Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte/Archive 2

Rupert D'Oyly Carte
Rupert D'Oyly Carte
	<img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9a/Rupert_D%27Oyly_Carte.jpg/220px-Rupert_D%27Oyly_Carte.jpg" decoding="async" width="220" height="361" class="mw-file-element" data-file-width="313" data-file-height="513">
Born	November 3, 1876; Hampstead, London
Died	September 12, 1948 (aged 71); Savoy Hotel
Known for	D'Oyly Carte Opera Company and Savoy Hotel
Spouse	Lady Dorothy Milner Gathorne-Hardy (1889–1977) (m. 1907⁠–⁠1941)
Children	Bridget D'Oyly Carte (1908-1985); Michael D'Oyly Carte (1911–1932)
Parent	Richard D'Oyly Carte
Relatives	Helen Carte, stepmother

Bridget Cicely D'Oyly Carte
Bridget Cicely D'Oyly Carte
	[[File::george-baker-bridget-doyly-carte.jpg\|frameless\|upright=1]] With George Baker at a Gilbert and Sullivan Society celebration in 1964
Born	March 25, 1908; Pall Mall, London
Died	May 2, 1985 (aged 77); Shrubs Wood, Buckinghamshire
Cause of death	Lung cancer
Spouse	John David Gathorne-Hardy (m. 1928⁠–⁠1931)
Parent	Rupert D'Oyly Carte
Relatives	Richard D'Oyly Carte, grandfather

Richard D'Oyly Carte
Richard D'Oyly Carte
	<img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/RichardD%27OylyCarte.jpg/220px-RichardD%27OylyCarte.jpg" decoding="async" width="220" height="294" class="mw-file-element" data-file-width="288" data-file-height="385">
Born	May 3, 1844; London, England
Died	May 3, 1901 (aged 57); London, England
Cause of death	Congestive heart failure
Occupation	Impresario
Known for	D'Oyly Carte Opera Company
Spouse(s)	Blanche Julia Prowse (1853–1885) (m. 1870⁠–⁠1885); Helen Lenoir (m. 1888⁠–⁠1901)
Children	Rupert D'Oyly Carte
Parent(s)	Richard Carte (1808–1891); Eliza Jones (1814–1885)
Relatives	Bridget D'Oyly Carte, granddaughter

This is an archive of past discussions about Richard D'Oyly Carte. 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

Info box

Latest comment: 13 years ago189 comments33 people in discussion

The question is: Should articles on people related to Gilbert and Sullivan be exempt from having infoboxes? Should a reader have to scour the article just to answer one of the top 5 questions easily found in the infobox. What if Project NJ decided that people from NJ don't get infoboxes or Project Lutheranism decided Lutherans do not get infoboxes? Should they overide the general consensus that biographies have infoboxes to aid the reader. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe we had a consensus not to use infoboxes on G&S project articles. I have reverted the recent addition of one, pending comments from other editors. Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe we had a consensus to use infoboxes at WikiProject Biography, so why don't we keep it up until there is consensus to remove it. Consistency is important, what if Project NJ decided that people in NJ don't get infoboxes or Project Lutheranism decided Lutherans do not get infoboxes? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Carte was a Lutheran. Please let us have no more drive-by edits until regular contributors have had a chance to comment. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nor was he from New Jersey. You appear to be removing any changes I am making to the article including the addition of references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

W. S. Gilbert
Sir William Schwenck Gilbert
Born	(1836-11-18)18 November 1836 London
Died	29 May 1911(1911-05-29) (aged 74) Grim's Dyke
Occupation	Dramatist

I believe you will find that many classical music articles, e.g. composers, are exempt from infoboxes by consensus of project members. I hope you don't assert that your particular project can veto the decisions of another? Tim riley (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Richard D'Oyly Carte Infobox

Keep infobox We end up with the odd situation where W. S. Gilbert has one and Arthur Sullivan does not. The reader is forced to search the article to find his wives, as I did after watching the movie Topsy Turvy and do math to confirm his age at death. There is no good reason to exempt a subset of people. We will end up losing the consistency that makes Wikipedia useful. The trend is to standardize biographies across Wikipedia, not balkanize them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies: I failed to spot that you had added some constructive edits which I reverted along with the intrusive info box. Tim riley (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete infobox I believe we agreed not to add info boxes on G&S related articles - therefore this article [ Richard D'Oyly Carte ] does not need one. Jack1956 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Daft question but I dont have anything to do with G&S articles so can somebody explain in very simple language why the project considers this article doesnt need an infobox please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep infobox nothing I have seen is a compelling reason to exempt these pages from what is really a standard approach. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep infoboxes as they provide a quick look at an individual and encourage readers to delve deeper into article content for expanded information. While yes, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan#Infoboxes in articles the G&S Project states "Following the Opera project policy, the G&S project discourages adding infoboxes at the top of articles, as they generally contain only repetitive information and interfere with the placement of images at the beginning of articles". Therein lies the difficulty, as the project style guides are not policy, and to emulate WikiProjectOpera, who had themselves not dealt with what THEY perceived as a concern, simply allows a problem to fester and grow. We do not cut off a hand because we have a scrape on a finger, nor do we let the wound fester. No, we address the scrape and let it heal. Essentially banning use of the reader-assisting infobox is not a policy nor a guideline, nor is it grounded in or reflective of Wikipedia policy. Indeed it is seen that ProjectOpera's decision to not use infoboxes was because they themselves decided to emulate a few other music-related wikiprojects who had themselves not sought a fix for a template they considered "not sufficiently flexible",[1] thus compounding the percieved problem. This wish to emulate stands as a better reason to fix problematic infoboxes to increase their flexibility, rather than ignore or ban what Wikipedia considers a valuable reader-assisting tool- the infobox. It would be far better to actually address it proactively and ask for increased flexibility per Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes#Main objective. We're here for the readers... not the editor members of a Wikiproject. And RAN has it right... for the readers, we need consistancy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep infobox. This consensus to omit infoboxes from the biographies of certain musicians makes no sense to me. Can anyone explain how the decision was made? It causes inconsistency and annoyance. Unless there's a compelling reason not to include them, I suggest an across-the-board decision to include them for all biographies. Yopienso (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We should start a formal RFC after this is over. It is annoying to have to search through the article on Beethoven and Brahms to see if they were married, when that could have been garnered from a standard infobox. The other annoyance was the Actor infobox where there was no link for parents and children as in the standard biography box. After a long struggle that box was merged with the standard person infobox. The Military person infobox is still nonstandard and I always struggle to find the birth and death dates in it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant to this discussion but Template:Infobox military person has had birth and death dates since 2006! MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was complaining about the placement when the infobox is displayed, not the absence of the data. They aren't in the standard position so I don't see them at first glance in a case of psychic blindness. They appear at the top where they look like they are years of service. Just like the first marriage template made years of marriage look like birth and death years. When something isn't in the standard position, the brain overlooks it or confuses it with other data it expects to see in that position. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, understand and agree. That template has now been changed to be like the standard person infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep Infobox - InfoBoxes are becoming more and more prevalent in WP. They look professional, and capture some basic facts in a concise, easy to find location. I cannot find a discussion of why Infoboxes were avoided for G&S related persons ... but that seems like a strange decision. Agree with user Richard Arthur Norton above. InfoBoxes are desirable for most significant biographical articles in WP. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose/Delete infobox to Richard D'Oyly Carte article. The Gilbert and Sullivan Project ~~guidelines~~ note a previous consensus of editors at this project: ~~Following the Opera project policy,~~ ...members of the G&S Project discourage adding infoboxes at the top of articles, as they generally contain only repetitive information and interfere with the placement of images at the beginning of articles. This article has been reviewed by numerous reviewers and a GA review, and the consensus has always been that it does not need an infobox. Personally, I do not think that infoboxes add anything useful to [arts] bio articles or opera articles, [where] they are redundant, they discourage new editors from making substantive edits to articles, they waste space at the top of articles [added later: and they nearly always contain errors. Editors spend much time arguing about the formatting and what is included in the infoboxes, instead of focusing on the content of the article]. I heartily agree that this article should not have an infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

