Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:33, 1 August 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gustav Holst article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

	Gustav Holst is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 21, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 5, 2013 Peer review Reviewed May 9, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Composers This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers Template:WikiProject Ballet Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linking to the Military Band recording

According to Misplaced Pages:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works so long as (as is likely) their own recording is legitimate, this shouldn't be a problem. (Offsite linking to images causes a bandwidth issue and overusing the link to the wind band suites may eventually do the same, but that's a separate question.) Thanks for finding a compromise approach. Schissel : bowl listen 16:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and input. I'm a huge Holst fan, and I thought the link might help people curious about or interested in his music. I figured that the link-ees wouldnt mind because I linked to a page about the album, which included things like purchase information, instead of deep-inking the files. I didn't replace the links elsewhere in the article, even though they were broken, because another format was specified and because this was my first edit and I decided to take a minimalist approach. :)

Pictures

Does the article really need two pictures of the Royal College of Music. We get it, he went to the RCM. It just seems a bit superfluous. Gruesome Pet

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gustav Holst/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hidden comments

The problem with hidden comments along the lines of "Don't add an infobox because a WikiProject doesn't like them" is that it has a chilling effect on editors who don't understand that Wikiprojects have no standing to demand that an infobox may not be added. The decision on having an infobox or not is a matter for consensus on each article, and that is policy. If there has already been a discussion on a particular article, and a consensus reached not to have an infobox, then it is helpful to have an html comment drawing the editor's attention to that (possibly archived) discussion, and I'd be very much in favour of maintaining such notes. That is, however, not the situation here, as I can find no previous discussion of an infobox on this article. It is not acceptable to have a note which effectively prevents any consensus from being discussed, as if the matter were already settled by fiat of a single editor or Wikiproject. We build this encyclopedia by allowing people to edit, not forbidding it for no good reason. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear rex, a bit of overkill on the hyperbole there! "Chilling"? "Fiat"? "Forbidding"? A note that "prevents any consensus from being discussed"? Untrue, of course: it does not prevent anything of the sort, and the talk page is still open and accessible to all who wish to discuss things. What the note does do, is to alert others that the addition may be contentious on this article; it is, thus, an attempt to avoid edit warring. – SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

All of it is true, otherwise why are you so keen to see the misinformation kept. Or have you actually convinced yourself that a Wikiproject can instruct editors not to edit? A content issue canot possibly be "contentious" if it has never been discussed. --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"All of it is true": patently not! – SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First we were told that failure to have a hidden comment made it hard for editors to know not to add an infobox. Now you say that the hidden comment has a "chilling effect." The fact is that you just want to have a pile of code at the top of every article containing redundant infobox information, even in these arts biographies, usually riddled with errors and always emphasizing unimportant factoids at the expense key information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on removal of hidden comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies WikiProjects and collaborations When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the hidden html comment, "!-- please do not add an infobox: see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes--" be removed from this article? RexxS (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Help:Hidden text gives examples of where hidden text is appropriate, and where it is not. One of the examples of inappropriate use is: *Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit.

• • When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus.

The policy relating to the use of infoboxes is at WP:INFOBOXUSE:

• The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

In the case of this article, there is no previous discussion about infoboxes and no existing consensus. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Support removal

• Support The hidden comment here clearly breaches our guidelines on its use. It is nothing more than a pre-emptive measure to put editors off adding an infobox to the article, despite the absence of any previous debate. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support removal. There is no good to reason to treat the addition of an infobox differently from other edits: all can be reverted and discussed if it seems necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support removal: There was a clear directive from ArbCom that the "local consensus" of a wikiproject on infoboxes is not applicable, and that each article is to be considered on a case by case basis. This hidden comment, in fact, is a violation of the sprit of the ArbCom decision, though I don't think the decision specifically addressed this hidden comment issue. FWIW, it's also instruction creep. Montanabw 03:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support removal because it's inappropriate. However, I'd support a /FAQ at the top of the talk page that says (if true) that editors here have discussed it and decided against an infobox, with a suitable link to WP:Consensus can change. (NB that "editors here" does not mean "members of a WikiProject having a discussion elsewhere in an effort to make blanket rules for all articles that interest them".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support removal noting that the rule is that consensus on any individual page is sufficient for inclusion or exclusion on that page, and no project may mandate inclusion or forbid exclusion by a consensus found only on a talk page of such a project. That said, I would suggest that a positive consensus for inclusion of an infobox for this page would make sense as a requirement before any infobox here is added. Collect (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Per Arbcom and WP:CONLOCAL. It's a pretty clear case of overreach. --Izno (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Per RexxS & Izno. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose removal

