave an example of why it's of benefit to him. I would suggest there are many like him. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but saying "it's a challenge to reach an intelligent compromise for the benefit of the reader" suggests to me that you are generalising. As proved here, that is not the case. Cassianto ^Talk 21:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"It's a challenge to reach an intelligent compromise for the benefit of even a single reader". That still doesn't make it "the problem". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A link to the straw man article clearly was needed, since it doesn't mean "trying to detract from the argument by bringing up something that is a false argument"; it means recasting someone else's argument in a weakened, caricature form, and attacking that fake, scarecrow position instead of responding to the original statement and its implications. So, no, my argument was not a straw man. There's an obvious one, however, in the argument that Cassianto presents. I never suggested that every possible infobox is found useful by every single user all the time, only that infoboxes, generally, are found useful by some subsets of users, generally (and mobile users most especially), thus they have clear utility, leading to widespread support on WP. Thus "as another reader, I find this particular infobox most unhelpful" is not a "counter" to my argument, but only to the imaginary argument that every infobox is always useful to everyone. If it had been simply presented as a view, instead of a supposed "counter" to an alleged "straw man" it would, of course, have as much validity as "as a reader, I find this particular infobox helpful", though it does nothing to address the broader position I take, that infoboxes are generally helpful and accepted as such (otherwise we would not be using them more and more, after all). I certainly recognize that particular infoboxes (or, more accurately, particular configurations of information in an infobox, not the presence of the template itself) may be unhelpful. Nothing I or anyone else has said here suggests they believe that an infobox is automatically useful no matter what is in it. While the RfC suggests a draft infobox as a model, this discussion has not proceeded in manner that suggests it is about whether to include exactly that particular set of infobox information or none at all. This makes the observation "I find this particular infobox most unhelpful", without a suggestion of what might work better, essentially a non sequitur, the obvious response to which is "what infobox content would you prefer?" If the answer is "none", the obvious response is "what is the rationale for opposing every possible infobox here regardless what it might contain?" — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

To Martin's last suggestion: not really: that remains an opinion. Information in an I-B must be information, not opinion. It is information that Dr A was Bishop of X and the Rt Hon B C was Minister of Y, but it is not information, however much you, I and a dozen colleagues may concur, that K488 is more notable than K453 or that King Lear is more notable than Cymbeline or that "The Flaying of Marsyas" is more notable than "Bacchus and Ariadne". Information boxes can, if words mean anything, ipso facto, contain only incontrovertible information, and not editorial views. – Tim riley talk 19:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Really? Have you ever looked at the drop-down lists for "Influences" and "Influenced" in the infoboxes lists for philosophers, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein. Are those "notable ideas" all really "incontrovertible facts"?Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. You make my point for me. That is why information boxes should be eschewed unless they contain information rather than opinion. Tim riley talk 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not making your point for you, thank you very much! Those lists are perfectly acceptable and very useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a perfectly fair personal viewpoint, and I don't disparage it for one moment. These are matters on which there can be two opinions, but you won't I think dispute that facts are facts and views are views. Whether the latter belong in so-called information boxes is clearly a matter of, well, opinion. Tim riley talk 20:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I don't see facts and views as a dichotomy. And a matter of choice is involved in putting either to good use. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly so. As to whether I-Bs should be factual or opinion we can civilly agree to differ. Tim riley talk 20:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: problems with drop-down lists of trivia in some infoboxes – that's a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. The solution to there being some crappy infoboxes in some articles to to de-crappify them, not get rid of infoboxes. Nothing on WP is limited to "incontrovertible facts", per WP:TRUTH; rather, our content (including in IBs) is what we arrive at a consensus to tell our readers based on reliable sources. To the extent that someone might cherry pick personal favorites to list as notable works in a composer's infobox is already pre-resolved by the composer infobox using this field for a link to a list of the composer's works, instead of an inline list of the "most notable" ones. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Should whoever took an article to GA/FA get to decide?

