Talk:Gioachino Rossini/Archive 2

Peer review
With a view to taking the article to Featured article, and I have thoroughly revised the text and added images. Any comments, suggestions or queries will be most gladly received on the article's peer review page.  Tim riley  talk   09:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Internet archive
An editor added to the article in "External Links" this link  with the comment "this vast trove of online material needs to be linked somewhere/somehow". I have reverted this edit, saying that I am taking it to the talk page. The link leads to an undifferentiated and underscribed hodge podge of links to a wide variety of Rossiniana of very varying quality, including YouTube links, on-line books of doubtful or unknown worth of the early twentieth and nineteenth century (including books in German, English, French and Italian), arrangements of Rossini arias for flute and harp, etc. etc. etc. I don't think this indiscriminate material adds anything to the article, and I would dispute that it 'needs' to be given a link there. Opinions would be welcome.--Smerus (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for determining for us all that no one else will need bother looking at and discovering one of the largest open source (and continually growing) collections of Rossini on the Internet. The non-profit library Internet Archive is not a good source for Wikipedia because the collection might contain some things and not other things that some users disapprove of. --  Green  C  17:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me correct you - I did not 'determine' anything, but in fact opened up this discussion on the talk page. Thanks.--Smerus (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful about linking to sites that offer unauthorised copyright material. If GreenC wishes to link to specific items in the Internet Archive that are clearly in the public domain that will be admirable.  Tim riley  talk   18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Missing infobox
It's odd that the Wikipedia page devoted to a figure of Rossini's stature should have no "infobox" in its upper-right-hand corner. I can't recall seeing any comparable instance here. Mucketymuck (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a look at these other Featured Articles on composers: Maurice Ravel, Richard Wagner, Frédéric Chopin, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Josquin des Prez, Francis Poulenc, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Charles-Valentin Alkan, Edward Elgar etc, etc. The consensus is that info boxes are no use in such life-and-works articles. You would either have to list a composer's works (impracticable), pick an arbitrary selection (unencyclopaedic), or just say Occupation: composer, which would be no help to the reader.  Tim riley  talk   08:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Rossini and cooking
How come there is no mention of Rossini's interest in cooking or the dishes named after him? I am surprised it is not even mentioned in the talk page. Gidip (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We mention his gourmet tastes: "For Rossini, Paris offered continual gourmet delights, as his increasingly rotund shape began to reflect". I don't think he was in fact interested in cooking, or is even known to have cooked at all, though I am open to correction on this point. The story of his tears at the fate of the turkey Souvaroff is fun, but not core encyclopaedic material. Mention of some of the dishes served under his name at Beau Séjour could be worth a footnote, though, and I shall draft one for consideration here.  Tim riley  talk   09:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this? Several haute cuisine dishes were named after Rossini, some of which later featured on his menus after he returned to live in Paris in the 1850s. They included Crema alla Rossini, frittata alla Rossini, Tournedos Rossini, and were rich dishes that generally involved the use of truffles and foie gras. [Cite to Servadio, p. 212; I have no idea what the first would have been. A soup, I imagine.], is this OK with you?  Tim riley  talk   09:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, thanks for this! --Smerus (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it`s definitely worth more than a footnote. Gidip (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If others agree with you we can move the sentence to the main text, but on balance I'd vote against doing so. It is tempting when drafting a Featured Article to add all the interesting information one can lay hands on, but it is best to concentrate on the key points.  Tim riley  talk   19:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am with you,, as these admittedly very tasty items are named after R, rather than created by him - only in the latter case would main text be warranted imo.--Smerus (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorana bean
Gerda Arendt thought you might be interested in this, from the final section in the above new article:

Composer Gioachino Rossini once accepted payment of "a few kilos of those precious beans" from Giovanni Pacini for correcting one of Pacini's scores.

--valereee (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Not of any use for the article, I think, but somebody may conceivably find it interesting to read here. Most kind of you to mention it.  Tim riley  talk   16:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, just a bit of trivia. Pacini lived in Pescia and nearby Viareggio for part of his life, and his family was Tuscan, so the bean was likely a favorite of his. If you ever run across a mention of it in your research, I'd love to know! In Italian sources it would likely be called Fagiolo di Sorana. --valereee (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Source for: He set new standards for both comic and serious opera.
Hi, I translate the article to Czech and it is now in the process of voting for FA. One colleague raised doubts about the claim "He set new standards for both comic and serious opera" from introduction. Please, what is a source for this information? Thanks. --Pavouk (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! The sentence encapsulates a large amount of the (sourced) information in the main body of the article. On English WP we tend to avoid citations in leads assuming the information is sourced in the main text, but if you are keen on one for your translation you will not lack for hits if you put "Rossini set new standards" into Google, including a university site, a concert programme and a book by the excellent Jonathan Keates. Best wishes,  Tim riley  talk   16:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And many thanks Pavouk for your interest! S pozdravem - a udržujte zdraví!!--Smerus (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And, please, some direct access to some source? --Pavouk (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You won't go wrong with this. Keates is a respected author, best known (to me anyway) for his excellent writing about Handel, but sound on Rossini, for sure.  Tim riley  talk   20:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Any recognition of this song?
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b52502175j/f5.planchecontact.r=Rossini