• No. An attempt to avoid edit wars and the dramah that follows is to be welcomed. – SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• No - per SchroCat. Too much time is wasted talking about the same things over and over again. A factual note, such as this, saves all the ensued drama which would, inevitably, disrupt the article. Cassianto 20:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal – per Jerome Kohl and Laser brain. Further: the references to Help:Hidden text are misguided; that's a Help page, not a guideline. The guideline at MOS:DONTHIDE, or more pointedly at MOS:COMMENT, says nothing of the sort. In fact, it says the opposite. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - We had a case only the other day where a well-meaning editor added an info-box to a Featured Article at which there was a consensus against a box. The mistake was quickly corrected, but a message like this (with amended wording if wanted) would have saved that editor embarrassment and wasted effort. Tim riley talk 06:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - tweak the language per below, if there has never been an infobox in this article, then there is already an existing consensus not to have one, if an editor wants to add one, then the onus is on them to establish a consensus for inclusion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal – If the wording needs to be adjusted, that's just fine, but I have seen too many cases where an editorcomes across a composer article, notices it hasn't got an infobox, puts one in, has it reverted, and then whines "nobody told me there was a problem, and I've wasted a lot of time an effort on this." It is a simple fair warning to the unwary, as long as it isn't worded to sound like a policy or guideline.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal — If consensus on this article is to not use an infobox — there must be some way to communicate this to those who would otherwise spam-add infoboxes to everything. Most of the time a lack of infobox is not a conscious decision — but based upon a lack of things to put in the infobox. Here is a deliberate decision, this reflects consensus on the page and is independent of whether policies forbid certain edits — consensus does. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal – Internal comments like this do preempt good faith editors from wasting their available editing time. This alone is worth the price of admission. By normal editing, the comment will be vetted for clarity and policy compliance; this is proper and should remain in continuing practice.--John Cline (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Who cares? Its an invalid notice anyway and can be safely ignored. Anyone who actually wants to put in an infobox will do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I care because I believe it can dissuade a new editor who isn't familiar with the policy from adding an infobox, even if they felt it would improve the article. It lends a false authority to the WikiProject, contrary to WP:CONLOCAL. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, rex thinks it's "chilling". Mind you, he wants the edit warring and an attempt to drive away those with a more flexible mindset, simply to get an idiotbox into every article. – SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think a third option, rewording the comment, should be available.--John Cline (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Where there has been prior discussion, then I maintain that a comment pointing to it is helpful, for example, I made this edit to William Walton. But where no discussion about an infobox has ever taken place on the article talkpage, I don't believe there can be any rewording that helps the potential editor. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course there can: it's not beyond the capacity of a sentient being to come up with an alternative. You just don't want anything there. – SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see why not. WP:HIDDEN is perfectly clear on how this should be done: soften the wording to make it clear that this is no prohibiting policy, but requesting the courtesy of discussing it first. I have WP:BOLDly done this in the present case, as well as in half a dozen cases I encountered just before getting to this one, which is the first where I found any discussion at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:HIDDEN is indeed perfectly clear: "When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit" (my emphasis). It does not say "Where there is no existing consensus, the hidden text should require the editor to seek consensus on the talk page before making an edit." We'd never have an encyclopedia if everybody had to get permission to edit beforehand. There's no existing consensus here and no justification for requiring editors to seek one before editing. See WP:BRD. --RexxS (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Point of order, but this hidden comment removal occurred on several pages and now the issue is being litigated across multiple talk pages. We should centralize the discussion somewhere so people can comment in one place. That being said, these types of notices are quite useful to content editors who spend their time building and maintaining pages. I've seen them on plenty of music articles advising people not to add/remove genres, on the Elvis article instructing people not to keep adding infobox fields that don't have consensus, etc. This type of disruption almost always occurs in infoboxes because every know-all wants to roll by and add tidbits of information whether it's sourced and in the article or not. So we save ourselves a bit of time by saying "Look here before you do this." I fail to see the problem. --Laser brain (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Looking closer at the hidden notice: "please do not add an infobox: see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes": A reader of the hidden notice can't follow the link, only sees a label with the appearance of authority. A reader who takes the time to copy the link location arrives at the top of the project page because the section header "Biographical infoboxes" doesn't exist. A reader who still doesn't give up but searches for the term "infobox" finds a piped "here" and gets to a section of the project guidelines. What will such a reader think? - Can we agree that this confusing wording should not be kept? Finding a new wording would take time, - couldn't we just try to do without the hidden notice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