Above, Dr. Blofeld wrote, "if an editor bothers to take an article to GA or FA it should be their decision on an infobox. I beg to differ. [Disclaimer: I don't think Dr. Blofeld would necessarily disagree with all that much I have to say below, but I encounter this idea, with regard to much more than infoboxes, quite frequently, so I'm addressing it in general, not to pick an argument with Dr. Blofeld.] The idea is very problematic on multiple levels, from the assumption that more than a small percentage of GA/FAs are the work of a single person; to the belief that this would make any difference per the WP:5P's "mercilessly edited" and "encyclopedia that anyone can edit"; to the WP:OWN and WP:VESTED notion inherent in the idea that those who have in the past worked more on an article have more right to shape its future development; to the latent implication that the way to encourage GA/FA work is the promise of article control. It's counter to the nature of WP and public wikis in general, if taken at face value. Obviously, GAN and FAC are going to give a modicum of consideration to the views of those who have spent the most time on a piece of content, but those views cannot trump site-wide consensus (e.g. policies, guidelines, broad decisions at Village Pump, etc.), nor a more localized consensus involving broad editorial input (e.g. an RfC, the breadth of which comes from the WP:FRS, drawing in editors who are not just the same in-crowd). "I spend the most time on this" is not even always a positive thing; a central issue in many ArbCom cases is whether or not one editor is inappropriately dominating an article or a subject area.

A lot of people seem to confuse the concept of the use of "first major contributor" as an arbitrary fall-back position for ENGVAR / DATEVAR / CITEVAR – invoked only when a dispute about any of those three matters is not reaching consensus – with a more general principle of ownership/vestedness, which simply does not exist here. This misunderstanding of the meaning and scope of *VAR seems to intertwine closely with a "wikiprojects are sovereign fiefdoms, and all style matters, naming conventions, source quality determinations, and other issues should be handed over to topical wikiprojects on a subject-local basis" view found in a few pockets of insularity on WP, and which WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy and several ArbCom cases have been enacted to curtail.

In short, it is not workable to proceed from the basis that whoever did more work on a piece yesterday has more say over how it develops tomorrow, because this would automatically assign control over everything to the first editor to hit the page, and preclude any further development they did not personally approve of. It's just a matter of basic mathematical reasoning: If I create a one-sentence stub, I have already done more work on the article than anyone else, by definition, ergo it's mine forever. WP doesn't work that way, and we all know that. We also all know that the regular editorship of a major article will not generally tolerate radical, undiscussed changes to a well-developed piece, so there is never any need to assert anything like the idea that whichever editor(s) bother to take an article to GA or FA should have the decision on how it develops going forward. In our context, it's a bit like saying whoever did the most work in setting up an academic conference gets to determine what its attendees will take away from it and what ideas they're allowed to have for next years event. Does not compute. The number one purpose we have in writing here is presenting encyclopedic information to our readers, of course. The number two purpose is inspiring those readers to improve that content, which cannot happen if people who edited the article last month or last year can tell incoming editors they're somehow not allowed to do so. The issue at hand here is whether adding a standardized infobox actually constitutes some kind of overwhelming, unreasonable change that regulars at a page should rise up to resist. As I argue elsewhere in this RfC, the ground truth is that this idea cannot be realistic. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If an editor writes the entire article, and the article would be a piece of crap without them having expanded it then yes, their call on the infobox. And let's be honest, if there wasn't an element of "own" culture on here most articles promoted to GA and FA would swiftly degrade. Wikipedia needs competent editors who can promote and protect content. If somebody devotes weeks of their life to write a whole article then why should the odd Tom, Dick Harry and Jane come along and try to enforce something on an article they've put bugger all into? Yes, wikipedia is a public website and articles are everybody's, but we should respect people who write the articles IMO because without them there wouldn't be a good article there in the first place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