[Copied from below so that my points are all together: My reasons for opposing the infobox [in this article in particular] include the following, among others: All of the important points mentioned, like Richard D'Oyly Carte's dates and occupation, are mentioned very clearly in the first sentence of the article. The information about Carte's cause of death is not so important that it should be the first thing that readers see. The name of his first wife and her dates are not, again, important enough to be among the first thing that a reader sees. Similarly the names of his parents and descendants, and all of the other information that is in the box is carefully set forth in the correct sections of the article. The box is repetitive and does not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative LEAD section does so well. Also, the box limits the size of the first photo, which is a good photo. The infobox also contains misleading information (for example, it mentions one of his sons, but not the other, but neither should be mentioned at the top of the article). I also think that starting the article with the infobox template discourages new editors from editing the article]. In my experience, also, infoboxes are the most likely parts of a mature article to contain erroneous and unverified information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The lede is redundant too and it also wastes space at the top of the article, can I remove the lede? Maybe people are discouraged from reading/editing/creating articles in Wikipedia because articles have ledes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A fishslap to Ssilvers for removing the infobox from W. S. Gilbert. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Heartfelt thanks to Ssilvers for taking the necessary action against the drive-by Ein Volk, Ein Reich tendency. Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

An integrated reference work is only easy-to-use if it uses the same style throughout. No point having some articles using roman numerals and some articles reading from right to left and some articles in reverse chronological order. Invoking Reductio ad Hitlerum over infoboxes is a bit silly, especially since we are using a version of democracy and rule of law to settle the debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to understand why you have declared war on the G&S Project, RAN. You have not been a substantial contributor to the project. Will you continue to attempt to impose your personal views against the established WP:CONSENSUS? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a war, and you should not see it as such. It is just applying the Wikipedia style across as many articles as possible. Reread my argument about New Jersey or Lutherans and left-to-right and Roman numerals. What if each religion imposed their own style to articles on people of that faith? We don't want balkanization, we want a consistent style to aid the reader. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, this is not a required Wikipedia style. The relevant project here has a long established ~~guideline~~ consensus not to use an infobox on the Richard D'Oyly Carte article or other Gilbert and Sullivan-related articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is general style, for the entire Wikipedia. No project can over-ride general policy. It's like saying the G&S project will write its articles as verse, with the appropriate Gilbertian puns and off-rhymes DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone please provide a general policy link to support your claim that infoboxes are mandatory ("general style, for the entire Wikipedia")? I may be missing something, but I couldn't find one. At least not in an official Wikipedia policy statement (unlike the "balkanization" article, which merely regards a war-related concept and its popular extension to politics, sociology, internet etc).--MistyMorn (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:IBX is the "general style, for the entire Wikipedia". Note that DGG did not claim that infoboxes are mandatory. No-one has. Please stop suggesting otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any shred of evidence of a Wikipedia policy which accepts that a project may form a consensus which holds sway over articles which it considers within its purview? You may wish to refer to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in so doing.

Keep Infoboxes A standard addition to articles across Wikipedia, infoboxes provide a clear summary of an individual and their essential biographical information that allows readers visiting an article for the first time to see these common details as for all other articles in Wikipedia. There should be no obligation for an editor to add an infobox, but their removal after other editors have added them appears unjustified. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose infoboxes. Please give one good reason why they improve the article in this group. $Tony (talk)$ 02:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
on the very good grounds set out by $Tony (talk)$ below, I strongly oppose the use of infoboxes here or elsewhere on the G&S project (as throughout the Opera project and other 'classical music' related projects) - the absence of infoboxes in such articles is, in fact, the 'standard' approach (referred to above) that has developed. --Smerus 05:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

RAN asked my opinion. As usual, I give it without looking at what his view might be. Whether or not we should have bio infoboxes is besides the point. The established practice is that we do. ((personally, though I regret the repetitiveness, but I am strongly in favor of using structured data whenever possible.) Any argument that in this particular case we should not would appear to me to be pointy, unless there were some actual reason why this is different, and I see none at all. It's not the place for a general discussion. The way to challenge this, is to start a policy RfC, if anyone thinks it will be productive. Tony1, I think insisting on this further would be disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Bio-boxes are little more than collections of random factoids. From the infobox on this page I learn that Richard D'Oyly Carte was an impresario who ran the D'Oyly Carte Company (fine as far as it goes but it doesn't tell me what the D'Oyly Carte Company was). Then I learn that he was related to a bunch of other people called D'Oyly Carte (you don't say), was married twice and died of a heart attack. Um, OK, very useful...If I turn to the opening paragraphs, I learn that D'Oyly Carte was a theatrical impresario associated with the operas of Gilbert and Sullivan. I also learn what the D'Oyly Carte Company was, a bit about the man's background and the fact he was also a hotelier who built the famous Savoy Hotel. So now I know why he was notable, i.e. not for his coronary problems. Score: Prose 1, Infobox 0. Most of the keep votes here are based on little more than Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but there is no policy saying we MUST have infoboxes on articles. There's also the basic natural justice of letting editors (in this case the G&S Project) who have put hours and hours of hard work into adding content decide whether they want to add bells and whistles like infoboxes or not. Plus what Tony1 says below.--Folantin (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Qualified oppose The proposed examples are laughably bad and trivialize their subjects. I don't think the "regulars" on the G&S articles "own" them, but they do have expertise. When you've got substantial drive-by edits to good and featured articles, the quality of the material inevitably goes down. Marc Shepherd (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The "consistency" argument is self-serving, and ignores (whether deliberately or in ignorance I cannot say) other projects larger than G&S which ban info boxes. Tim riley (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just to emphasize the kinship with Project Opera, I spot-checked a number of composers and librettists. The following articles all lack infoboxes: Giuseppe Verdi, Richard Wagner, Richard Strauss, Gioachino Rossini, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Lorenzo Da Ponte, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Henri Meilhac, Ludovic Halévy, and Francesco Maria Piave. I found no contrary examples. This does demonstrate that there has been a consistent practice of not using infoboxes on biographies of composers and librettists. Consensus can change, but it would affect far more articles than just the handful under discussion at the moment. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

so we should make make them. If the general infobox is inappropriate, use a special one. General style is outside the domain of a project.

Oppose I find some of the entries in the proposed info boxes downright weird. Moreover, I find the tenor of some of the leading comments forcefully demanding their insertion authoritarian and, to my ears at least, against the spirit of Wikipedia. At the same time, I'm not sure I buy into the notion that info boxes are necessarily always trivial: it seems to me that if well composed they may, in some cases, be handy for quick reference (eg some genuinely useful links here, though not so sure about the illustration). But surely they shouldn't be used as a club to wield around other editors' heads!--MistyMorn (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:DISINFOBOX pretty much sums up my dislike of infoboxes in general.4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

then bring it up as a policy question. Local consensus does not overide general policy.

I'm not sure exactly who wrote the above statement (please remember to sign your comments), but in response, there is not a policy requiring infoboxes and never has been. Please avoid making WP:CREEP comments like this.4meter4 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Support DGG ~~(qualified)~~ totally unqualified, and very definite, to the extent I regard opposition in an individual case like this as unconstructive at the least, and more accurately termed disruptive. It's not a matter of counting, it's basic policy that we don't over-ride a general principle of article construction that has 99% general consensus without very special reason, which has not been demonstrated. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Where was that purported principle articulated, and where was it demonstrated that 99% agree with it? As I noted above, articles on classical composers and librettists generally don't have Infoboxes, which represents a fairly substantial consensus across a very large segment of Wikipedia. Also, to your comment about it being "unconstructive," see WP:AGF. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  - If everyone in a room wished to jump off a bridge, would the demand then be that everyone else in the house must also jump off bridges? The infoboxes stand simply as reader-assiting templates. They encourage readers to look further witin an article. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan#Infoboxes in articles the G&S Project states "Following the Opera project policy, the G&S project discourages adding infoboxes at the top of articles, as they generally contain only repetitive information and interfere with the placement of images at the beginning of articles". Okay, they wish to follow the habit of a different project. In looking furthre up the tree, it is seen that ProjectOpera's decision to not use infoboxes was because they themselves decided to emulate a few other music-related wikiprojects... because like ProjectOpera, they had themselves not sought a fix for a template they was considered "not sufficiently flexible",[2] thus compounding the percieved problem not fixed by someone else. If a flexible template is required, ask for it. Fix it, don't toss it because it is perceived by some as broken. WP:G&S's wish to emulate stands as a better reason to fix problematic infoboxes to increase their flexibility, rather than ignore or ban what most of Wikipedia considers a valuable reader-assisting tool... the infobox. It would be far better to actually address it proactively and ask for increased flexibility or tweaks per Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes#Main objective. Project style guides are not policy, and to emulate WikiProjectOpera, who had themselves not dealt with what THEY perceived as a concern, simply allowed the issue to compound itself. The encyclopedia is bigger than any one project, and we're all here for the readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but it doesn't really answer the question I was trying to get at, namely: where is the "general principle of article construction that has 99% general consensus" that DGG claims exists? I haven't been able to find it.