new day: Francis helped to a better link, so I could strike most of the above. The question is still the same: couldn't we just try to do without the hidden notice? I suggest to drop it for some, and leave it for others, as a test. - DYK that I will have another DYK about peace today? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe it is a browser issue, but when I look at the message it reads somewhat differently: "please do not add an infobox without first obtaining consensus on the article Talk page: see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes". I agree that linking syntax in hidden text is useless, and if the section header no longer exists, then it should be updated. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Is it simply because we are too lazy to update the information?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • PS: I just checked the link, and apparently the section header has just been restored, because I was not redirected to the top of the page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That's not what the notice says now. You may have missed the edit an hour and a half ago; it now reads: "please do not add an infobox without first obtaining consensus on the article Talk page: see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes".

As for "Finding a new wording would take time, - couldn't we just try to do without the hidden notice?" I am not sure what the rush is. The text from before the most recent edit has been there for some time, so I don't know why we need to suddenly rush to delete it today (along with the same deletion on several other pages – which verges on the disruptive IMO). Any open-minded and flexible approach should be able to come up with alternative wording if the consensus is that a replace,went is needed. – SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just remove the damn things where they are a generic hidden notice, and no new wording. Further "please do not add an infobox" is contrary to what ArbCom flat-out ordered us all to do -- fight it out article by article by article. (Which none of us particularly like--that much, at least probably unites the pro- and anti- infobox factions) To the extent that individual articles, post-ArbCom, have endured an infobox war, a consensus was, however grudgingly, granted, and both sides have beaten the issue to a standstill, perhaps in those limited cases a hidden note with the permalink to the "consensus" could be included with a caution to the editor that they should consult before adding or removing. Montanabw 03:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