Lovely illustrations, but it's a little messily written. If it's useful for Wikipedia, I can clean it up and upload. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 22:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a piano piece. Printed, an album leaf, dedicated o a noble woman, - one of his "sins of old age". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Charles Motte - Rossini et Georges IV - la soirée de Brighton.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Charles Motte - Rossini et Georges IV - la soirée de Brighton.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 27, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-04-27. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
Many composer articles are getting infoboxes to summarize the content in the article (Chopin, Prokofiev, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, etc)- this article could certainly use one. Proposed box to the left. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with the draft box here is that it violates Wikipedia's rules. I-boxes must summarise the main points of the article. The link to another article entirely is a breach of our guidelines, as well as treating our poor readers like idiots.  Tim riley  talk   16:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I think that is a misunderstanding. The box does not have to summarize the person - impossible even for the lead - but should list the facts that can be summarized for given parameters, here of infobox person. An infobox like this found community consensus for Chopin, for Beethoven also , and for Mozart , to name just a few. I am with the community and support it. Discussion of parameters and the image caption (as in many articles, creator credit was debated recently) is a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Does my memory play me false or was the above editor sanctioned for bullying over info-boxes?  Tim riley  talk   18:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the case you're thinking of is WP:ARBINFOBOX, but that took place ten years ago- Gerda has been very active since then and I'd hope there's been some change in their approach to infoboxes. As for summary, I agree with Gerda's points- as for linking to other articles, this is seen on many composer articles, like the ones I mentioned in my first comment. And, linking to other articles in infoboxes is certainly not unheard of; is linking to Pesaro, Italy a violation? What about the link to The Merry Wives of Windsor on your co-FA Falstaff- is that a violation? I think not; these links are present for the convenience of the reader, so that one could easily access Rossini's composition list directly from his own article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My approach to infoboxes changed once, in 2012, in the first infobox discussion I encountered, Samuel Barber, where I opposed as redundant, but understood that different users want different formats of the same information. While my approach never changed thereafter, arbitrators changed, and their look at things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a significant difference between a link that provides context for content and a link that replaces content. If someone is unable to follow a link (for example, reading offline), "place=Pesaro, Italy" tells them the country, and more if they know the country. "works=List of works" requires following the link to give any information. Beyond that, this seems to be an instance of the bandwagon fallacy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The link to the list of compositions also provides context, saying that he was notable for compositions (without a need to click). This has been the accepted compromise for a short infobox in many cases including the three mentioned above. Alternatives could be to fill occupation and/or known_for, but why deviate from a standard treating works neutrally without personal preferences, a standard that has worked for eight years (looking at Beethoven, installed by the arbitrator who wrote the infoboxes case)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria, In addition to Gerda's points, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The entire point of links is to provide more information beyond listing his works, which would make the entire box a ridiculous length- not even a link to Pesaro, Italy could be in paper. And on the topic of "bandwagon fallacy": fallacy, certainly not, I truly believe that this box will improve the readability of the article; and bandwagon, why is that a bad thing? Why is it bad to want this article's style to comply with others that receive significantly more traffic (Beethoven, Mozart, etc)? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * NOTPAPER refers to content breadth and depth, and has nothing to do with linking. The relevant guidance is instead MOS:FORCELINK: "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links". And using traffic as a proxy for quality or best practice is equally fallacious. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The text "List of compositions" informs readers that he made compositions, without a link, as I tried to explain. There are alternatives. I believe (generally) that a link to a composer's list of works would be a good thing to have in the lead also, as an option to look at their work in more depth than the typical biography can provide. I also believe that any autograph manuscript of their music would add more than their signature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria, your interpretation of FORCELINK makes sense, but there's a key detail missing at that same bullet point: "Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence." An infobox is not a sentence; we are not forcing the reader to go to that article, but rather showing them where they can find the full info about Rossini's works. Help:Infobox says in the very first sentence: "An infobox is a fixed-format table usually added to the top right-hand corner of articles to consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." By putting the list of compositions page in the infobox, we are navigating readers to the article where they can find the full amount of information. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No, and this comes down to what I was saying above about supplementing vs substituting for content. An example of the occasional navigation function the help page mentions can be seen at infobox writer, which has the ability to embed a portal. However, the portal exists solely to collect related articles, not to provide additional information about the subject of any article in which that template is embedded; the reader's understanding of the subject does not depend on being able to access it. Conversely, what you're proposing here is to substitute a list of works (which I agree would be problematic) with a link to a different article - thus making it so readers could only understand the oeuvre of the article subject by following a link, which is what NOFORCELINK exists to combat. This is reinforced by the relevant guideline, which indicates that the purpose of the template is "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" - not "in some other article" (emphasis added). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't follow, because I strongly believe that a works list is in fact an extension of the creator's article, just kept separate because of article length consideration. I saw the comment by 4meter4 (below) sooner and replied there further. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If we want to show that opera was what Rossini was best known for, we might say: Lists of operas and other compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