I do agree that projects don't set policy. Not everyone who contributes to a project page is a Wikilawyer. When someone wrote about a project policy, what they really meant was, a common look-and-feel for a set of related articles that had the consensus of those working on them at the time. Consensus can change, etc., etc. I do not believe that anyone working on WP:G&S believes it can set up a walled garden with its own unique practices that contravene Wikipedia policy. But where Infoboxes are concerned, no such policy exists; at least, not that I have been able to find. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete info box as totally unnecessary in a well written article such as this. Dreamspy (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: As the GA reviewer of this particular article, as well as several others in the G&S Project, Ssilvers asked me to comment on this situation. Although I'm not a fan of straw polls as a rule, I feel it's important to note -- once again -- that infoboxes are not mandatory. To insist otherwise is simply wrong; further, to insist on blanketing an entire series of related articles with some unnecessary feature stinks of WP:POINT. Infoboxes can indeed be helpful in certain articles. For example, highly technical/lengthy subjects (such as science, medicine, wars/conflicts) may benefit from listing numerous figures and estimations -- especially when a lead section is ghastly large and difficult to navigate. When it comes to biographies, however, I very rarely ever see an infobox improving the article.

As others have noted before me, most of all the pertinent information having to do with D'Oyly Carte's life is contained in the lead section -- if not in the first two sentences. His birth/death dates and what he is notable for are the most pertinent details of both infobox and lead, so this information is needlessly repeated were an infobox to exist. The only information I can see in the infobox that is not present in the lead is the very detailed facts regarding his family; on the other hand, despite his notable son Rupert and second wife ~~(both of which should probably be mentioned in the lead, imho)~~, what use is the mention of his parents? His first wife? Or even his cause of death at the relatively normal age of 57? These details are not currently present in the lead, but for good reason: they're not notable. His parents and first wife don't even have Wiki articles, so why should listing them (and their birth/date years) in an infobox matter? Such info only succeeds in taking up space, if not insinuating importance where importance does not exist.

I hope this needless RFC straw poll ends swiftly, and that the pointy effort to push something non-mandatory as well as largely unnecessary on an entire group of articles soon comes to an end. So much valuable time has been wasted simply arguing for/against something that is just. not. needed. María (habla conmigo) 13:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Based on Maria's above suggestion, I have just added information about Helen and Rupert (and Bridget) in the Lead section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That was quick! Well done, I've stricken the now fulfilled suggestion. With these additions, the majority of the information present in the proposed infobox is now present and readily visible in the lead. The remaining information is either non-notable or strongly redundant. María (habla conmigo) 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose it has long been an unwritten Wikipedia rule that info-boxes are a matter of choice and that the principal content editors wishes are respected. The principal editor here (with 300 edits) is Ssilvers and s/he cearly does not want it. Personally, I hate info boxes, but I do beleive that a page's main content editors (not the typo fixer and ref formatters) should unltimately have the right to decide on this matter. Uniformity is very dull - so long as the relevant information is easily read in the lead; there's no need for some pokemon type thing to be stuck at the top of the page. Giacomo Returned 18:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- The reason that "rule"[sic] is unwritten is because you just made it up. It is core Wikipedia policy that no such WP:OWNership exists. Ssilvers' views carry no more weight than any other single editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: I have just noticed that this info box even included "Cause of death" - what next? are we to have autopsy results - stomach contents and the like? I know the some info boxes here even include "penis length" - where do the info-box supporters want this to end? My mind is boggling. Giacomo Returned 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose infobox. This box contains nothing that isn't either (a) better and more quickly taken in from reading a well-written intro sentence in prose, or (b) of very minor importance (e.g. family members), making it inappropriate for the top of the article. Infoboxes are useful for some cases; this isn't one of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Strongly support infoboxes on all composer/opera singer articles, including this one. One of the reasons I avoid contributing to one of my favorite content areas is that the associated WikiProject is far too dominating with regards to matters such as infoboxes. I have never seen a good argument against them, and if any particular entry in the box is disputed it can be removed. Most arguments are of the form of IDONTLIKEIT. Infoboxes compile the basics in a very professional manner and readers who want the details can ignore the box and read the text from top to bottom. This comes from not just an editor but a reader who visits probably a dozen of our classical music-related Wikipedia articles a day. The associated WikiProjects have successfully stonewalled this issue for years, against greater community guidelines, and its past time that we end this. Them From Space 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

RE "...against greater community guidelines...": Excuse me, what guidelines? (Nobody here has been able to cite any pertinent guideline, despite repeated requests for evidence to support this claim.)--MistyMorn (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose infobox, per all the above opposers. --GuillaumeTell 16:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Support infoboxes on biographies. A particular subject project should not override the consensus/practice for biographical articles. How is a biography about an opera-related person different from any other biography in terms of wanting to see a summary of information about the person?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that "consensus" based only on habitual practice can be used as a pretext by any passing editor to force groups of contributors who focus on improving an article's quality to override their own judgements? I find no mention of infoboxes here, here or here. The infobox examples proposed on the present page are reminiscent of a death certificate (and, imo, not just because of the central position given to "cause of death"). Do you have a better proposal that really does provide a representative summary of information about the person's biography? I certainly haven't.--MistyMorn (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose mandatory infoboxes, per Giacomo and others above. It's not a case of IDONTLIKEIT, it's a case of respecting other people's views equally with one's own. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Count

Please note: "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus." (WP:VOTE). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by User:Ozob

Nobody is talking about Richard D'Oyly Carte. He is not mentioned even once below. Closed as wrong forum. Ozob (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't reopen this. If you want to hold a discussion about the G&S project's policy on infoboxes, then you should hold that at the project page. This page is only for discussing improvements to the Richard D'Oyly Carte article. Ozob (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Closed means please stop, all of you. And please don't edit your comments below so that they mention Carte. Even if you do, the discussion is not about him. Ozob (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be listening to me. Oh well. Go ahead, have your discussion. But please stick to Richard D'Oyly Carte: Does his article benefit from an infobox? And keep in mind that this discussion will have no bearing on whether other biographies need an infobox. If you want to have that discussion, then like I said, have it elsewhere. Ozob (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)}}

Yes, this article would benefit from an infobox. Or rather, the user who is not steeped in G&S lore would benefit and the user who wants a quick summary would benefit. G&S are not mentioned until the middle of the second paragraph of the lede (and it's a fine lede; I'm not criticizing it), but that relationship is what Carte is primarily known for.

Also, why is the huge blank space deemed more attractive than an infobox under the photo? An infobox partially fills in that void.

Furthermore, an infobox that includes his wives and children shows him as not only a "personage"--the impresario--but as a "person"--a human being with a life outside what he's famous for. I find students relate much more readily to real people than to abstract roles and realize they, too, could be an impresario or president or writer or whatever role the person in question developed in life. Yopienso (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against infoboxes by User:Tony1

Here is a list of arguments against infoboxes by User:Tony1 copied from elsewhere:

Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.

Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists. Tony (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I find these arguments compelling. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And if I can re-sign my objection to the use of (most) infoboxes. The situation has not changed.