So, you haven't read "the damn thing", either. It presently asks to do exactly what you demand: fight it out article by article. Now, would you like to start over again, or just withdraw your comment?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom spoke, and until they reinstate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, this is all we have, article by article. Not sure what you mean by "haven't read," I've read this whole section...the bottom line is that the WP Classical music projects have exploded repeatedly over this issue, it will never be resolved, I've yet to see a debate that doesn't devolve down to an ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT discussion, and a lot of people who would normally get along rather well are at loggerheads and go straight for the jugular whenever the topic arises. Someday, we will have a universal infobox policy and these ridiculous debates will end, but I suspect it will be years from now. Montanabw 08:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I amicably disagree. The classical music project hasn't exploded, nor the composers project. In this whole discussion, we need to read only one comment, the first one in this section: "Its an invalid notice anyway and can be safely ignored." Thank you, Only in death does duty end, for nailing it. We are discussing if an invalid should be there or not. I say "not" to keep it simple, but if it's there, also no harm. All this talk about dramah and edit war seems a bit exaggerated. When was the last time that a newbie added an infobox which was reverted? When was the last edit war? - Thank you, Tim, for being so considerate of the other user's time ;) - How about the experiment to leave half of the composers changed without the notice, the others with it, and observe? My prediction is that it makes no difference, so could be safely omitted. - People die, and we still talk about a hidden notice, really? I am going to write a Requiem article now, thinking of Kevin. (With an infobox, naturally.) Only in death does duty end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, dearest, it wasn't a music article I referred to, but I am not so naive as to flag up another article where the Info-box Panzers can immediately roll. Remind us about Kevin and what he has to do with this discussion? Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There are no Info-box Panzers, unless you can provide a reference for their existence. Why are you so afraid? - Kevin. (I thought everybody knew that.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I should not have answered the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come off it, Gerda! Pro-IB bullies banned score= ? No names, no pack-drill. Never ran across this Kevin, but I see from your link that he was a sacked admin. What's he got to do with this current discussion? Tim riley talk 14:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I believe Gerda is referencing the fact that Kevin Gorman appears to be dead and hence she will think of him while she writes a Requiem article. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Laser brain, For what it's worth, although I had heard the news about KG, I'm also confused about what he (or GA's requiem) have to do with the discussion here. (Not that I'm after any explanation - there is no connection). - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Requiescat. We are all God's creatures, and to be prayed for by anyone who can pray (which I know from private exchanges includes both Gerda and me). Nonetheless I am unsure why the poor soul is being dragged in here unless it's to camouflage the tanks, which would be rather inappropriate in my view. Tim riley talk 15:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, your intention to drag in a recently deceased editor to detract away from the matter in hand is bloody disgusting. Please stick to the matter in hand. Cassianto 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Repeating from above: we need to read only one comment, the first one in this section: "Its an invalid notice anyway and can be safely ignored." Please leave me alone with assumptions about my intentions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want your intentions to be left alone, then stop making references to the deceased. They don't care, they can't answer, they are dead. It's too morbid for comfort to keep hearing you turn helpful discussions into an obituary and people are sick of hearing it. Secondly, you indicate that you agree with Only in death - a coincidence, I hope - that "Its an invalid notice anyway and can be safely ignored", so why have you supported a removal? Surely, you should be neutral on the matter? Cassianto 06:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not neutral to keeping an invalid notice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Then I find your posts deliberately confusing. Cassianto 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• It is a misnomer to say that this page has "no existing consensus" even if "there is no previous discussion". In my opinion, that fallacy is the impetus of this debate's failing! No page on Misplaced Pages exists without the collaborative assent of others; itself, the foremost act of consensus building across the project. In the absence of local discussion, editing discretion is always subject to the accepted best practices achieved by some earlier consensus.

In particular, it is unequivocally clear that the decision to include an infobox, or not, is a style preference. As such, deference is generally given to the earliest edit to establish the preference. In a dispute without factors of mitigation, (like policy or an overriding consensus), the status quo should be, and most often is, upheld. The hidden comment should merely reflect the established preference, without prejudice, unless and until it is superseded itself.

Therefore: depending on the prevailing style, at times the hidden comment could say, in effect:

Consensus for this article favors the inclusion of an infobox. It should not be removed unless the preference is superseded by competent means like an office action or a reversing consensus on the talk page.

Whereas: at times, it could perhaps say:

Consensus for this article favors the omission of an infobox. One should not be added unless the preference is superseded by competent means like an office action or a reversing consensus on the talk page.

Thank you, and best regards.--John Cline (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And thank you, John! A gracious and impartial suggestion that could well form a basis for a protocol we could all sign up to. Tim riley talk 13:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry John, but the decision on including an infobox is a matter of content, not style, and ArbCom made that clear in its decision at WP:ARBINFOBOX (a good example is "infoboxes combine elements of content and style, but the decision whether to have them or not is presumably a content issue, not a style issue" at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. The fallacy in your argument is that any part of the content of an article may be absent at some point in its development - for example this article had no "Legacy" section for at least six years - but that does not imply that consensus is against inclusion of such content. Similarly, the absence of an infobox does not imply any consensus not to have one. In fact the maxim is "silence is consent" and any editor ought to be free to add content, including an infobox, to any article if they believe it improves the article. If they are reverted, they should expect a reason founded in policy from the reverting editor. That is how we should all be editing and these hidden comments fundamentally undermine that process and encourage OWNership.