From time to time, having navigated articles to FA, I am asked by WP authorities to confirm that I am maintaining the articles – i.e. one's responsibilities don't end when the bronze star is awarded. Primary authors have a duty to keep up to scratch the articles they have got promoted. So I concur with Dr B that repelling drive-by additions by editors who haven't contributed to an article is definitely required. Cries of "Ooooh, ownership!" inevitably follow, but that is something up with which we have to put. – Tim riley talk 16:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Which "WP authorities" would those be? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no such thing as a "WP authority" in that sense. The closest we have are WP:ARBCOM, WP:BUREAUCRAT, and WP:OFFICE, but none of them have anything to do with GA/FA. No WP editor has any duty to do anything with any article. We're all volunteers here with 100% latitude regarding what we choose to [not] work on [aside from topic bans making certain topics off-limits to certain editors]. As for Dr. Blofeld's "If an editor writes the entire article, and the article would be a piece of crap without them having expanded it then yes, [it is] their call on the infobox", it's as if the message I wrote that his was a response to was not even read. I've laid out in detail why, as a matter of WP:POLICY, that "whoever did the most work has control indefinitely" idea is simply false on WP. I don't know if this idea is rooted in academic tenure, intellectual property, free software development branch control deferences, or what, but it simply is not applicable here. Never has been, never will be (except with regard to userspace essays, I suppose, and technically other people can in fact edit those). Frankly, the Blofeld position doesn't even parse; if the article already existed but "would be crap" without some particular set of edits by one person, they by definition did not "write... the entire article". And aside from trivial or almost unbearably geeky subjects, there are essentially no article that would qualify as single-editor for very long to begin with. Even if someone wrote every single word of the first version, other editors will inevitably build on it later. They would not be able to, practically speaking, if the first editor owned it and could veto any later changes. This is, obviously, why we have WP:OWN policy against such an approach. Which applies even in the odd case of a super-obscure topic that really has had only one editor for a long time (and which isn't also cruft that should be AfD'd). And that doesn't even describe this article, anyway, since it's had various editors, even if one in particular has been most active on it since June of this year. Whether this or any other article should have an infobox (with particular, not all possible, pieces of information) is a consensus decision based on reader utility and made by the editing community, not any particular user or wikiproject. It's not based on whether the most-active-lately editor on the article wants one (that the qualifying editor in this particular case does want one is simply coincidence). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rather surprised by the insinuation above that I am imagining being included in a sweep by WP luminaries to ensure that articles are being maintained by those who navigated them through FAC. If anyone cares to dispute the fact, pray feel free to search the archives of my talk page: it's there somewhere. Otherwise kindly AGF. Tim riley talk 20:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The question was "Which "WP authorities" would those be?" You have yet to answer it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to step away from the horse carcass, rather than try and kick off more disharmony nearly three weeks after the last comment. - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Back to the point

Back to the point: Should this particular article have an infobox? I !vote Support. Arbcom clearly ordered everyone here to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether each and every article "should" have an infobox. They also ordered us all to be civil and AGF. The implementation problems with the Arbcom decision is becoming evident, but Arbcom clearly decreed that a project local consensus is not relevant — and, sad to say, that's kind of because the classical music projects really dug in on this issue when the occasional IAR would probably have prevented the whole thing from erupting. But that aside, should a biography of this very major composer contain an infobox for all the really good reasons that infoboxes should be included? Yes. Infoboxes do not duplicate all material in the lead, nor should the lead have to slavishly include all material in an infobox; they serve different purposes. Here, Sibelius is a major composer and a simple infobox containing basic biographical and career data is relevant, emits the needed wikidata, is useful for the more casual reader and so on. We've beaten the pro- and anti-infobox issues to death so I'm not going to rehash the whole discussion that's been repeated a hundred times; my position is that a major biography needs an infobox. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well said. I, more meo, oppose an info-box. Tim riley talk 20:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to stay away but just for clarification, Tim: you should not say oppose "an" infobox. (Read the arb ruling please if you don't know why. It's in my talk archive of 2013.) You should say: not this specific infobox which gives the reader a chance to see the data of his life and death together, his age without calculation, and a prominent link to his works. Please also say why you would deprive a reader of this chance, - a reader such as me who prefers structured information to prose (for this kind of information), - I prefer a table to a list, same thing. I guess you know that you can opt out to see ANY infobox if you don't care about them. I guess you know that an infobox has been installed by one of the authors who did a lot for the works of Sibelius, and that it was reverted by a user whose contributions on the topic I have not seen, edit summary "not needed". Sorry, "not needed" is no reason. No word, no image is needed, - it's all voluntary to inform the reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, why pick on me? See the comment preceding mine. Tim riley talk 08:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Taken, the question was not asked well. We better discuss:

What is the best way to present this composer to the public for his 150th birthday, with the short infobox as proposed above (#1), with the one that Sgvrfjs inserted (#2), a different one (#3), or without (#4)? I liked #2, as said above. Principal editors seems to be Ipigott, others MistyMorn, Mirokado, Grover cleveland, JackofOz, Melodia. The FA Eighth Symphony to be shown as TFA on the birthday was written by Brianboulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Since I've been pinged, all I can say is: I don't get why people argue endlessly about essentially trivial stuff like infoboxes. Do they serve a purpose? Sometimes. Is that purpose of major significance in the overall context of any article? Hardly. Surely it's the guts, the meat of the article that we should be focussing on, not marginally relevant BS like this. Sibelius would be ashamed. Please bring this to a hasty conclusion and move on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I fully support the comment by JackofOz and am indeed working on improving the content of the article. I only wish others who have the competence to do so would join me.--Ipigott (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I should add that I was only responsible for altering the image during the brief life of our Sibelius infobox; as such, I should not receive credit (blame?! haha) for having placed it there in the first place. The edit was by another user. That said, I do tend to support the aesthetic of an infobox, as well as the ease with which it provides a link to the composer's list of compositions. I agree, however, that the creation of new (or the improvement of old) Sibelius content should be prioritized. To that end, I have been at work on User:Sgvrfjs/Ensaga. Oh, and Ipigott : I just remembered (sorry, I wrote this many moons ago!) that I have content for a rewritten lead at User:Sgvrfjs/sandbox (It's no secret, per our earlier discussions, that I have been no fan of the lead and find it's construction a bit choppy. This information is sourced through Layton, Hurwitz, and the Grove. This lead also has additional content on his musical style and contributions, and affrims his important status as a modernist who is as consequential as Mahler to the symphony and Strauss to the tone poem), as well as short unfinished blurb about the tone poems at User:Sgvrfjs/Sibelius lead. Please, please, please, my friend, feel free to cannibalize whatever you find useful. Sorry I cannot contribute more, but as I noted to you personally, I am 1) away from my books and have only my En saga notes; and 2) the semester is heating up and will soon take me away completely until late December. Thanks for your service to the project! If you find any of this content annoyingly duplicative or have a preference for something else, please feel free to cast it aside, since you're (in my mind) in charge. Sgvrfjs (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sgvrfjs for reminding me about your version of the lead. It is indeed an excellent summary. I have a feeling you drew my attention to it a few months ago but I could not remember where it was. Now that the main article has progressed, I'll look at it in detail and will no doubt draw heavily on it -- providing, of course, its assertions are reflected and properly referenced in the text of the article (which may well not always be the case). I had in any case intended to review the lead after completing work on the music section of the article. So your input comes at the right time.

Your impression that I am "in charge" has unfortunately been brought about by accident rather than by design as I had always hoped I would be assisted by several other editors. In the end, as with Nielsen, I have not had very much help. As Sibelius continues to be popular throughout the English-speaking world, I am really surprised there has not been more interest. One of the main reasons, I think, is that people are always more interested in creating new articles than making improvements to old ones, especially when large chunks remain unreferenced.

I'm sorry to hear you are unable to devote more time to improvements at the moment. As a result, I will have to remove some of the unreferenced passages unless I can quickly identify appropriate sources. I hope sooner or later you'll return to the article and build on the ideas expressed in your summary. Maybe together we can finally bring it up to FA standard. As Gerda suggested, you may in the meantime like to nominate The Oceanides for FA. As for the inclusion of a box, as I have stated before I have no strong views on the matter unlike some of the other collaborators on music who have well defined opinions both for and against. One or two editors have stressed the importance of a box as an entry point for Wikidata but for it to be of any real use it would have to be very detailed. I would prefer to see some of the current errors on Wikidata's Jean Sibelius coverage to be corrected but I have simply not had time to learn how to edit and source it myself. Good luck with your new semester and thanks for all your encouragement and for your excellent contributions on Sibelius.--Ipigott (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I oppose this 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, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids, and all the facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) The most important points about the article are discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, so 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 lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading 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) 06:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So you seem strongly opposed to infoboxes altogether, not just for composers, and not just for this subject. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Support. After careful consideration, I find this infobox useful in a number of ways. (1) It contains certain useful information not in the first sentence, first paragraph, or even the lead as a whole. (2) It gives his age at death, which reveals that, unlike many well-known and less fortunate composers, he was extremely long-lived. (3) It reveals he remained a Finn (or at least died in Finland, from which we can infer that), and did not emigrate elsewhere – something that has a bearing on his compositions and his biography, as he is so very strongly associated with Finland. I can often go either way with infoboxes, especially such sparse ones, but in this case I find it useful for the reader, and it is the reader we must always be basing our decisions on. I'd also like to mention that I prefer the sepia photo over the black and white one. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Support. As per Softlavender, and points I have already made above. Also prefer sepia image. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Support. Infobox contains a lot of useful information in easy-to-find format. (And sorry about restoring the infobox. I did not notice that there was an on-going discussion here.) ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 22:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Support, and I also thoroughly oppose discussions about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. This is one such discussion. How about creating an encyclopaedia? All an infobox does is to provide a barebones précis, no more and no less. How ironic that I have offered an opinion. The irony is not lost on me. I wish WP:GTFU existed. I might have to invent it. Fiddle Faddle 10:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"All an infobox does is to provide a barebones précis". I think we are all agreed on this. What we disagree on is whether that is helpful to the reader or not. I oppose an infobox in this case because I agree with several of the points made above by Ssilvers - things like birth name, without context, offer little insight into who this individual is and why any reader should care. Even the benefits proposed by Softlavender cannot be gleaned in isolation, at least not without significant knowledge about the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Why should any reader "care" even about a date of birth? An encyclopedia is meant to present facts. Whether a reader cares is really a personal decision. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