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

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


 * Comment. In reading the discussion above, it seems that the main concern is the link to the list of compositions. I agree with Nikkimaria's interpretation of MOS:FORCELINK and that the list should not be included in the info-box per that policy language (ditto for all composer pages). The rest of the info-box is not objectionable; although it is redundant to the lead section. However, given the desire for info-boxes for style/visual uniformity, I have no objection to including the rest of the info-box in the article. This seems like the best compromise and policy based outcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To link to a composers list of works - instead of individual pieces - is part of infobox classical composer, and was already in 2008. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ Template design isn't policy. MOS:FORCELINK is policy. The fact that the template makes it possible to break policy doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow policy. We should follow the policy language created to govern the encyclopedia. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see the point you and Nikkimaria are making, and I understand how it may apply to the infobox. But, I don't quite agree with the policy- hence, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking; see the section here. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the policy (admittedly for the first time), and it tells me "Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence". It tells me
 * "as far as possible", so not to be avoided at all cost
 * that it is meant for sentences, not for infoboxes, navboxes and "See also" sections. In an infobox, the content to be expected is clear by the parameter name. I don't think it would be a good idea to deprive the majority of readers of the value of a quick connection to a composer's works, for the benefit of the few who read only print material, and who will hopefully find out about the composer's works in the article, just not at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Repeating from above but it seems to have been overlooked: the lists of compositions and operas of Rossini, or any composer, are not arbitrary links but extensions of the person's article, - for less productive composers they are part of the biography. To have links to those extensions prominently seems a useful service to the reader to me, and if we have guidelines against them we should perhaps change the guidelines. Models are Chopin, as community consensus, and Beethoven,, as community consensus. We remember the anniversary of Brian's death today, with great sadness but thankful for his readiness for experiment and compromise, and a fresh look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The remainder of that bullet point you quoted is: "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links." Given the output without links is "Works	  List of compositions", I fail to see how that link fulfils the policy requirements. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (also repeated from above): it says: "the text" - an infobox is not text. Paper readers would hopefully find the sections about Rossini's music, but should that deprive the majority of online readers of a quick link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the IB and it's one image and text - it's not possible to say "an infobox is not text" when it very much is text, as anyone can see.Why are you depriving third party readers, computer readers, printed readers of full comprehension? Wasn't that one of the arguments put forward for IBs in the first place: that we don't just write for people who visit the page, but for computer readers too? Has anything changed so it is no longer the case? - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not what I see. An infobox is a collection of parameters and their arguments. Agreed? The paper reader will see the parameters, including "work". If they can't follow the link they can look for his work in their paper. The rest - convenience link for the majority - still applies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see an image and words. Words are text.You are denying computer readers (and therefore reusers of our output) the full picture. That was deemed vital in so many infobox arguments of the past, but now seems not to matter to the very people who were pushing it before. Never mind: the FORCELINK policy is fairly clear, and links like this breach it. I don't think continuing this is going to be constructive, so I'll step away. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I notified WP:Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, MOS:FORCELINK is a policy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * True. It's technically an official WP:GUIDES; but that carries the same weight in my view. Official guidelines were developed through the RFC process and have broad encyclopedia wide support.4meter4 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Recommend not adding an infobox. Such boxes are best used in sports-related bios, royalty & politicians. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @GoodDay, what do you mean by "best used"? There are plenty of bios not about sports, politics, or music for that matter, that use infoboxes: Edward Mitchell Bannister, Harold Innis, Matthew Boulton, Elliott Fitch Shepard, etc etc, and this is just me randomly pulling from the FA list. If the purpose of an infobox is to "contain important facts and statistics of a type which are common to related articles", then it can (and should) certainly apply to composers, who are people too. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * IMHO, those infoboxes should never have been inserted (but consensus in those RFCs chose otherwise) into those bios. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @GoodDay, there were no RfCs for the articles linked above- in fact, there's no questioning of the boxes on any of those articles' talk pages. It is simply understood that an infobox is appropriate for a bio article- why should the same not be applicable to composers? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then, I won't protest if an RFC is opened up on those bios, to remove the infoboxes. At the least, make them collapsible. I just don't see the need for infoboxes in bios of those who aren't royalty, politicians or involved in sports. Royals require 'mentioning of reigns, predecessors/successors & heirs-apparent/presumptive. Politicians require Tenure of office, predecessors/successors, political parties. Sports figures require stats, teams, etc. Concerning this bio, none of that info is required. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then it seems we have differing opinions on the purposes of an infobox. Thanks for pitching in to the debate- not sure where this is headed, but a future RfC would likely be in line, and I appreciate your comments. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) <small style="font-size:66%;">(also not me) <small style="font-size:45%;">(still no) 01:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is obvious to anyone who knows me but I support the infobox because I’m tired of these weird random exceptions and their weird justifications about other crap existing and “rules” nobody’s heard of. And I’m not arguing my case because it’s never constructive in these situations. Dronebogus (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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