Talk:Gioachino Rossini

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Il signor Tambourossini - Delaroche.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 16, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-02-16. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Gioachino Rossini (1792–1868) was an Italian composer best known for his thirty-nine operas. This 1821 lithograph by the French artist Paul Delaroche is entitled Il signor Tambourossini, which is a portmanteau of Rossini's name with tambour (French for 'drum'), caricaturing Rossini's European reputation at the time as a creator of noise. The illustration depicts "Tambourossini" in Oriental dress and playing a trumpet and a bass drum, accompanied by a screeching magpie, and assisted by King Midas, with ass's ears. Both are seen trampling on sheet music and violins, while Apollo, the god of music, flees in the background.

Lithograph credit: Paul Delaroche; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:

• Osteospermum
• Historical coat of arms of Oregon
• Field goal

Infobox

Gioachino Rossini
Rossini in 1865, photo by Étienne Carjat
Born	(1792-02-29)29 February 1792 Pesaro, Italy
Died	13 November 1868(1868-11-13) (aged 76) Passy, Paris, France
Works	List of compositions

Many composer articles are getting infoboxes to summarize the content in the article (Chopin, Prokofiev, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, etc)- this article could certainly use one. Proposed box to the left. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the draft box here is that it violates Wikipedia's rules. I-boxes must summarise the main points of the article. The link to another article entirely is a breach of our guidelines, as well as treating our poor readers like idiots. Tim riley talk 16:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think that is a misunderstanding. The box does not have to summarize the person - impossible even for the lead - but should list the facts that can be summarized for given parameters, here of {{infobox person}}. An infobox like this found community consensus for Chopin in 2015, for Beethoven also in 2015, and for Mozart in 2023, to name just a few. I am with the community and support it. Discussion of parameters and the image caption (as in many articles, creator credit was debated recently) is a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Does my memory play me false or was the above editor sanctioned for bullying over info-boxes? Tim riley talk 18:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe the case you're thinking of is WP:ARBINFOBOX, but that took place ten years ago- Gerda has been very active since then and I'd hope there's been some change in their approach to infoboxes. As for summary, I agree with Gerda's points- as for linking to other articles, this is seen on many composer articles, like the ones I mentioned in my first comment. And, linking to other articles in infoboxes is certainly not unheard of; is linking to Pesaro, Italy a violation? What about the link to The Merry Wives of Windsor on your co-FA Falstaff- is that a violation? I think not; these links are present for the convenience of the reader, so that one could easily access Rossini's composition list directly from his own article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

My approach to infoboxes changed once, in 2012, in the first infobox discussion I encountered, Samuel Barber, where I opposed as redundant, but understood that different users want different formats of the same information. While my approach never changed thereafter, arbitrators changed, and their look at things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between a link that provides context for content and a link that replaces content. If someone is unable to follow a link (for example, reading offline), "place=Pesaro, Italy" tells them the country, and more if they know the country. "works=List of works" requires following the link to give any information. Beyond that, this seems to be an instance of the bandwagon fallacy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The link to the list of compositions also provides context, saying that he was notable for compositions (without a need to click). This has been the accepted compromise for a short infobox in many cases including the three mentioned above. Alternatives could be to fill |occupation= and/or |known_for=, but why deviate from a standard treating works neutrally without personal preferences, a standard that has worked for eight years (looking at Beethoven, installed by the arbitrator who wrote the infoboxes case)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, In addition to Gerda's points, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The entire point of links is to provide more information beyond listing his works, which would make the entire box a ridiculous length- not even a link to Pesaro, Italy could be in paper. And on the topic of "bandwagon fallacy": fallacy, certainly not, I truly believe that this box will improve the readability of the article; and bandwagon, why is that a bad thing? Why is it bad to want this article's style to comply with others that receive significantly more traffic (Beethoven, Mozart, etc)? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

NOTPAPER refers to content breadth and depth, and has nothing to do with linking. The relevant guidance is instead MOS:FORCELINK: "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links". And using traffic as a proxy for quality or best practice is equally fallacious. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The text "List of compositions" informs readers that he made compositions, without a link, as I tried to explain. There are alternatives. I believe (generally) that a link to a composer's list of works would be a good thing to have in the lead also, as an option to look at their work in more depth than the typical biography can provide. I also believe that any autograph manuscript of their music would add more than their signature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, your interpretation of FORCELINK makes sense, but there's a key detail missing at that same bullet point: "Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence." An infobox is not a sentence; we are not forcing the reader to go to that article, but rather showing them where they can find the full info about Rossini's works. Help:Infobox says in the very first sentence: "An infobox is a fixed-format table usually added to the top right-hand corner of articles to consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." By putting the list of compositions page in the infobox, we are navigating readers to the article where they can find the full amount of information. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

No, and this comes down to what I was saying above about supplementing vs substituting for content. An example of the occasional navigation function the help page mentions can be seen at {{infobox writer}}, which has the ability to embed a portal. However, the portal exists solely to collect related articles, not to provide additional information about the subject of any article in which that template is embedded; the reader's understanding of the subject does not depend on being able to access it. Conversely, what you're proposing here is to substitute a list of works (which I agree would be problematic) with a link to a different article - thus making it so readers could only understand the oeuvre of the article subject by following a link, which is what NOFORCELINK exists to combat. This is reinforced by the relevant guideline, which indicates that the purpose of the template is "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" - not "in some other article" (emphasis added). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't follow, because I strongly believe that a works list is in fact an extension of the creator's article, just kept separate because of article length consideration. I saw the comment by 4meter4 (below) sooner and replied there further. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If we want to show that opera was what Rossini was best known for, we might say: Lists of operas and other compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted, - I am free from restrictions since 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I try to do my best for our readers. If you get a consensus to the contrary, go ahead. Tim riley talk 19:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. In reading the discussion above, it seems that the main concern is the link to the list of compositions. I agree with Nikkimaria's interpretation of MOS:FORCELINK and that the list should not be included in the info-box per that policy language (ditto for all composer pages). The rest of the info-box is not objectionable; although it is redundant to the lead section. However, given the desire for info-boxes for style/visual uniformity, I have no objection to including the rest of the info-box in the article. This seems like the best compromise and policy based outcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  To link to a composers list of works - instead of individual pieces - is part of {{infobox classical composer}}, and was already in 2008. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt Template design isn't policy. MOS:FORCELINK is policy. The fact that the template makes it possible to break policy doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow policy. We should follow the policy language created to govern the encyclopedia. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see the point you and Nikkimaria are making, and I understand how it may apply to the infobox. But, I don't quite agree with the policy- hence, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking; see the section here. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  I read the policy (admittedly for the first time), and it tells me "Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence". It tells me

  • "as far as possible", so not to be avoided at all cost
  • that it is meant for sentences, not for infoboxes, navboxes and "See also" sections. In an infobox, the content to be expected is clear by the parameter name. I don't think it would be a good idea to deprive the majority of readers of the value of a quick connection to a composer's works, for the benefit of the few who read only print material, and who will hopefully find out about the composer's works in the article, just not at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Repeating from above but it seems to have been overlooked: the lists of compositions and operas of Rossini, or any composer, are not arbitrary links but extensions of the persons article, - for less productive composers they are part of the biography. To have links to those extensions prominently seems a useful service to the reader to me, and if we have guidelines against them we should perhaps change the guidelines. Models are Chopin, installed by Brianboulton as community consensus, and Beethoven, installed by the arbitrator who wrote the infoboxes case, as community consensus. We remember the anniversary of Brian's death today, with great sadness but thankful for his readiness for experiment and compromise, and a fresh look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)