True, but we do our readers a disservice when we dissuade them from caring, or when we mislead them with a bare-bones approach that omits context. An encyclopedia is not simply a bullet-listing of facts, but rather a cohesive presentation of facts in context with both other facts and expert opinions. Compare "Birth name: Johan Julius Christian Sibelius" with "Only in the 1990s was it discovered that Sibelius's original first names (at christening) were Johan Christian Julius; he himself used the order Johan Julius Christian, and that is present in most sources." The latter is a more context-rich presentation, and one that I would argue is more suitable for a good encyclopedic rendition of this particular "fact". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

True, but nobody argues to take away that nuanced sentence. It still serves me as a reader to understand at a glance that his name Jean - not the normal Finnish name - was not his birth name. The paired list doesn't replace prose but adds the different access to go for specific items in a predictable position, such as the data of birth and death neatly together, which were formerly hidden in Persondata. - Sorry for being repetitive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

But they do argue to give more prominence to the less nuanced pair, which is no service to readers. Nor is the position so predictable - compare the relative placement of items in Barack Obama's infobox vs what is proposed here, for example - compared to the more consistent "Name (dates)" formula, used in pretty much all biographical articles that include that information, both on-wiki and beyond. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is described as follows:

"A quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout

Emission of machine readable metadata

Infoboxes about people, places, buildings, organisations, products, species and dated events (battles, sports fixtures, record releases, etc) and more emit microformats; see Wikipedia:microformats

Data held in structured format is made available to third party tools such as DBpedia and Freebase directly from Wikipedia database dumps

Article editors do not need to know anything about metadata standards or markup

Increasing integration with Wikidata"^[1]

For example, all I need to do is look at this Intel infobox and I can learn everything I need to know just by looking at it. (you may need to scroll down a bit). This is an example of a good infobox. In fact, the Featured Article Earth also has an infobox. So why not? Even Isaac Newton has one, and that is a good article!

In the long run, if we really want to make this article good, or even featured, we should definitely consider putting an infobox. Support Cheers! If you wondered why, It was because The Infobox Strikes Again! (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll have whatever drugs this guy is on. Cassianto ^Talk 15:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems particularly safe and happy, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Infoboxes

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.

Symphonies 4 and 6?

There is no mention, even in the section on the symphonies, of 4 and 6.

These are among his most important works.

I hope somebody will come forward to correct this omission. ---Dagme (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Avoid repetition on introduction

"Other works include pieces inspired by the Finnish national epic, the Kalevala, over a hundred songs for voice and piano, incidental music for numerous plays, the opera Jungfrun i tornet (The Maiden in the Tower), chamber music, piano music, Masonic ritual music,[3] and 21 publications of choral music. Throughout his career, the composer found inspiration in nature and Nordic mythology, especially the heroic legends of the national epic, the Kalevala." Can somebody reword it (English is not my main language). Please Triplecaña (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jean Sibelius. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 14:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Infoboxes

[1]