Tony (talk)

02:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Tony, are you arguing against all infoboxes on all WP articles? That is not the subject here and is not, so far as I know, up for debate at all, if you are. Infoboxes are standard at WP. Please address the question "Why should the Gilbert and Sullivan biographies not have infoboxes while other biographies do?" Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

[left] The better biographies of artists usually don't have infoboxes, though vigilance is required to keep them that way. Tony's list doesn't include the low quality of information in boxes in areas where they are not standard and are filled in by well-meaning drive-by editors unfamiliar with the subject. The inaccuracy of the infobox at Titian caused a minor row in the British Parliament a year or two back. I support infoboxes for many types of articles, but those on biographies are usually poor. At least with artists we have the extra argument that it is normally preferable to show a work rather than a portrait at the top. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be the case. It looks as though the staffer changed the lede (then click to next revision); there was no infobox. The "infobox" you removed on 24 Feb 2009 merely identified the portrait. Today there's an appropriate, inobtrusive infobox very useful to students; please do not remove it. Personally, I think an infobox would look nicer at Beethoven than that big blank space. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted the diffs. Yopienso (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to check the diffs or remove the box, today anyway, but as almost always in biographical boxes the information either repeats the first line in the article ("Field = Painting"!) or is misleading - Titian is not best described as a High Renaissance painter & the 3 works cited are not usefully described as his most important. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Although the principle has never been articulated, I think this suggests that a controversial change isn't going to work unless the "regular editors" accept it. A drive-by editor is never going to have the required sensitivity to the subject. That's plainly evident in the proposed Infobox mock-ups on this page: the proposer has done his best, but it's clearly a drive-by effort. He doesn't know what's important, because he hasn't spent much time with the material. His only agenda is that the article have an Infobox of some sort, regardless of what it might say. It's one thing to do a drive-by correction of an obvious typo, a grammatical or formatting error, or a violation of an undisputed policy or guideline. Re-organizing or adding something structural requires actual knowledge. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That principle is articulated all the time. The strong correlation between articles with relatively small and centralised editing pools and articles with a higher-than-normal level of deviation from established process elsewhere in the enyclopedia is pretty well-known. As, of course, is the tendency for "outsiders" to said articles to be dismissed as inexpert at best or "drive-by" morons at worst. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm...no. The principle you just cited is WP:OWN, with which I (of course) agree. I was expressing a different principle — namely, that the better an article is, the more difficult it is for a drive-by editor to improve it, aside from the exceptions I gave (obvious typo, mechanical error, Wikipedia policy violation, etc.). To improve a good article usually requires actual knowledge of the subject, which a drive-by editor is unlikely to have. It is obviously possible, but Wikipedia editors do have a high propensity for following and regularly editing articles on subjects they actually know something about.

The "higher-than-normal level of deviation from established process elsewhere in the enyclopedia is pretty well-known" is not well-known to me. But in any case, the alleged community consensus in favor of Infoboxes simply does not exist, so if this article is offered as evidence of deviation, it doesn't make a very persuasive case. Perhaps you can give some other examples of alleged established processes that this article violates. I'm not aware of any. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's even slightly unfair to give more weight to the main contributors' opinions over others. After all, as Marc points out above, those who have worked to write and develop a high-quality article surely know what information is pertinent to the subject matter and what isn't. As has been pointed out (numerous times by now), biography infoboxes typically do not offer much other than the obvious (birth/death date, occupation, etc.) or the trivial (inspired by -- ugh!). Claiming WP:OWN doesn't make an infobox any less obstructive on this particular article. María (habla conmigo) 20:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I think we have all now set forth our understanding of the issues, and we are beginning to repeat ourselves. I can assure User:thumperward that, as a regular editor of this article and the articles in the G&S Project, I am always interested in the input of new editors, and I do not mean to indicate otherwise. We do not wish to deviate "from established process elsewhere in the enyclopedia", and I do not believe that we do so. Indeed, those of us who have been the primary editors of this article in recent years (as well as the GA reviewer) have also done significant editing in other areas of Wikipedia, bringing articles to FA level in areas outside the G&S Project, so we try to stay on top of what editors throughout the encyclopedia consider to be the best practices. Unless there are new points to be made about whether or not there should be an infobox in this article, I don't think we need further discussion here about wider questions. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for infoboxes

Infoboxes give a concise tabular summary of basic information at a glance.

Since the purpose on an encyclopedia is to provide information, its quality is improved if we can make the information more accessible. Some encyclopedias, for example, offer their articles on compact discs. (So do we.) Our formatting of specific size fonts for titles, headings, and subheading is another unifying aspect that we keep consistent across the encyclopedia and that helps the reader find information quickly.

Most readers look for vital statistics in an infobox. Not all want to read every possible detail that can be written about the person. This is no reflection on their character, nor does it hinder the reader who savors every word. Often a user turns to an encyclopedia precisely because they do not desire, for whatever reason, to read a book.

An infobox does not threaten or diminish lucid, vibrant prose.

Including infoboxes on operatic bios is consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia.

Not including them causes a discontinuity in format, harming the encyclopedia.

Infoboxes are neat and attractive and help break up a solid wall of text which can be off-putting to the reader. Together with the title, the lede, the table of contents, and in the best cases, a photo, it forms a useful and expected beginning of the article.

Those are the reasons I can think of right now. Below, I will answer Tony's objections. Yopienso (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Answering Tony's objections

1. Undisciplined expansiveness: This could be said of the entire encyclopedia! The answer is not to forget having an encyclopedia or an infobox, but to edit them judiciously.

2. Visual degradation: This is a matter of opinion; mine is that they improve the appearance.

3. Prefabrication: I beg your pardon; is this just snobbishness? First, why does it matter if someone "can't bother" to read the whole article? Second, some very intelligent and interested people simply don't have the time to read every word of a long article.

4. Disconnected particles: chopped up morsels? or neatly marshaled facts? It's a matter of perspective.

5. Uncertain benefit for readers: I'm sorry, but I can't relate to your need to dictate how people read.

In answer to "What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?" see my points above.

6. Better as lists: No, this isn't the same at all. The point of an infobox is to present a few pertinent facts on the article page in a quickly accessible format.

As for your closing rant, we do live in the culture you describe. Our mission is not to force people into the culture you wish they had and criticize them if they don't conform. An infobox does not intrude between the reader and his/her engagement with the text. Most importantly, your hyperbole in calling infoboxes "a cancer" suggests a bias that does not serve you or us well in this discussion. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Getting seasick: Well, I do hope it's not invasive. At the risk of being specious, if not facetious, I have to say I've stumbled upon a surprising amount of pathological material on this Richard D'Oyly Carte talk page. In the first info box above, I even found out what the guy died from before learning what he was famous for. Now that info actually caught my attention for a particular reason: I'd been pondering whether the current lack of information on underlying cause of death in an FA biography (Percy Grainger) should be discreetly filled in. Now I know the appropriate treatment is to place a prostate cancer wikilink straight after the poor man's dates... Personally, I find info boxes more suited to film articles. Signed, Betty Box--MistyMorn (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Where's the evidence?

Although the 'nays' would seem to have it, I feel obliged to underline that a straight count is inevitably a rather arbitrary way of reaching consensus here. It seems to me that the minority of voices who wanted to impose an infobox on this (and other) articles have provided no firm evidence to support their claim that infoboxes should be included by default throughout Wikipedia. Rather, their arguments for mandatory inclusion of the infobox seem to be based largely on habitual behaviour elsewhere on Wikipedia, raising concerns of latent instruction creep. Just my 2 cents--MistyMorn (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Habitual behaviour elsewhere on Wikipedia" is generally known as "the prevailing consensus". For wherever reason, there are pockets of the encyclopedia where prevailing consensus is seen as some sort of disease to be fought against. That's why WP:CONLIMITED, which is part of the overall policy on consensus, specifically disavows this notion. As far as policy goes, it is up to those who disapprove of the general concept or implementation of infoboxes to convince the wider project of their lack of worth, rather than simply walling off areas of the project and declaring exemption from wider community conventions. Gradually most WikiProjects seem to have come round to this way of thinking over time, but we're obviously not quite there yet in every part of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia articles contain gross inaccuracies, spelling mistakes and vandaliism, therefore this one should. As I've said above there is no policy saying pages MUST have infoboxes. On the other hand no undue weight, for example, is a policy and an infobox which focusses on Richard D'Oyly Carte's family members and health problems violates that.