The comments you propose breach the guidance at WP:HIDDEN. For articles where a consensus has been reached in accordance with policy (see WP:INFOBOXUSE: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.") it is not appropriate to state "One should not be added"; any such comment should do no more than draw the editor's attention to the debate where the existing consensus for the article was established. For articles where no prior debate has taken place, no restriction should be placed on an editor's ability to improve the content. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Presumably" does give a little leeway (and it's not the first time Arbcom have possibly erred). I have seen others refute the "content" argument, stating it is a formatting question. – SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

All this Wikilawyering by editors who haven't hitherto contributed to the article doesn't address the commonsense point that if an info-box is agreed to be otiose in a featured article on composer X there is a 99.99% chance that the same considerations will apply to composers Y, Z et al. If a box is added to any it will be quickly removed, I should think, and though the adder can of course if he /she wishes make his/her pitch to seek a consensus for its restoration it seems to me a sad waste of his/her time when he/she is unlikely to succeed and could be using his/her time to more useful effect. That's what the hidden pointer is there for. Tim riley talk 20:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would be far more convenient, Tim, if you could somehow arrange that only the OWNers of an article get to have a say in its content. That's not gonna happen. Find me a citation for that "99.99% chance" because I'm calling bullshit on it. I'm surprised that someone like yourself doesn't understand that similar articles can be very different in their suitability for having an infobox. You only have to look at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven/Archive 6 #Infobox and Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 13, for example, to see reasonable debate leading to opposite outcomes - both discussions being precipitated by an unaffiliated editor who had no prior edits to the article. Please let the normal processes of bold editing and sensible discussion take their course; these articles don't exist for the convenience of their editors, but for the benefit of their readers. --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you always dive for the gutter with an unfounded and stupid accusation of OWNership rex? It's tediously predictable in every IB discussion. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it's ownership: it's a difference of opinion, not proof,of ownership. I may as well accuse you of attempting OWNership on the top right-hand corner of all articles for the sense you make with it. – SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The argument was taken to the gutter by "All this Wikilawyering by editors who haven't hitherto contributed to the article". Anyone who thinks that having contributed to an article is a prerequisite to participation in a debate is expressing OWNership behaviour, and they need to be called on it. Do you think that only editors who are part of the "core group" should have the ability to make decisions on an article's content? --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The omission of an infobox at an article's creation does not establish a preference. Inclusion of a hidden comment or an edit summary expressing a preference does, and, in the absence of overriding mitigation, it should be respected. The examples I offered above are for illustration only; to show flexability in use of hidden comments. They are not proposed in any way. The decision to include a "Legacy" section is not shown as an editing preference anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Decisions regarding the positive use of an infobox v. its desirous omission as well as AD v. CE, mm/dd/yy v. dd/mm/yy, and "References" v. "Citations" v. "Footnotes", to the positive use of the serial comma, as I have done here, are all preferences that are given deference and they should be respected along with all of the others.

In concluding my regards, I leave this observation: the saddest component of this embarrassing dispute is that it is manufactured by the most highly esteemed, (for experience, knowledge, and capability), of our editing community. You guys, most certainly, already knew of everything I spoke, and also know whatever I could devise about Misplaced Pages and her best editing practices; yet I am here – sucked in to the time-sink this debate has become, (over years). I've done well in avoiding it until now. I mark it a fools errand and the time spent in its service, wasted – I could have already mowed my lawn which I will now accomplish in late fashion. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

So John, you think that it's OK for an editor to "mark their territory" by inserting a comment forbidding others to add an infobox? It clearly puts your comments into context. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, whoever it was in here somewhere suggested an FAQ here on the talk page that showed a link to the last debate and the consensus reached, that IS how they handle the pages with actual controversies, such as, for example Talk:Barack Obama. No need to clutter the edit box at all. Montanabw 22:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree.--John Cline (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox?

Gustav Holst
Holst, c. 1921 (photograph by Herbert Lambert)
Born	Gustavus Theodore von Holst (1874-09-21)21 September 1874 Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
Died	25 May 1934(1934-05-25) (aged 59) London
Works	List of compositions

