Talk:Felix Mendelssohn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleFelix Mendelssohn is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 3, 2019.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed
December 16, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
January 15, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 4, 2017, November 4, 2020, November 4, 2022, and September 16, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Infobox[edit]

@Nikkimaria: this is the 5th time you’ve reverted it with the incomprehensible rationale “see FAC”. I don’t see how looking at WP:FAC explains why you are systematically blocking an infobox from this page. Dronebogus (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such an addition was proposed and opposed during this article's FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which was when…? Dronebogus (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2018. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One proposer, two decliners. That is not an overwhelming decision, and an old one. I am in favor of including an infobox, just as in any recent FA.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Loriendrew, can you explain what you mean by "just as in any recent FA" - I'm not sure what you mean. - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about a variety of "From today's featured article" on the main en.wiki page, which appear to have infoboxes. Additionally, MOS:INFOBOXUSE directs us to discuss this on the article talk page, not a relatively hidden FA discussion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. A couple of my last FACs don't have IBs and one of them - Pasqua Rosée - appeared on the main page six days ago without such a box. Another one without a box will appear on the MP in a couple of weeks. An FAC isn't a "relatively hidden ... discussion": it's a central review process that is highlighted on the talk page. All it means in this case is that there is a consensus that needs to be overturned through discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My personal rule is that indeterminate birth/death dates = no infobox, because the main utility of an infobox is auto-calculating age. Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really, really isn't. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've added the age at death to the lead, so now there's no need. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the article looks ugly and weird without an infobox, but that’s still considerate. Dronebogus (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"ugly and weird" isn't an argument for inclusion (People can also say an IB looks ugly and weird - it's not a basis for argument): de gustibus and all that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m totally aware of that. But I still feel like it’s a lot of really pointless busywork to aggressively block an infobox from this or any article without any good reason besides the familiar “I don’t like them” “they’re stupid and make people stupider” “read the darn lead” “redundant” “liberal arts biographies” or “the composers project said so”. People expect these things in 2023 and get weirded out when they’re gone. Dronebogus (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Personally I still feel like it’s a lot of really pointless busywork to aggressively push for an infobox from this or any article without any good reason besides the familiar “I like them” or any made up reason. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People would add these organically if they weren’t being blocked. No-one besides a select few would remove them organically. Dronebogus (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know: it's a real pain when people have a different opinion, but it's not a question of "blocking" things: it's a question of having a different point of view. And I think you're likely wrong on the removing: the reason people don't do it is that it leads to a massive crapstorm by people aggressively pushing or defending them. Most people just want to edit nice and peacefully without all the grief that comes from getting involved in the debate or its ramifications. - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to be blunt: the reason composers don’t have infoboxes is because 10-something years ago the Composers WikiProject declared them haram, and you know it. This is a clear case of a Wikiproject making and enforcing its own rules unilaterally, which is no different than multi-party ownership. I’m not just some pro-infobox fanatic, I’m frustrated that a project has been given so much power against all rules. Dronebogus (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've grabbed one small, very historical detail and drawn a poor conclusion from it. And, as I mentioned on your talk page, I advise again that you stop throwing around unfounded accusations of ownership: it will only end badly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then explain what Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes is supposed to be, other than a project making up “house rules” for its articles? Dronebogus (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That local consensus started in 2007 and was last discussed by the project just over ten years ago. Back in 2007 (and even in 2013) the rules were very different to what they are now, which is why that section is more historical than anything else. As I have said: You've grabbed one small, very historical detail and drawn a poor conclusion from it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that’s historical why is it a. not marked as such and b. still enforced? Dronebogus (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Historical" was the wrong word for me to use. "Long-standing" would have been better. Although it is old and the rules have changed since it was first agreed upon, it still carries weight, although not as much as it once did. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to something that says projects are allowed to make their own rules? Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither time nor inclination, nor am I a member or participant in any projects and have not been for a decade or so. This has already been more of a time sink than it’s worth to deal with “a lot of really pointless busywork to aggressively push for an infobox“. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider's perspective: I really do think Nikkimaria was being a bit close-minded by reverting these contributions multiple times. The infobox as it appears in this revision is a perfectly good contribution, and the onus of proof is on you if you think it should not be included. In short, I think SchroCat's argument about push[ing] for an infobox from this or any article without any good reason is the other way around. You're the one who has to have a good reason to remove the infobox given that it's well-formatted and not out of place, and frankly I don't see a good reason. 8 total words from a FAC from 6 years ago aren't gospel. This is a biographic article, which usually contain {{Infobox person}} as a matter of course. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Festucalex, your assertions here are not correct. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content; there is no presumption in favour of inclusion, as you suggest. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: That would be true if an actual reason was given above for exclusion, but the only thing even resembling an argument against inclusion in the wall of text above is Such an addition was proposed and opposed during this article's FAC, which then yields two comments from 2017: Sorry, I profoundly disagree and I vehemently oppose this. Nothing else is given. I'd say there needs to be prima facie evidence against inclusion for the presumption in favor of exclusion to kick in, and I don't see that at all. It would be helpful if you'd summarize your reasons below. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Festucalex, you may say that, but that is not reality. The addition was previously proposed and did not obtain consensus; the rationale given here of lacking age at death has been addressed, and otherwise there doesn't seem to be any rationale given other than a personal feeling that it looks nice. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As there is a long-standing consensus, let alone the very long-standing status quo, you need a consensus to include a box. That’s the way it’s always been for any challenged changes to an article. - SchroCat (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of those in favor of infoboxes, but I also recognize that group consensus is pretty much the only way to decide on infobox issues. - kosboot (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc for infobox[edit]

Consensus to include infobox. Numbers are in favour of infobox, though of course this is not the primary consideration. Supporters essentially argue that the infobox would be useful in providing information to readers, while opposers argue that the infobox would not be useful because the readers could read the information elsewhere, like the lede. However, it is not up to us to control how our readers read, they may choose to read the lede first, or the infobox first, it is up to them. I thank Isaidnoway for providing evidence to evaluate the situation. Isaidnoway quotes that readers tended to look first at the table of contents, then at the article's infobox. That seems to indicate that an infobox is indeed useful and read even before the lede. The research cited also stated that the lead and the infobox contain only 17% and 4% of the links of an article, they receive 32% and 18% of clicks, respectively - indicating that (1) infoboxes are useful, and (2) infoboxes have an even more disproportionate positive impact on readers than ledes, relative to their size. Therefore the strength of supporters arguments are stronger in light of the evidence. starship.paint (exalt) 01:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. 

Since there’s a discussion going on about this currently, should this article have an infobox? Dantus21 (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really should read WP:RFCBEFORE: “Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page.” Given the discussion has been open less than 24 hours, it has hardly been discussed at all, let alone “thoroughly”. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) Agree with SchroCat. I would support a procedural close of this Rfc for failure to observe WP:RFCBEFORE. Dantus21, you have the option to withdraw this Rfc on your own, without having to go through any channels to do so. If you wish to do that, just reply, "I withdraw this Rfc" below, and someone will remove the Rfc header above. You don't have to do that—it's just an option available to you, but that would be my recommendation. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there's a discussion going on about this currently that's less than two days old and is ongoing, procedural close. I won't point you to WP:RFCBEFORE again (whoops, I just did) but a RfC is a time-intensive follow-up to stalled or highly contentious discussions, which I don't believe is the case here. Let the discussion above happen, and withdraw this RfC. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole topic permanently stalled ages ago. There’s already 8 votes so I think the RfC is “legitimate” at this point. Dronebogus (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see where you're getting the whole topic permanently stalled ages ago thing, or how you're interpreting "ages". In fact the § Infobox section just above has received six comments by four editors since this RfC was started. That thread was barely 20 hours old before this premature RfC was initiated. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes[edit]

  1. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. Users expect to be able to quickly reference information via the infobox. Yes, that information is generally found in the lead, but it’s not summarized in a way that’s quick to consume.
    Infoboxes are a valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Wikipedia. Data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in the infobox valuable.[1] Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities and that's the purpose of an infobox. This article would be improved if one were included. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think the version that was proposed above is a good start and should be kept. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes per Nemov. I find the interpretation of the data to be plausible enough to suggest that an infobox might be useful to some readers, and I don't see an infobox causing enough harm to negate the potential benefit. The inboxes for George Frideric Handel, Johann Sebastian Bach, and Ludwig van Beethoven include a link to the list article on the respective composer's compositions, which is currently tucked away in a hatnote halfway down the page. As a reader, I have tried to get to information about compositions from a biographical article, and it can be unnecessarily difficult without an infobox. CoatGuy2 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, infoboxes are an integral part of Wikipedia; the decision to have them has been taken at a level way above this RfC. This RfC is only valid if there are particular reasons why the Mendelssohn article needs special consideration, and cannot be treated similarly to Johann Sebastian Bach for example. If this is a general conflict between those who like infoboxes (broadly) and those who think they're (generally) a waste of space, it should be closed at once and replaced by a proper RfC on the wider question. Otherwise it is an attempt to stifle an acknowledged, acceptable Wikipedia device in a normal article, and that's plain wrong. Elemimele (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an RfC and it ended non consensus (primarily, I think, because a broad rule looks bad in a vacuum and the people most passionate about such an RfC are the vocal minority opposing infoboxes) Dronebogus (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no consensuses amongst the individual RfC's either; every one of them is the same arguments repeated, and the closes are more-or-less random depending on the closer's feelings about how close a vote must be before it's declared no consensus. It is a prodigious waste of time running all these RfC's when each is really just a random draw from a population of box-haters and box-lovers. Some of the closes that do have a consensus also add that consensus can change, inviting those who dislike the consensus to re-toss the coin and get a different random result. I applaud Nemov for having a bash at sorting it out; I don't have the energy. Elemimele (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, it’s like freakin’ US Supreme Court decisions. Is there some way to like, poll as many users as possible on this? Dronebogus (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, alternative forms of presentation of information and informational aids improve accessibility, infoboxes are one good example of this. —siroχo 20:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. yes are we seriously still relying on decade-old signpost articles, single-editor opinions, outdated “house rules” made up by wikiprojects, and nonsense arguments like “it oversimplifies things” or “they’re just bad” to justify blocking a common, harmless, useful augmentation to articles? Dronebogus (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes. (Found this discussion via the village pump) An infobox enables us to add an easily identifiable link to List of compositions by Felix Mendelssohn, and would allow for easier identification of quick biographical facts like death age and birth/death locations. (While the current version of the lead includes Mendelssohn's death age in the parenthetical statement with his vital dates, this feels like an awkward solution that's misaligned with Wikipedia's usual house style, so holding the death age in an infobox would be a meaningful improvement in my view.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (Summoned by bot) Yes per Nemov. The infobox is almost a Wikipedia trademark at this point. I personally have been looking at the infobox before the lead since before my voice cracked, when I used Wikipedia to write little presentations for my 6th grade social sciences class (good days, eh?). I am heavily in favor of an assumption in favor of infoboxes unless proven otherwise, because they're just plain useful. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes. As a text person, I'm not personally a big fan of infoboxes, and I do wonder if some of the existing use of them is more a matter of inertia and the known tendency of tables and templates to resist removal once added. But I think the accessibility point raised above is crucial: some readers will have an easier time reading text and some will have an easier time with the infobox format, so it's good to make both readily available. Also, given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only incidentally a website, it seems beneficial to offer data in formats that maximize the different opportunities for downstream use, so that anyone who wants to can create an infobox-free Wikipedia mirror, or for that matter an infobox-only one. While the local consensus of editors is always important, the use of infoboxes has become such a standard practice that I, at least, would need to see some argument about the unique features of this article to feel justified weighing a one-article consensus against infoboxes more heavily than what has become a broad edit-consensus in favor of them. -- Visviva (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes. Why should one biography article have an infobox while another doesn't? There is nothing bad about infoboxes; they provide useful summaries and basic data. I have seen no convincing argument in favour of excluding the infobox. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes per Nemov. This is standard practice for biographies. Graham (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes, and I don't want to rehash the arguments put forth above; there are great points that I agree completely with. An infobox is useful. SWinxy (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes: Enough! This is getting ridiculous! Ravpapa (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes. Standardized presentation of information is valuable to a lot of readers. There are pages for which an infobox might be unsuitable, but I don't see how this is one. I realize this is a general argument for infoboxes, not one specific to this page, but that's what both sides of these debates almost always boil down to. --Tserton (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes: To the idea (posted among the no votes below) that Wikipedia is not a database, I strongly disagree. Anyone who works with Wikidata recognizes that WP being only a "literary" work is holding a very obsolete point of view. There are articles in WP that are essentially using Wikidata. The point of Infoboxes is not just a summary of information, but to be able to harmonize what information and how it is presented among all language Wikipedias. Thus the infobox is not just a summary but a structural part of the encylopedia. - kosboot (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes Infoboxes improve an article because they, by definition per WP:MOS/Infoboxes, summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. The votes opposing this standard improvement fail to provide a WP policy that explains why an infobox for this biography would be contrary to common practice or WP standards. Penguino35 (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes (Brought here by the RFC noticeboard) The infobox is a staple for summarizing key information. Also I agree with everything @Penguino35 has said above about MOS:INFOBOXES. I can't fathom why any editor would object, but I suppose we all are open to our opinions. MaximusEditor (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes - This shouldn't need an RFC. Infoboxes are not mandatory, but not removing content from articles without a good reason (and "I don't like Infoboxes" is not one) is just bad behaviour. I'm getting heavy WP:OWN vibes from the people who think that "their" article cannot have an infobox (at this point, part of the house style of Wikipedia) just because they say so and it has not had one until now. FOARP (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes, infoboxes are useful and make articles easier to read at a glance.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. The proposed infobox takes up prime real estate at the top of the page with little benefit. It adds two kinds of information: (1) info that is already immensely prominent in the first two sentences of the lead (name, birth/date dates, occupation), and (2) information that isn't in the lead because it's not important enough to be featured at the top of the article (birth place, death place, the nation Leipzig was in at the time of his death, and his signature). Enshrining that information in an infobox just takes up for (in my opinion) little payoff. Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No — it is not an improvement to the article, and it doesn't help me have a better understanding of the subject matter. And the link referenced up above to; Research:Which parts of an article do readers read, does not say — Data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in the infobox valuable. One of the things it does say in the eyetracking section is; A main finding was that readers tended to look first at the table of contents, then at the article's infobox. So looking at the proposed infobox, are we really providing the reader with any valuable information (born, died, occupation) that can't be easily found in the lead sentence, along with his best known works (all wikilinked). The research article also indicates in the links clicked section that; data estimated that wikilinks located in the lead section receive between 26% and 43% of the clicks on wikilinks. Furthermore, if a reader is using Google search before they even decide to come to Wikipedia, all that basic biographical info is provided in their snippet, along with a Wikipedia link to 'list of compositions', so what new information are we giving them in the proposed infobox that they haven't already digested, in that likely scenario. I'm not seeing any compelling reason to change the long-standing 21-year-old existing consensus not to include one. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. Almost every yes !vote amounts to "I like infoboxes". Am I supposed to do better than "I don't like infoboxes"? Infoboxes compete with the article text. We are an encyclopedia, not a database. Rarely are infoboxes in pre-20th centuries biographies actually useful,though they may appear to be so to readers who don't know any better. For example, how are the two infoboxes at Charles Borromeo more useful than the lead paragraph? Or try Wu Zetian. Is this an efficient presentation of information? Sure the infobox proposed here is rather benign, but I doubt it will remain that way. Keep it out. Srnec (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that infoboxes complement prose, rather than compete with it. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No - I certainly agree with Srnec the majority of !votes above are all "I like infoboxes" and as such should be ignored, Anyway I don't see what value or benefit an infobox adds here - sure it "summarises key information" but that's like me going to a library and reading the back of a book to find out what it's about ..... If readers want to know his age, birth place etc then they should read the article. Also the accessibility mantra above is rubbish - I've never used a screen reader in my life but I would imagine they're a a lot better now than say in 2005. Anyway an infobox adds nothing to the article, We have Simple English Wikipedia if reading isn't your thing :). –Davey2010Talk 17:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Accessibility is a broad domain. Neurodivergent people exists, visual thinkers exist, people learn and absorb information in different ways. Some people even benefit from getting the same information in multiple formats. Simple English Wikipedia is great, but we currently get quite a few readers on en, so accessibility concerns are important here as well. It's true that not everyone absorbs information best from an infobox, and your preference is good evidence for the need for strong lead sections as well. —siroχo 20:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who does use a screen reader, I can assure you they don't "read" the infobox. My screen reader starts at the lead section and reads downward. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The infobox in this article seems useless to me. Ghirla-трёп- 19:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Given the history regarding infobox discussions I oppose attempts to close this on procedural grounds. It's very unlikely given the sometimes contentious nature of this debate that this will be settled in any other way except via RfC. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will second that, per WP:NOTBURO Dronebogus (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nemov could you clarify why you think data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in infoboxes valuable? We just discussed the same thing at Talk:Richard Wagner (another infobox RfC). That data seems to show that people click on infobox links. But that's consistent with the fact that infoboxes are nearly always at the top of the article taking up a large prominent area. The authors of that study don't suggest "readers value infoboxes". They suggest that a model where readers click randomly on links explains the behavior in the clicking dataset. Ajpolino (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question, but if you don't think infoboxes are useful there's probably not going to be anything that convinces you otherwise. Having spent part of my life in web design and traffic analytics I can assure you the end user values a summary of key facts without having to weed through copy. Nemov (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps you could say something like "my professional experience suggests infoboxes are representative of best practices in web design" or something. You claimed data shows users find infoboxes valuable. If there is no such data (and honestly I'm surprised there's not survey data from Wikipedia users on something like this. Seems like something we'd love to have) perhaps you'd like to strike that claim. Ajpolino (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajpolino Nope, I'm comfortable with my interpretation of the data. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that the information in infoboxes is more accessible- not everybody wants to dig through the nigh-on-400-word lead just to find out he was an organist and born in Hamburg- but I doubt you'll be convinced. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elemimele, I agree with your assessment. I attempted to help move the community past this issue a few months ago by creating a policy proposal on infoboxes for biographies that simply recommended infoboxes on biographical articles. The proposal failed to gain consensus. So the status quo means more RfCs like this and Richard Wagnar. Most of these RfCs are ending in inclusion for the infobox, but even the ones that have failed are likely to get one eventually based on recent history. Nemov (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason that more RfC's are ending up in inclusion, is because those who oppose unnecessary infoboxes are sick and tired of arguing about it. So it's inevitable that the army of infobox advocates who frequently show up at these RfCs will eventually get their way. In my opinion, it is very telling that since the aforementioned RfC didn't result in the desired outcome, biographical articles without an infobox are now being picked off one by one, until the desired outcome of infoboxes in every bio article is achieved. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't noticed a change in the number of RfCs on this topic since the infobox proposal was closed over a month ago. It's been pretty steady the past 10 months. This RfC was created by an editor who didn't participate in that proposal and is apparently a newer editor. The idea that there's some nefarious plot to push infoboxes is a bit far fetched. I would lean more on the Occam's razor explanation... infoboxes have been for around a long time. The community has adjusted to them being a normal part of the user interface, and many users are blissfully unaware that people were fighting about them many years ago. That was me in September 2022. I'm sorry there's still bad blood about this topic for some editors, but it's natural that as time passes the number of editors perplexed that long biographies are missing infoboxes will increase. Nemov (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, let's look at how these disputes arise: someone adds an infobox, someone else deletes it saying "it adds nothing", which is based on their subjective view and is not a valid reason to delete anything - it's perfectly valid to summarise something in table/list form for better understanding. Just let people add things to the articles - the articles are not "yours", you do not own them. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Style[edit]

@PackMecEng: In answer to your question here: yes, I've read it. Have you? "For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit." Between that and the CREDITS issue, please self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, its helpful info to the readers and inline with MOS. Please stop going around messing with infoboxes. There is very clear consensus to have one and that was the most recent one that people were looking at when they gave their opinion in the RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PackMecEng, no, it's not "inline with MOS", as already explained, and nobody above argued otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first few yes votes agreed and mentioned the purposed version. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference to any specific version among the yes votes appears to be your own. While I appreciate you may like that version, it still isn't MOS-compliant. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple things, again it is MOS-compliant since it's in the infobox. The section you mention is about the body mostly. Second your edit did not just unlink a location that no longer exists, which we do normally link if they are no long around, it removed a bunch of other things. Next, don't just blind link things and give that as an explanation, it's unhelpful and disruptive. If you want to cite a something explain how it applies, like I have. Now given the large removals and incorrect interpretation of MOS I think we should move on. PackMecEng (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the incorrect interpretation of MOS here is yours. The section I mention includes no exemption for infobox vs body text, nor for "if they are no long around". I've also pointed out CREDITS: "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should contain only key facts of the article's subject" (emphasis added). Now, we can move on as soon as you revert yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Felix_Mendelssohn&oldid=1193655647"