I can see the case for bio-boxes with sports stars, where the box is a good way of setting out career statistics, but most people's lives do not fit clearly into such a mould (even some sports stars - the box does not reveal what O. J. Simpson is internationally most famous for). I resent any attempt to bulldoze Wikipedia into mindless conformity. --Folantin (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I keep seeing this strawman about a "prevailing consensus". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) seems to be lumping WP:G&S into the broader category of projects that purportedly fight against policy at every twist and turn. This is not so. It's a pity that instead of trying to make the substantive argument in favor of what they want, those in favor of Infoboxes keep bringing up a phantom policy or consensus that does not seem to exist. If it does exist, then by all means we should follow it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting Wikipedia policies are often against imposing universal conformity across pages, take WP:ENGVAR (no preference either way for British or American English) and WP:ERA (no preference for AD/BC or BCE/CE) for example. In most cases, such decisions are at the discretion of content contributors to the page. So it's extremely unlikely a policy for mandatory infoboxes exists. --Folantin (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an irony in being labelled as setting up straw men to then be accused in the next breath of insisting that every article has an infobox. While I am strongly in favour of infoboxes in general (and am perfectly willing to work to improve both their layout and use with anyone who has constructive suggestions) that's beside the point here. The question is not whether every article needs an infobox: the question is whether, when presented with a suggestion followed by the majority of the encyclopedia, a given WikiProject is in a position to veto that. My argument is that it's not, as WikiProjects are nothing more than informal collaboration groups and haven't any jurisdiction over the articles under their purview. That applies to everything from infoboxes, to the ordering of appendix sections, to the use of flags and so on. In my experience the healthiest WikiProjects are those which have been most willing to work with the wider community to reach acceptable compromises (or of course to effect change to wider consensus) where local and global opinions differ. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So there isn't an actual policy enforcing infoboxes? --Folantin (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham misunderstood my query—no doubt my failure in having poorly explained it. I am simply asking how we would know that "the majority of the encyclopedia" has adopted the position he is advocating. In my experience, the way of determining this is to point to either a policy or a guideline. No one has referred to such a thing, so I am assuming it doesn't exist. What I do know is that I've looked at dozens of biographical articles of composers, librettists, impresarios, and classical music performers, and overwhelmingly they do not have infoboxes. That is the only consensus I can (empirically) find. That's not to say it couldn't change. But that is a very different matter than to suggest that WP:G&S has adopted a rogue "policy" that contradicts the rest of the encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, WP:G&S is following consensus among similar articles, rather than contradicting it.

I do very much think it is a "strawman" to insinuate that WP:G&S has "unhealthily" been "unwilling" to work with the broader WP community. Quite the contrary, we went to considerable effort to model these articles on similar ones in a wide variety of ways, including (but not limited to) the absence of Infoboxes. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the comment above by 'Chris Cunningham - thumperward':

In support of your argument that "habitual behaviour" constitutes "prevailing consensus" (presumably something to be enforced), you cite the 'Level of Consensus' section on the 'Consensus' page, saying that it "specifically disavows this notion". I'm not sure from the context what particular "notion" you refer to. However, I do note that the paragraph in question (WP:CONLIMITED) speaks of 'policy' and 'guidelines' without making reference to any usage-based conventions. Therefore I do not think the policy section you cite actually provides any evidence to support the claim that habitual behaviour around Wikipedia, such as use of infoboxes, can be considered enforceable Wikipedia consensus.--MistyMorn (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

While it is not policy to have infoboxes on every page (an argument constructed by Folantin above from the flimsiest straw imaginable), it is policy that WikiProjects cannot simply opt out of guidelines they don't agree with; the Manual of Style is, broadly speaking, part of the project's guidelines, and the MoS supports the optional use of infoboxes by implication of its detailing their design and deployment. As such, when presented with a proposition such as "the article should have an infobox as it would serve to provide helpful comparative information on the subject like in other articles", a rebuttal such as "WikiProject Gilbert & Sullivan has chosen not to use infoboxes" is invalid. That does not preclude the possibility that an infobox may be rejected for other reasons (such as that the subject cannot easily be boiled down to the sort of statistical information common in infoboxes), but it does mean that the vast majority of discussions of this matter have largely been held under a flawed understanding of policy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, and I get accused of constructing a flimsy argument...--Folantin (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well: if the use of them is optional, then the editors of an article have not violated consensus by exercising the option not to have one. I think Chris Cunningham is reading a bit too much into a statement such as, "WikiProject Gilbert & Sullivan has chosen not to use infoboxes". What I believe the statement means is, "We discussed this before, and this is the consensus that was reached." Consensus can change, but I do not think it invalid to point out that a previous consensus exists, and that if it is changed here, a very large number of other articles would need to change, too.

I would like to reiterate that my "vote" was a "qualified no". In other words, I would be in favor if someone could propose an Infobox that helped the article, although no one yet has done so. But instead of doing that, the argument is now about policy, and that one's a sure loser. No policy is being violated by leavving the article sans Infobox. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Marc is right: No policy or guideline either requires or prohibits infoboxes in any specific article or in any group of articles. A WikiProject cannot demand its exclusion, but it also cannot demand its inclusion. It's the editors here, on this page, today, who have to make that choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not part of any policy. Here's a general discussion on infoboxes at "Village pump (policy)" from April of this year[3]. The result is inconclusive. Some people like them, others don't. Infoboxes are also not a requirement for Featured Articles. --Folantin (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not at all clear why you insist on repeating "infoboxes are not mandatory" in a mantra-like manner when nobody has suggested that they are. The interests of collaborative development would be best served by your dropping of this bad-faith framing of opposing arguments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Um , you aren't the only one in this discussion, you know. At least two of the "support" voters have alluded to an alleged general policy in favour of infoboxes. There is none. As that Village Pump page shows, there is no general consensus for infoboxes either. Now that's cleared up we can move on to other matters. --Folantin (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Rationale in addition to previous consensus

Reply to 'Chris Cunningham - thumperward': I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying, Chris. My understanding too was that infoboxes are "optional". Personally, I find them rather helpful in many scientific contexts (diseases, molecules, etc, where they can offer a convenient way of providing standardized technical links/information), but much less so in narrative settings such as human biographies. When the G&S group unanimously tell me that an edit I make is not acceptable to them - as actually happened recently - I respect their consensus even though I may remain of my opinion that the subject matter is indeed pertinent to the article in question. I believe their considered collective viewpoint does deserve respect even though they cannot be considered the 'owners' of the article.--MistyMorn (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it does: we're all editors in good standing. I'm simply pointing out that "per the wikiproject consensus" comments are usually invalid, and that when you discount them and force editors to actually explain why a given biography is better without an infobox than with one you tend to get a better idea of the real weight of argument. The reason that the vast majority of biographies on composers don't have infoboxes right now is not because they're all better without them, but because of enforcement of an invalid principle, and even without significant pushback I can see that gradually changing as time passes as more editors accept that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What you're describing is the process working correctly. Consensus is reached, and it is implemented across many articles — hundreds or perhaps thousands, in this case. It is absolutely not invalid to point out that a previous consensus exists, and that it has been widely implemented. This fact is not an absolute bar to changing it — I have known numerous cases where that happened — but it is certainly a consideration.

If you re-read the above discussion, you will see numerous substantive arguments against Infoboxes, as well as in favor of them. The argument does not consist entirely of "WP:G&S does not use Infoboxes". As I mentioned before, that statement it is merely a shorthand for pointing out that a consensus previously existed. Although consensus can change, it is not incorrect to point out that it has been asked and answered before. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to agree with that. In the last big RfC on the matter (by the composers wikiproject), it could readily be identified that many of the most vocal project members were not, in fact, strongly against infobox inclusion: rather, they were prepared to defend what they saw as the project consensus above their own feelings, and that was a consensus primarily formed by editors opposed in principle to the use of infoboxes. "Per the wikiproject consensus" cannot IMO be considered equivalent to "I have read the discussions which led to the wikiproject consensus and agree with them": in my experience elsewhere the opposite is often true. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's be specific. The people here who are opposing the infobox have seen it, have considered it, and have rejected it. They are aware of all of the arguments in favor of it discussed above, but they do not see how it improves this article. My reasons for opposing the infobox include the following, among others: All of the important points mentioned, like Richard D'Oyly Carte's dates and occupation, are mentioned very clearly in the first sentence of the article. The information about Carte's cause of death is not so important that it should be the first thing that readers see. The name of his first wife and her dates are not, again, important enough to be among the first thing that a reader sees. Similarly the names of his parents and descendants, and all of the other information that is in the box is carefully set forth in the correct sections of the article. The box is repetitive and does not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative LEAD section does so well. Also, the box limits the size of the first photo, which is a good photo. The infobox also contains misleading information (for example, it mentions one of his sons, but not the other, but neither should be mentioned at the top of the article). I also think that starting the article with the infobox template discourages new editors from editing the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And that's a substantial and productive argument to back up your position. I'm not going to argue against it here (that's not really why I got into this conversation): I am simply pointing out that the reason that composer articles on Wikipedia do not in general have infoboxes is primarily due to the above-stated project factionalism rather than through a substantial and well-argued consensus that they're fundamentally inappropriate for the subject matter. In time I believe the most likely result will be that the work to create an infobox which does adequately represent the key points a reader would wish to find in an article on a composer will continue and that this will be gradually adopted by composer articles. That's precisely where the last RfC was headed, though the efforts in question have rather fallen by the wayside. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Good: we are all now agreed that there are no binding decisions, and certainly not any binding decisions made by other people at other pages in past years.

Ssilvers has given some substantive reasons for omitting the infobox in this particular article. Does anyone believe that any of those reasons are invalid, or that his concerns could be adequately addressed through some method other than omitting the infobox? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason {{infobox composer}} can't be overhauled to concentrate on what is genuinely important pertaining to the life of a composer. Alternatively, the subclassing system of {{infobox person}} which allows for pluggable "modules" for different facets of a person's life could be deployed. There's no reason that a potential infobox need include pointless statistics, nor for it to affect the size of the current lead image. It's just a case of an interested party knuckling down and doing it. The groundwork's already in place and I'd be happy to help out with any of the required coding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

{{infobox composer}} has achieved remarkably little use (just 17 actual articles, by my count), even though it has been around for almost 3½ years. That suggests it does not have much support. I think the only way to do this sort of development properly is to attract a wider audience, so that its use can be tested in a variety of settings. After all, the whole point of a template is to attract users across a range of articles. This article would be the wrong place to start, given that Richard D'Oyly Carte was not known primarily as a composer (he did compose a few works early in his career, none of which are performed today). Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's only gotten 'little use' because some editiors take an active role in removing it. Many a time I've seen a good faith infobox addition only for it to be reverted with "WP:CLASSICAL has deemed infoboxes aren't allowed" or whatever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, but if over 3½ years no one can get it to "stick" with any significant success, that suggests to me the consensus in its favor simply does not exist. I do realize that some active editors feel strongly about this. But it's not as if 2 or 3 people could be holding back the tide if a community consensus existed. It just doesn't. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was only discussing potential. Clearly the template in its present form is hardly compelling. Nevertheless, that's what a theoretical party looking to get an infobox deployed on composer articles should be aiming for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Chris, consider if this battle is really worth fighting. The most active content editors in the composer, opera, classical, and G&S projects are for the most part anti-info box. By forcing a new policy upon them which requires infoboxes you are likely to piss people off and have them leave wikipedia; thereby significantly damaging the continued progress of the encyclopedia in these areas by removing the editors who watch current classical music related articles for vandalism and accuracy, and the editors most likely to create new content. We have thoroughly discussed the matter in good faith on both sides, and a clear consensus against infobox enforcement has been reached. At this point, I think WP:Stick should apply.4meter4 (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Marc, the use or non-use of any given infobox on other articles, by other editors, in other years, is irrelevant. We're only trying to make a decision for this article, right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. One of Wikipedia's strengths, is that similar articles have a similar look-and-feel. For instance, if you look at Iodine and Carbon (both chemical elements), there is a resemblance. This did not happen by accident. The editors of WikiProject Elements made it so. If you propose a change to that standard, editors would be entirely correct to point out, "If we make this change to Iodine and Carbon, all of the other chemical element articles would need to change in a similar way." (Those articles do have Infoboxes, a perfect example of project consensus at work.)

It is also perfectly reasonable to point out that the subject has been considered in the past, and a consensus was reached. No one is required to have amnesia about the prior discussion. Otherwise, the day after this RFC concludes — regardless of its outcome — someone could open a new RFC on a related article, and claim that it's totally irrelevant that this entire discussion ever happened. Consensus can change; by the same token, progress would be impossible if every decision were constantly being re-hashed de novo. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Back to work?

I still fail to understand the missionary zeal for conversion to mandatory use of infoboxes in contexts where there is a consensus among active editors that they are redundant and potentially confusing. I can't see any official Wikipedia policy/guideline that mandates nagging against such consensus. Thanks, but no thanks. --MistyMorn (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, is this discussion and RFC finished, now? I would appreciate it, as I would like to go back to researching and writing. I don't have enough time to do both, and I am trying to work on two articles within the scope of the G&S Project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

RFCs run for 30 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Is this really the level of discourse around here? I'd have thought that multiple replies in good faith, including positive suggestions on how to proceed in the thread above, would generate more than a "not convinced, not mandatory, please go away now" boilerplate response. Nevertheless, I suppose it's better that this goes into the talk history, as it's worth bringing up in future should editors be drawn into supposedly good-faith discussion with you again, MistyMorn. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that a threat or a promise? I've tried to explain in good faith why I believe that the usefulness or otherwise of infoboxes depends on context and that their inclusion should not be enforced. I've also expressed my view that the G&S/Composer project people who resist outside pressure to implement infoboxes are being inappropriately nagged. Legitimate concerns that I have every right to express, would you not agree? Good night--MistyMorn (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What I saw was you seemingly inviting opinions from others on the nature of the discussion only to abruptly revert to framing the entire debate in terms of absolutes using adversarial language like "missionary zeal" and promoting an "us versus them" attitude through the use of loaded terms like "active editors". While I didn't imagine you would be convinced on the immediate need for an infobox on this article (and went out of my way to point out that was not my intention in joining this debate) I did not expect my every comment to be flippantly dismissed, especially with a comment like "thanks but no thanks" as if this were some offer to be refused rather than a matter of discussion in which your opinion carries no more implicit weight than anyone else's. If we're done here it's because there yet remains a factional opposition to collaboration amongst certain camps rather than because anyone has a right of refusal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No comment (NOTBATTLEGROUND).--MistyMorn (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Common sense

Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" principle gives editors lots of freedom. Thus, it is allowable for an editor who likes infoboxes to add one, where none exists. It is equally allowable for an editor who doesn't like infoboxes to remove it—there is no existing WP policy that mandates infoboxes. Of course, chaos would soon ensue if all editors acted in accordance with their personal preferences, regardless of all else. To avoid this, we employ simple pragmatic common sense, and adopt consensual procedures; thus, if within a particular project the consensus is for infoboxes, then articles within that project will have them and the consensus will be respected, even by those who don't like them. Where the consensus is against infoboxes, that will be respected, too. Among my own biographical articles, for example, Tom Driberg and Cosmo Gordon Lang have infoboxes, Gustav Mahler and Frederick Delius don't, since I follow the different project consensuses. Of course, any such consensus has to be within the broad framework of Wikipedia's overall policies, so any agreement eithin a project to, say, remove leads from articles would be null and void. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow just saw this argument - What? No project has the right to control the articles that may fall under there scope? Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages. Each case must be dealt with individually as no one group has this power over articles that fall under there scope. Common sense would tell us that articles fall under many projects so why would any projects have rights over an articles layout. If a project cant get there ideas upgraded to a policy or guidelines - then they are just that - an idea that has no weight in an argument for inclusion or exclusion of anything. Would have to go threw the WP:PROPOSAL to make this real and binding. Advise pages are not policy and hold no more weight then a essay does when it come to implementation . Moxy (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, carefully re-read what Brianboulton has written. Consensus is what is being upheld here by not including infoboxes on G&S articles. The project came to this consensus ages ago, so just because it isn't policy does not mean that it should not be followed. There is currently no Wiki-wide policy/guideline that mandates infoboxes, so it's up to the projects/main contributors to build consensus in or against its favor. María (habla conmigo) 15:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually its the editors that contribute to the article that make this layout changes not a project as whole. As i have said before no project can have sweeping layout ideas that are not based in policy. NP if for this individual case the consensus in non-inclusion - but its not possible to have a projects ideas on what they like and dont like spread to every article they think falls under there scope. To think is ok to tell our editors that they must ask a project permission before they edit pages is nuts and fundamentally the opposite of our Founding principles that anyone can edit. If its not policy or consensus is not reached in each case then there is a big problem of asserting ownership over articles. An advice page written by several members of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. But like i have said in this case if editors that have actually help contribute to the page make this decision fine - but to have outsiders (those just part of a project) that have never edited the page telling our editors what they can and cant do is wrong in every way.Moxy (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me but some here replied in good faith following a request for comment! MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps i am not clear in what i am saying - yes we can all see that its a "request for comment!" - However people are saying things like "consensus not to use infoboxes on G&S project articles". This argument is not based in reality of how things work here. All is ok if editors here dont like the box for this article, but to quote a projects advice page is not right or binding. I personally dont care about the box, but am very concern over the assertion that the project has some sort of power over the articles and\our editors as a whole when it comes to this related articles. It would be like WP:bio coming along and saying you must have a box because "our" advise page say so. As of right now the project page say Following the Opera project guidelines, yet we all know this to be wrong as its not a guideline its simply an advised page that is not binding, yet this is whats being implied is that it is a guideline.!!!Moxy (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

[left]]All of the editors who have done substantial editing on this page, that's Tim, me and Marc, think there should not be an infobox in this article for the reasons that I give above in the Comment section in my second paragraph. Does that help? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, the reason why the opera project created the guideline in the first place was in an effort to avoid lengthy discussions like this one here. After having multiple discussions about info boxes on various individual article pages where the same points were re-hashed over and over and over and consensus always was to delete the info box, we decided to create a guideline against info boxes in order to save time. I think this was a reasonable course of action. In almost 100% of these cases the main content contibutors didn't want an info box, and it was non-content contributing editors from outside of the opera, composer, and G&S projects who wanted to add them. The same is true in this discussion. Why shouldn't wikiprojects develop guidelines through consensus and implement them? As I pointed out above, the editors who reached this consensus are the editors who create most of the content on wikipedia within this area, and they are also the editors which watch the articles in this area for vandalism and accuracy. It really annoys me that editors without a vested interest in the articles in this content area seem to think they know what's best for these articles; even though the ones who actually bother to watch, improve, research and write the articles in the first place disagree. This discussion is a classic example of editors trying to impose their cookie cutter vision of wikipedia onto a part of the encyclopedia that chooses to be different while still following all of wikipedia's mandated policies. I'm tired of having this discussion over and over, and I'm tired of having to delete infoboxes with inaccurate information added to articles by drive by editors who are completely ignorant about the subject matter of the article in question. The day disinfo boxes are forced upon opera/composer articles is the day I quit wikipedia for good. Who will then watch the more than 10,000 articles on my watchlist to prevent vandalism and inacuracies? How many more quality content writing editors will be driven out by stupid policies advocated by wiki-bureaucrats who are more interested in implementing and enforcing policies than actually researching and writing articles?4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, I've been looking at an article you created 18 months back entitled Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas (btw, I've made a drive-by copy edit to a section title, which you may or may not find appropriate). I think it's a really interesting subject and the article's a valuable addition to Wikipedia. I note that as yet it doesn't have an infobox, though I don't doubt that in the fullness of time you and your fellow content writers will be able to come up with a good one for this scientific topic. However, I'm by no means so sure about the present page and I think the proposals you can see above read more like death certificates than anything else... Can't we just agree to live and let live?--MistyMorn (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If the project is not able or unwilling to get there ideas for guidelines passed as "real" policy then you are stuck talking about this every time. Pointing to a page and implying its policy is not a proper way to proceed. You would have to validate the reasoning every time this comes up if your project is not willing to get overall community consensus. Pointing to old arguments were there is not a clear way forward is not a good thing nor is it helpful to new editors that have no clue that advise pages are not policy.Moxy (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing my work. I hope we dont find an infobox for these type of articles. I am not a fan of infoboxes.Moxy (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh... You lost me there (sorry). Perhaps partially because I thought this 'talk' was meant to be about the Richard D'Oyly Carte page (and, ahime, whether or not an infobox could be imposed here). I guess this is not really the right place for discussion of whether infoboxes in general can be considered mandatory in the context of different projects. How about the Village Pump as a starting place? Perhaps it might help reach some clarity on this supposedly overarching issue without taking over the talk pages of individual articles, here and elsewhere.--MistyMorn (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but i bring it up because people are referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan#Infoboxes in articles that then leads editors to supportive policy that is to be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera were there is noting of the sort. this is my main complaint here.Moxy (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I changed the wording - it no longer refers to a "guideline", but just advice of the members of the project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

comment wow, i just wandered onto the edit war over infoboxes. i would say the number one con is that the box code is nasty, and as hard to fix as a table. the pro is that it frames and dresses up a photo, and article. 99% of featured articles have one: does it not imply a lack of quality to the article? (opera has only 16; G&S 6) our target audience is visually oriented, why don't we poll them? if you want to play "daughter in law elect", then i will play "wandering minstrel" and wander on over to more friendly projects. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

99% would imply only 33 FAs don't have infoboxes, which is nonsense, though I'm sure all the hurricanes & video games have them. "box code" is the least of the issues with the things - see above at length. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) 99% of featured articles have one [citation needed]. Don't make blanket statements. Besides, this article isn't an FA; it was reviewed and passed as GA two years ago -- I should know, as I'm the one who did the review. Infoboxes are not required for either GA or FA, so to suggest that it "lack[s] quality" without one is simply absurd. This article's lack of a largely repetitive superfluous box means only that consensus was and still is against its inclusion. Okay, one blanket statement that happens to be true: 100% of this article's main contributors are against including an infobox. María (habla conmigo) 14:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Are those articles not watched already, then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Meta- and Linked- data

From the above (tl;dr) it appears that not many of you are aware that infoboxes emit metadata about their subjects, and are used by DBpedia to include Wikipedia data in the web of linked data. You are, now. Perhaps you might like to consider the importance of those features, instead of bike-shed colouration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I completely forgot. The linked data you mention is of the utmost importance, which is why infoboxes are mandatory across the project, and have been for quite some time. María (habla conmigo) 12:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory? Presumably you could direct us to the policy page where that requirement is documented. Please do. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have prefaced the above statement with: !!!***-->> SARCASM <<--***!!! The fact that infoboxes are not and have never been mandatory was kind of the point. Sorry for not being clearer. ;) María (habla conmigo) 13:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I made no claims of mandatoriness, only importance. Feel free to attempt to refute that, preferably with a reasoned argument instead of sarcasm. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the sarcasm. However, my point remains thus: were the linked data so very important, infoboxes would be mandatory. They're not. Where are the policies regarding metadata's importance? I'm not aware of any. Although they certainly may be helpful in semantic web practices, infoboxes are optional on Wikipedia. It therefore comes down to consensus, which happens to be against the infobox on this particular article. María (habla conmigo) 13:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Persondata functions the same way and should be there as it is.Moxy (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If the metadata in question are facts like 'cause of death', I really don't think Wikipedia is missing out on a great deal in this particular context. And, as Moxy points out, there are other ways of communicating such metadata without inappropriately thrusting marginal information straight under readers' eyes at one of the most prominent points on the page.--MistyMorn (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death is one, optional, parameter of many (two of the four examples above do not even include it); stop picking an extreme example to denigrate the more normal. What you think we're missing out in is clearly not what others find to be the case. I asked for reasoned argument, not Personal opinions Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Persondata does not function in the same way (and, furthermore, is proprietary to Wikipedia); is far more limited and is far harder to "police" (an issue raised by those against infoboxes, above). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your statement "were the linked data so very important, infoboxes would be mandatory" is false. Your statement about consensus here doubly and palpably so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

When something is important, the community does tend to develop guidelines and policies around it. The argument you are making is totally unfamiliar to me, and I am not qualified to comment on its merits. What I do know is that, if you are right, many other articles ouught to change in the same way. The issue, then, is not really about this article in particular, but on the purported benefits of editing many articles in a similar way. There is probably some other forum where a guideline (if it is desirable to have one) could be worked out, and people with the right qualifications (I am not one of them) could agree on the technical and practical details. There is no guideline or policy now, which suggests to me that the idea does not yet have full support, however desirable this might be. I suspect most people contributing regularly to this little article aren't in a position to have an informed agreement or disagreement with your position. I am certainly not. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The particular linked data being referred to by Andy Mabbett here is a Microformat. WP:WikiProject Microformats, of which he is the founder, has long been pushing for the addition of infoboxes to every article as the (only?) way to get microformats encoded into them. In the past this has proved quite disruptive (ending up at ArbCom twice). However, the value of microformats and their use on Wikipedia has no clear consensus at all as can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. Their alleged value should have no bearing on the decision here. Voceditenore (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The linked data referred to is nothing to do with microformats; so it is the rest of your fallacious rant which has no bearing on the decision here. However, for the record, the microformat project has not been disruptive and has not ended up at ArbCom, let alone done so twice. The project has never called - nor have I - for the addition of an infobox to every article. The consensus for the use of microformat on Wikipedia can be seen by the fact that we emit literally millions of them. We've also been praised for doing so by Chris Heilmann of the Yahoo Developer Network, who said they are "yummy hack fodder ... marking up data in a predictable manner is a great way to allow developers to play with your information". They are endorsed by Erik Möller, Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Fellow editors can read more of their advantages in my comment at the RfC (an RfC whose summary fully and accurately summarises, without bothering to verify, the many false claims made during its progress).. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree on one point—ArbCom found twice that you personally (not the project) had been disruptive over the issue. [4] [5]. In any case, the fact remains there is no consensus whatsoever concerning the value of microformats (which are currently added via infoboxes). Thus there is no reason why that particular cart should drive this particular horse. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My "reasoning" is as follows: Given that none of the proponents of infoboxes on this page has been able to provide any positive evidence from current guidelines (or style guides) of mandatory inclusion of infoboxes in FA, GA or elsewhere, this talk page dedicated to one particular article would not seem to be an appropriate place to campaign for their inclusion. To avoid the pitfall of being perceived as merely disruptive, the campaigners would do better to take their case to a more general forum where discussion of proposed guideline changes is genuinely appropriate.--MistyMorn (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the proponents of infoboxes has claimed that they are mandatory. You may equally say that none of the none of the opponents of infoboxes has provided any evidence that they are banned. this talk page is the right page to campaign for the inclusion of an infobox in the article with which it is paired, is it not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that this talk page should be the right place to make friendly and constructive observations on the article under discussion, rather than persistently campaigning for the inclusion of an optional feature which the main content editors deem it preferable not to include, for reasons they (among others) have clearly stated on multiple occasions. To my innocent (relatively newbie) eyes, this looks suspiciously like co-ordinated "disruptive behaviour". Just my 2 cents--MistyMorn (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out above, any pleas for special consideration of the views of "the main content editors" are contrary to core Wikipedia policy. All of the (friendly and constructive) points I make at the start of this section are general, but apply specifically here also (as can be said of most of the points made against infoboxes). Your far-from-friendly and certainly not constructive insinuation of "co-ordinated disruptive behaviour" is both unfounded and unwarranted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was about to edit "co-ordinated disruptive behaviour' to "targeted disruptive behaviour". That really is what much of the content on this page looks like to my relatively untutored eyes. That's all. Signing off--MistyMorn (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's no more friendly or constructive, equally unfounded and unwarranted, and no less unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm right. What I am saying is that it's my honest impression. I thought that might be useful feedback.--MistyMorn (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're still wrong, but hey, better to make ad-hominem mud-slinging attacks based on 6- and 4-year old disputes, in each case where the chief protagonists against me have apologised for them, than address the issue at hand, eh? You also ignore my pointing out the fact that the linked data referred to is nothing to do with microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your original suggestion was that we "might like to consider the importance of those features" (i.e., metadata). I have no idea how we would consider them. What I can do is judge whether the proposed content makes this article better. For the reasons amply cited above, I believe it does not. Arguments for benefits beyond the article itself are probably better addressed in other forums. As noted in the RfC to which Andy Mabbett referred us, "The desired [sic] outcome of finding a clear consensus to either embrace or disfavour microformats has not quite been reached." Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, like I said, the RfC is both muddled (to put it very politely) in its conclusion, and irrelevant here. But this article is undoubtedly better for emitting metadata, as linked data, because it is thus available to automated re-users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Muddled" the RfC conclusion may well be, but that's the source you suggested we ought to have a look at. It seems to be the most recent thorough discussion on Wikipedia, and apparently your arguments were not sufficiently persuasive at the time. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the RfC was brought up by someone else. Now, can we move past that irrelevance, and concentrate on the meat of the issue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It was you who suggested we ought to look at the RfC as expressing the merits of your position. Without your linking to it, I would never have known the RfC was there. That was a discussion in which many editors having far more expertise on the subject than I, participated. Obviously, once I got there, I read other editors' comments, not just yours. What I see is that, in the opinion of those commenting, the benefits and drawbacks are pretty evenly balanced, resulting in no current Wikipedia consensus. I realize this isn't the outcome you preferred, but it is what it is. I defer to that outcome, since there have been no intervening technical developments that would warrant a different conclusion. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I referred only to single section of that document, and only after someone else had referred - and linked - to the document as a whole. You'll note that the section to which I referred, and which I wrote, is not mentioned in the summary; although the points I refute are repeated unchallenged in the summary. Most of the people commenting display no expertise in the matter. I guess the answer to my question "Now, can we move past that irrelevance, and concentrate on the meat of the issue?" is "no" :-( Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. You refer us to a page, but think we should consider only some of the views expressed there, and not others. Doesn't work that way. Some pretty smart people pointed out significant issues for which I saw no real answer. This is an idea that needs more work in the shop before it's ready to drive on the expressway. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, everyone, lets be kind to each other and stay on topic. Unless there is something new we wish to say about the Richard D'Oyly Carte article, I hope we can refrain from arguing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

FAQ section at the top

I must say, dropping in to follow this discussion every few days has been educational, both wrt to editors' varying opinions and wrt computer/software/programming technology.

When I commented a week and a half ago, I had no idea this was a hot topic with such strong opinions and frequently discussed.

Suggestion: Why not add a FAQ section to the top of this page like has been done elsewhere? Understand, people don't read those things until they're pointed out; the drill goes like this: 1. Editor X asks why there's no infobox, or boldly inserts one. 2. Regular Editor Y sweetly responds, "Please see FAQs." 3. Editor X says, "Whoops, sorry," and tiptoes out. There are alternate #3s, of course, but all that needs to be said is, "Please see FAQs." Yopienso (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That might be helpful. When the RFC is closed, I may do that. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The arguments pro and con really have nothing to do with this article; this just happens to be the place where they are being discussed at the moment. There are hundreds of other articles where the discussion could have taken place, and none of the arguments would have been any different. I would recommend putting an FAQ somewhere in the project namespace, where any number of different article talk pages could point to it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I hesitate to mention it, lest the hosts of Midian prowl and prowl around, but in articles under the auspices of another project we put a note at the top of each edit page:  That has so far successfully repelled editors inclined to add infoboxes whether in innocence or with malice aforethought. Tim riley (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The notes should be removed, except from specific articles where the consensus has emerged. WikiProject guidelines that go against our greater article guidelines shouldn't be pushed like this. Them From Space 03:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject guidelines do not trump "greater article guidelines." But on matters where no greater article guideline exists (such as the present situation), projects often provide a framework for establishing a common look-and-feel for related articles. That framework, like anything else on Wikipedia, can change on a dime, where there is consensus to do so. But no one has ever suggested that projects cannot work together to make related articles consistent, as long as they are working within the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. That is a huge part of what WikiProjects do. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A greater guideline does exist: WP:IBX, which is part of the MoS, and which says "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.". The note described above is a clear, deliberate and unacceptable attempt to circumvent that greater guideline, and has a chilling effect on discussion, let alone the development, of such consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Discussion at each individual article is still the way of going about it. Of course, if often turns out that if an edit fails to get consensus in one place, attempting the same thing somewhere else will fare no better. If you keep making the same argument to the same people, with no new information, you are likely to get the same answer. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"That has so far successfully repelled editors inclined to add infoboxes". QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think an FAQ box is a good idea because consensus like this should be easily linkable in the future. Linking to a Wproject advice page is misleading to editors, as consensus must be reached in each case. We must be careful not to bite the new editors that come across this page, and a nice link we can refer to about this specific page is good. Our guidelines are clear on the fact that projects don't own pages. However, talks of this nature (about this page) and their outcome should be respected. Moxy (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)