In the discussion above, CFCF said "Here is a deliberate decision, this reflects consensus on the page". It is not, because no consensus was ever established, but can be now. This being a featured article with one principal editors Tim riley, I would no have dared to even suggest an infobox, hidden notice or not, just for respect ;) - Please keep to what the arbs requested: civility, and sticking to this particular infobox for this article, not infoboxes in general. I, as a reader, like to have the facts about birth and death in one place, and an easy access to his list of works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh FFS... No need to repeat the same key details as are in the lead. There is no metadata argument here as the festering cesspit of Wikidata as the factoids are already present there. – SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Infoboxes exist to repeat key details, including those in the lede, in a convenient and accessible format. As such they do so by consent on the majority of Misplaced Pages articles, and in almost every article on which they are used. Even setting aside the fallacy in your objection on those grounds, the proposed infobox includes information not stated in the lede of this article. The machine-readable metadata emitted by the infobox - again, as is done by consent on the majority of Misplaced Pages articles - is available to in-broswer tools while their operator is viewing the article; the existence of Wikidata does not negate that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • There is no fallacy in what I have written. "proposed infobox includes information not stated in the lede of this article": if you had actually read what I had written, I said the same key details. Not all factoids forced into IBs are "key". - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Move on, for god's sake! Cassianto 13:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• No info box required when it is merely repeating the same facts already covered in the lead. Jack1956 (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • An easily refuted canard; see my comment, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox The article became a FA in May 2013 without one, so it seems pointless to be discussing why it suddenly needs to have one now. The hidden comment mentioned above has been there a long time and it has been "respected". Not seeing how respect=infobox. We hope (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's an editor looking for some respect on his/her choice of no infobox on Giulio Cesare. We hope (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:CANVASS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
      • There is no canvassing of anyone here. Please do not give the impression of falsely accusing people of things of which they are not guilty. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
        • It seems that this accusation could cut both ways because I see many of the infobox patrol have shown up here also. We hope (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The people running the FA process gave made clear that the presence or otherwise of an infobox is not a factor in awarding FA status. Therefore, the award of that status does not proscribe the subsequent addition of an infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Mentioning the people that run FAC is a straw man: it's the fact the article has gone through an open community-supported review process (actually two, when the PR process is taken into account). As the question of the IB was not raised in either of those processes, there is a strongly implied consensus that it is not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the FA process precludes an infobox if the article had none previously. It's the timing which caused the comment-fine for 3+ years not to have one and now suddenly it's of vital importance. We hope (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• The lack of mention of an infobox is not evidence of any consensus on its exclusion. The policy is "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." The absence of a discussion is not now, and never has been, a discussion, no matter how much you'd like to delude yourself otherwise. --RexxS (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I am not deluded rex, so take your ever-snide comments elsewhere. The lack of discussion on a point does not mean that there is no consensus, and the two open review processes did not feel that this article was somehow incomplete or lacking without the need of an aesthetically unpleasant and unpleasing box at the top. – SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Dont care to vote ...but idiotboxes help the idiots. We should not assume all like only one way to absorb information. Its really to bad there is a small segment of editors that still dont understand why the quick-info-box is useful to some and that its a bad idea to only have one format.--Moxy (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• With the exception of the idiotbox metaphore, I am in certain agreement with Moxy who is concise and spot on primarily correct. I'll even reserve my own vote. I will say that to my observation, the spirit of Arbcom's ruling is not evident by the extraneous discussion being imposed on this page.--John Cline (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox, per Cassianto and We hope, above. This whole overinflated discussion is pointless. Let's have done with it and move on.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Gerda says: "This being a featured article with one principal editor Tim riley..." – not quite; I see I have 165 edits as against Tim's 74, and we were equal partners in the drive towards featured status. As Gerda will know, I have not objected in the past to infoboxes that give basic identifying information; my worry is the extent to which such boxes later become magnets for trivia. I don't believe it would be the end of the world if a box like that at the top of this thread were to be imposed, but nor do I see any great necessity to do it, other than to end this dreary farrago of argument and misrepresentation – if it would. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support infobox. The example infobox shown above is just as aesthetically pleasing as the current image. It would make available at a glance several pieces of information not immediately apparent in the nearby lead: place of birth, place of death, age at death, as well as an immediate link to his compositions. That is a convenience for the reader and is in line with practice at the vast majority of articles on Misplaced Pages. Readers expect to find this sort of information in articles such as Holst. It also emits the following microformats: vcard, nickname, bday, birthplace, deathdate, deathplace - all of which are helpful to third-parties who wish to reuse our content on Holst. --RexxS (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader, or include ... irrelevant or inappropriate information". Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, such as "Death Place", in competition with the WP:LEAD section which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points about the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a 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) 18:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Mid-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Composers articles
• WikiProject Composers articles
• FA-Class England-related articles
• Low-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment