Talk:Claudio Monteverdi

Priest
@Aza24, I just wish to enform you that you presented two invalid rationales for removing the sourced fact in this edit. First of all, "notability" does not govern inclusion of facts in articles, WP:DUE does; it's a lower standard of inclusion. The fact that Father Claudio Monteverdi is an ordained Catholic priest is well-documented and widely reported by reliable secondary sources and therefore it is due for mention in his biography. Second, you wrote that four other musicians' articles don't mention their priesthood and therefore this one should not mention it, either. That is an invalid rationale, and you should know it. The state of other articles, whether FA-level or C-class, is irrelevant to the way we do things in this particular article, and so you cannot use a random sampling of article consensus to tell us how to edit this one. In deletion discussion, we'd refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF by a similar principle. Elizium23 (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Elizium23, it is one thing to disagree with my edit, but to purposefully over-explain basic policies to me like I'm a child is not appreciated. Just because something is well-documented and widely reported does not automatically make it appropriate for a subject's first sentence, and you should know that as well... it's well-documented widely reported that Bach fought a Bassoonist, should we add "Bassoon-brawler" to his opening sentence? The only reason I included the comparison to other composers was because an earlier edit (presumably be the same person) incorrectly used the same rationale: "This detail is important biographical information and is always included as an identifier in similar figures (i.e. composers), such as Vivaldi and Soler". In any case, Monteverdi passed the FAC process without "Priest" in the lead, so my reversion was completely justified via WP:FAOWN.
 * On the actual point at hand, I did not dispute that mentioning priesthood is not appropriate for his biography, it is covered widely in the prose already and should probably be added to the lead's second paragraph anyways. It is definitely not warranted for the first sentence. Just a quick glance on other encyclopedias gives: "Italian composer and musician" (Brit); "Italian composer" (Grove); "Italian composer" ; "Italian composer" ; "Italian composer" ; "Italian composer" ; "Italian composer" ; "Italian composer" ; "Composer" etc. No mention of "Italian Priest" as a defining role.   Aza24  (talk)   19:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
Hi @SchroCat – please do not revert solely due to no consensus, as you did twice previously (here and here). Use the edit summary to explain your reasons as why to revert.

I believe that the infobox would help readers find quick facts not covered in prose, such as death place and birth place, and an emphasized link to compositions, something not otherwise previously emphasized and generally useful to readers. It's gradually becoming standard expectation on Wikipedia as well as other sites such as Google to include these infobox-like figures.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 00:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't instruct me how to edit, and particularly don't tell me to breach one of our core pillars. In future, when you make a bold edit that is reverted, don't edit war but use the talk page, which is what I requested in the first edit summary.The key facts of Monteverdi are contained in the opening sentence and the opening paragraph gives a better idea of who he was and why he is important that a box of miscellaneous factoids of no merit. The birth place is in the opening sentence of the second paragraph, although I'll lay good money that no one has ever listened to L'Arianna and thought: 'I wonder where he died' It is hard to consider this "generally useful", although the fact he was Italian is useful and is in the first line. If by "an emphasized link to compositions" you mean an entry like "Works: List of compositions", that breaches MOS:FORCELINK and should not be in any box, although it has become common for that part of the MOS to be ignored in the desire to include a box. As to it being "standard", that's a debatable point, given that every RFC to enforce them (even in biographies) has failed - the wider community do not agree with your claim. It's also refuted by WP:OSE and the MOS regarding IBs, which states "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." That all goes doubly with what any other site in the world may or may not do - its a straw man to claim we need to follow either what Google does, or even what other articles on WP do. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As to them becoming standard, there is a stronger argument than most that graphical panels similar to infoboxes are slowly becoming the internet standard for non-prose information to be given. Google has side-panels. So does Bing. Encyclopedia Britannica. KnowYourMeme has a form of it. I would argue that WP:DUE would require us to adopt this standard. If DUE instructs us to be based on what the rest of the world is related upon, we should give due weight to supplemental panels such as infoboxes and include them. It's not about screen real estate and complaining about repetitiveness. It's about following DUE, which isn't a straw man – it's Wikipedia policy.
 * Even composer articles are starting to move in this direction. The discussion for Vivaldi, whilst not closed, looks like it will include an IB very soon as I personally foresee a rough consensus in favor of inclusion. Look at Beethoven – his article's Talk Page archives support an infobox's inclusion as early as 2013 (which destroys your claim that every RFC to enforce them...has failed).
 * If MOS:FORCELINK is consistently violated and not strictly enforced, is it even a guideline? If it's happening, either it's a part of MOS in name only, or it's being misapplied or overly exaggerated, the latter of which roughly summarizes the entirety of the anti-Infobox movement.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 02:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstand DUE if you think it means we need to slavishly copy what other sites do. We have OSE that says we don’t even need to copy what are own articles do, let alone other websites. It’s a complete straw man argument that holds no water.Please don’t misquote me to change the meaning. If you really have misunderstood, let me clarify for you: every centralised attempt (ie. at the village pump or similar) to say IBs should appear on every page or every biography has completely failed. The community has roundly rejected such efforts.If you wish to have the guideline replaced or struck, please open an RFC on that page to change it. As it’s stands, that guideline represents the consensus of the community, regardless or the wilful attempts of a minority to ignore it.I am sorry you are under the misguided opinion that there is an ‘anti-IB movement’. There isn’t. It’s another false claim that is oft-repeated, but always laughably wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The community has roundly rejected such efforts – rejected, or no consensus?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 13:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Rejected. - SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 18:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have neither the time nor the inclination to go over such unprofitable ground once again, but the archives of the Village Pump hold most of them. There may be some in the archives of the MOS instructions relating to the use of IBs, but I don't know or care: I'd rather spend my time improving articles rather than having pointless discussions like these. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll hold off on that for now. Furthermore – what in DUE would disprove my argument?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 20:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * DUE has zero to do with IBs. -SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we follow it for the execution of Wikipedia, though?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 00:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, DUE has zero to do with IBs. I think you need to read the policy page to understand what DUE actually is. - SchroCat (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (I had a straw man once, that didn't hold water, and it proved to be very messy.) But I think SchroCat is right here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)