Talk:Gustav Holst

Infobox?
In the discussion above, CFCF said "Here is a deliberate decision, this reflects consensus on the page". It is not, because no consensus was ever established, but can be now. This being a featured article with one principal editors Tim riley, I would no have dared to even suggest an infobox, hidden notice or not, just for respect ;) - Please keep to what the arbs requested: civility, and sticking to this particular infobox for this article, not infoboxes in general. I, as a reader, like to have the facts about birth and death in one place, and an easy access to his list of works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Oh FFS... No need to repeat the same key details as are in the lead. There is no metadata argument here as the festering cesspit of Wikidata as the factoids are already present there. – SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes exist to repeat key details, including those in the lede, in a convenient and accessible format. As such they do so by consent on the majority of Wikipedia articles, and in almost every article on which they are used. Even setting aside the fallacy in your objection on those grounds, the proposed infobox includes information not stated in the lede of this article. The machine-readable metadata emitted by the infobox - again, as is done by consent on the majority of Wikipedia articles - is available to in-broswer tools while their operator is viewing the article; the existence of Wikidata does not negate that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no fallacy in what I have written. "proposed infobox includes information not stated in the lede of this article": if you had actually read what I had written, I said the same key details. Not all factoids forced into IBs are "key". - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Please move on, for god's sake!  Cassianto Talk   13:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No info box required when it is merely repeating the same facts already covered in the lead. Jack1956 (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * An easily refuted canard; see my comment, above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox The article became a FA in May 2013 without one, so it seems pointless to be discussing why it suddenly needs to have one now. The hidden comment mentioned above has been there a long time and it has been "respected". Not seeing how respect=infobox. We hope (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's an editor looking for some respect on his/her choice of no infobox on Giulio Cesare. We hope (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVASS applies. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no canvassing of anyone here. Please do not give the impression of falsely accusing people of things of which they are not guilty. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that this accusation could cut both ways because I see many of the infobox patrol have shown up here also. We hope (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The people running the FA process gave made clear that the presence or otherwise of an infobox is not a factor in awarding FA status. Therefore, the award of that status does not proscribe the subsequent addition of an infobox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the people that run FAC is a straw man: it's the fact the article has gone through an open community-supported review process (actually two, when the PR process is taken into account). As the question of the IB was not raised in either of those processes, there is a strongly implied consensus that it is not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that the FA process precludes an infobox if the article had none previously. It's the timing which caused the comment-fine for 3+ years not to have one and now suddenly it's of vital importance. We hope (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The lack of mention of an infobox is not evidence of any consensus on its exclusion. The policy is "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." The absence of a discussion is not now, and never has been, a discussion, no matter how much you'd like to delude yourself otherwise. --RexxS (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not deluded rex, so take your ever-snide comments elsewhere. The lack of discussion on a point does not mean that there is no consensus, and the two open review processes did not feel that this article was somehow incomplete or lacking without the need of an aesthetically unpleasant and unpleasing box at the top. – SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's fallacious twice over. Presence or absence of infoboxes is not part of either GAR or FAC criteria, so that's a red herring, and whether infoboxes are pleasing or not is entirely subjective, thus an argument to emotion (and, obviously, lot of editors and readers do find them pleasing).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No red herring and no argument to emotion. I suggest you concentrate your energies on people other than me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's proof by assertion (i.e., "no it's not!" without any evidence or rationale), and further argument to emotion combined with the hand-wave (i.e. "by implying you're being mean to me, I can use this swipe at your character to try to fool others into thinking I've made a substantive response when in fact it's an obvious dodge"). And don't flatter yourself; I've addressed several other fallacious arguments in this thread, no just yours. While we're talking about fallacies, you should probably actually read the article Straw man before referring to the concept again. You accuse others of it frequently, but are misusing the term in every single case I've seen so far. It does not mean "an irrelevant argument", "an inapplicable premise" or anything similar to that; it means "mischaracterizing the position of an opponent as something silly or irrational, then arguing against that fake, weak position instead of against the opponent's actual stronger position".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have had to point out to you elsewhere on other occasions, I have no desire to discuss anything with you, particularly the false and misleading statements you make. Good bye mccandlish. – SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support infobox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dont care to vote ...but idiotboxes help the idiots. We should not assume all like only one way to absorb  information. Its really to bad there is a small segment of editors that still dont understand why the quick-info-box  is useful to some and that its a bad idea to only have one format.--Moxy (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the idiotbox metaphore, I am in certain agreement with Moxy who is concise and spot on primarily correct. I'll even reserve my own vote. I will say that to my observation, the spirit of Arbcom's ruling is not evident by the extraneous discussion being imposed on this page.--John Cline (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox, per Cassianto and We hope, above. This whole overinflated discussion is pointless. Let's have done with it and move on.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Gerda says: "This being a featured article with one principal editor Tim riley..." – not quite;  I see I have 165 edits as against Tim's 74,  and we were equal  partners in the drive towards featured status. As Gerda will know, I have not objected in the past to infoboxes that  give basic identifying information; my worry is the extent to which such boxes later become magnets for trivia. I don't believe it would be the end of the world if a box like that at the top of this thread were to be imposed, but nor do I see any great necessity to do it, other than to end this dreary farrago of argument and misrepresentation – if it would.  Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please excuse that I mentioned Tim only, - I should at least have said one of many (The tool was not available when I posted). Had I mentioned more names it would have been called canvassing. Thank you for your comment. Can the fact that Beethoven is without trivia somehow lessen your worries? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support infobox. The example infobox shown above is just as aesthetically pleasing as the current image. It would make available at a glance several pieces of information not immediately apparent in the nearby lead: place of birth, place of death, age at death, as well as an immediate link to his compositions. That is a convenience for the reader and is in line with practice at the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. Readers expect to find this sort of information in articles such as Holst. It also emits the following microformats: vcard, nickname, bday, birthplace, deathdate, deathplace - all of which are helpful to third-parties who wish to reuse our content on Holst. --RexxS (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader, or include ... irrelevant or inappropriate information". Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, such as "Death Place", in competition with the WP:LEAD section which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points about the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The lack of basic understanding of how people use the internet is a big problem with those trying to limit access to information....visualizations show that users often read Web pages in an F-shaped pattern ....- How readers use the internet .  Also very odd to hold a position that benefits editors over readers.  Want to keep readers or make them read your great articles...spoon feed them some basics and maybe just maybe they will read on.....no tibits of info here...on they go somewhere else to find it.--Moxy (talk)


 * Ah yes, how stupid we all are in comparison to you. It's a crying shame that none of us with a flexible approach to IB use have any knowledge of the Internet, despite the generic articles you've posted. They miss the point on IBs unfortunately, but I doubt I could convince you otherwise. (And as to the nonsense that we are "trying to limit access to information", that's just unfettered, gibbering bollocks: the information is all there (in the lead, obviously), and it's put in context, with background. "Limit access"? Thanks for the laugh on that one. – SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A flexible approach? Your  advocating one-way of presenting information over different ways....in no world is one way a flexible approach. I understand you think that forcing readers to read your whole article is better...but if you had read the links above you would see that is not the best approach. Some of our readers dont have unlimited data nor do all have the comprehension skills to read an in context. Your doing our readers a disservice by forcing your limited POV on articles you come across. Very odd if you believe your POV on this has more weight then those at Goggle, Bing and other encyclopedias....but i guess it is possible they are all wrong in presenting data in many forms. We should tell them all that the research they do into this is wrong... because we have a few editor here that say other wise. ...this is what is laughable.  Moxy (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My "limited POV"? Good grief... and yes, I've read the articles before. I was unswayed by them know and they carry even less weight with me now. Oh goo, my opinion, simply for being different to yours, is now laughable. You really are becoming increasingly tendentious in your posts. As to Google and Bing... they are not encyclopaedias and have very different agendas to us. Britannica (as the closest model to ours) provides dates of birth and death only, and none of the other ephemera collected even in the example version here. – SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What we need is editors that have an understanding of how to present info to differ segments of the population. What is laughable is thinking one way is best over many ways as others have done. I understand you think that only one way of presenting data is best but dont you think its odd so many here and all over the net seem to chose different ways of presenting the same data? Why are we different and why should we change the format that has made us a leader on the net? -- Moxy (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have had to ask you on several previous occasions, please do not tell me what I think: your misrepresentation here is as off target as it has been on every single previous occasion you have done it before. – SchroCat (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes yes yes...more run around language......hard to have a debate when people think its all about them. You do good work here..its to bad your on the wrong side of a debate that is fundamental to our readers. I wish debating with you was easier but not all have this skill set (apparently I am one of those according to you.) In the future all i ask is you try to reply to the questioned asked or assuming its all about you.  -- Moxy (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. It's not "run around language": in recent discussions I have had to ask you numerous times (10? 12?) not to misrepresent what I have said. It's a very, very poor way for you to communicate, and tendentious in the extreme. As to being on the "wrong side", the same could be said of you, as we are dealing with opinions in how to format a selection of factoids repeated elsewhere. I'm fairly sure I've had to explain this to you before as well, but I'm sure it won't be the last time. – SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here we go again ...no reply worth anything. No clue why you think its about you when people make comments.-- Moxy (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As you've been replying to my posts with comments directed at me, it's blindingly obvious to any sentient being you were engaging in dialogue with me. Thankfully, as you now appear not to be talking to me, I won't have to bother responding to your increasingly disconnected statements. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ssilvers, your collection is the perfect example of what not to do. The same collection appeared already for Jean Sibelius: please stick to this short box for this article, and don't be afraid that it would grow (see my comment to Brian above). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Gerda, your pushing your agenda here is, as usual, wasting everyone's time and hurting the Wikipedia project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per Ssilvers: waste of space and unhelpful to readers for this sort of article, though admirable elsewhere. Stick to the box-free form for this article.  Tim riley  talk    19:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Ssilvers, who has put the case for not including an IB most cogently. Alfietucker (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Those searching for information on the internet are "infoboxed" before they arrive at the WP article. At present the Gustav Holst article has no infobox on WP. a Bing search a Google search Both major search engines display an infobox at right with basic information, so before anyone even gets to WP, they have this information available to them, and if that's all they want, don't even need to show up at WP. We hope (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect example of how useful the boxes are....so useful that others have adopted the  format that has made Wikipedia a leader in disseminating information. as seen above both searchers are great with links to the kids etc. So people looking for this fast info will come here then just go back to the Google search because it has more info at a glance.  looks like  people here are going out of there way to make us loose readership?  Dont like the way info is presented here ...fuckoff go somewhere else is this the message being promoted here.-- Moxy (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'll be darned! You're right, We hope! I've become so used to advertisements showing up in that space to the right that I automatically ignore whatever is there, on grounds that it is almost certainly useless. Just like an infobox.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment If people have already gotten the basics from a search engine infobox, they don't need to come to the article to get it. They come to the article for more than the basic information.  In many cases, with close to 2 million stubs, this information is sorely lacking.  "fuckoff go somewhere else" is certainly the message when a reader hopes to find more information at a WP article and finds a sentence or two with an infobox. We hope (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I generally think it should be the article writer's decision on whether to include one. I certainly don't see that this would make much different, the information given in it is miniscule.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP articles don't have single writers, except in rare cases of obscure topics, and that's still covered by WP:MERCILESS. See also WP:OWN, example #3.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree ...what is horrible is the Griefing....not sue why this gang hates always shows up to Gerda Arendt debates....as Gerda has a great reputation...does not have a history of disruption. --Moxy (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given your tendentious posting, I agree entirely about your "griefing", and I wish you had stopped some time ago. As for Gerda, I think I speak for most people here in saying that no-one hates her. Please could you refrain from making such outlandish and tendentious comments. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the link. I am not part of some gang that follows her around.....every time there is an RfC ...the gang shows up..telling her things like "Oh FFS". You may think your sly but your reputation proceed you. -- Moxy (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't continue the lie Moxy. I don't follow her around: I was part of the discussion in the thread above so I'm fairly obviously going to comment in this one too. I have not followed Gerda to any article (although we have both commented on several threads). As to a "gang" turning up: you're getting onto pot-kettle stuff here, given the number of threads you and the pro-IB flash mob managed to turn up to as well. Moxy, drop the tendentious trolling: it's stupid, pointless and divisive, and when you move into the realms of outright untruth with claims of "this gang hates Gerda Arendt", you make yourself look increasingly ridiculous. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense, and a shameful calumny on your part Moxy, that those of us who find Gerda's views on and approach to info-boxes hate her. Nobody could disagree more strongly with her on this point than I do, but Gerda and I maintain off Wiki a most cordial private exchange on all sorts of subjects, from mutual support at times of personal loss to comments on some of the more intransigent and ill-mannered people we have to deal with. Verb sap. Please withdraw your hateful accusation.   Tim riley  talk    17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your right Tim it may not be  hate but does look like  WP:HOUNDING. Its just very disappointing to see her ganged up on every time by the same people claiming she is the problem...basically telling her to fuck off. She is doing nothing but trying to help a segment of our readers that this group seem to neglect.  Those of us that stand on our own 2 feet without a group of friends see a problem with a gang mentality of this nature.  I have been involved in 5 talks of this nature over many years  and looked at a dozen others and every time here comes the gang. What we need is more involved  that have not been involved before especially those aware of accessibility concerns for  non expert English readers.  -- Moxy (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. If you look at a number of the IB debates in which Gerda has participated, you will see that on numerous occasions many people are there before her, so the HOUNDING accusation is something else way off the truth
 * 2. People opposing something that someone is suggesting is not 'ganging up': it's a discussion in which people have opposing views.
 * 3. Yes, the same faces do appear from time to time, but that applies to both sides of the discussion
 * 4. You claim to "stand on your own two feet", but I see you holding the same views as a group of others. Have the vague possibility not entered your mind that others are not part of a gang, but are also 'standing on their own feet'? No-one ever tells or forces me to comment in IB discussions, I do it of my own fee will, and I'd put money on that being the case for all others in both sides who get involved in these threads. – SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Couldn't agree more with Ssilvers, their statement is spot on. Infoboxes don't help with organisation, I see no need to repeat key facts that are already mentioned in the lead. JAG  UAR   17:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as redundant and visually unappealing. Might as well WP:SNOW this. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I support adding an infobox because it would improve the article by making the vital facts about Holst's life more accessible for readers. I fail to see how it would oversimplify or mischaracterize anything. An infobox is complementary to, not competitive with, the lead section. --Albany NY (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Utterly delusional.  Cassianto Talk   18:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of it about, especially among editors who have no history at all with this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support adding an infobox — populated with relevant information. Infoboxes are useful for a number of reasons, giving a quick overview of the type of information that really doesn't need to repeated in the lede — and if we're afraid that readers will ignore the text in favor of the infobox then we can safely assume they will ignore both if we obscure the information. Infoboxes serve a good purpose and we can never assume that readers will be coming from google. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "relevant information" would that be, other than what is in the lead section?  Cassianto Talk   20:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Family, place of death, inspiration, alma mater, major compositions — basically what normally is in these infoboxes, and it should definately include some repetition of what is in the lede. Arguing against an infobox because the information is in the lede is saying that the lede should be basically a list of facts — not normally considered good writing. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 22:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of pointless unconnected details mentioned there, including Family, place of death, inspiration, alma mater, major compositions. As to "Arguing against an infobox because the information is in the lede is saying that the lede should be basically a list of facts", that straw man is too ridiculous to bother dealing with properly. – SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * These are all highly relevant for an infobox — which gives a quick glance for example of which movement this composer was part of. It isn't a strawman in that it is entirely true — too often are articles written as lists of facts — infoboxes help by removing the need to repeat or cram all that information into the lede. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 22:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that this article is "a list of facts"? If not, then your argument is indeed a straw man here. As to family, place of death and alma mater, these in no way 'give a quick glance for example of which movement this composer was part of', or at least not without a lot of additional explanation. – SchroCat (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * These are all relevant for specific purposes — place of death is very relevant for potential reuse, because it helps determine whether the copyright is in the public domain. Alma mater and movement are all simple to portray in the infobox when someone quickly needs to glance these things, not wishing to dive into the entire article to find out. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 09:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We need the place of death in an IB because "it helps determine whether the copyright is in the public domain"? I'm afraid that shows a complete lack of knowledge of copyright law: the place of death of an individual has nothing to do with copyright. As to the rest, the lead contains all the relevant key information about an individual, and does so putting the information in context, and so anyone interested in Holst won't have to "dive into the entire article": it's all laid out for them in the top. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please add the places of birth of death to the lead. I had to dive rather low to find the latter. You will then be in conflict with the MoS, of course, where the mentioning of the places of birth and death is not recommended for the lead unless they are of significance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * x 3 There is nothing to "make true" Gerda. As I said: "the lead contains all the relevant key information" (emphasis added). That stands correct, unless we want to bloat out the lead with the superfluous. I see your addition has already accepted that the place of death is not of significance (and if it's not significant enough for the lead, it's certainly not significant enough for an IB) - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're wrong — it has implications for GATT-restoration. I did not say it unambiguously tells us whether something is in copyright or not, just that the knowledge is useful and helps determine copyright status. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 10:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are relying on an IB for something that has "implications for GATT-restoration" - and something you now admit is ambiguous in terms of copyright, then it's a straw man when it comes to an IB discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not at all — these are relevant facts that traditionally have been presented in infoboxes. Your arguments are against infoboxes in any article, which is frankly a discussion that does not belong here. As for this article — there are as of yet no arguments for why it is better of without an infobox that can give simple access to relevant information. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 10:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "arguments are against infoboxes in any article": not true. I am considering the case for this article in my responses.
 * "there are as of yet no arguments for why it is better of without an infobox": you have given no arguments why for this article there is a need to include it. As this article has been without an IB from inception in 2002 to date, including through through two community review processes without an IB, the onus is to make the argument for adding a box for this page.
 * You have provided a misleading straw man on copyright (nothing to do with this article) and—to (mis)quote you—your arguments are for infoboxes in any article, which is frankly a discussion that does not belong here". - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Do even know how to write a decent article, or do you think the secret in excellent writing lies within a load of bulleted factoids?   Cassianto Talk   22:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the absolute opposite of my argument. Resorting to ad hominem attacks often causes one to lose track of what is being argued for. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 22:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing ad hominem about what I've said: I've merely questioned your preference for a bulleted list over professionally written prose. I think you have to have a memory like a sieve to forget what this subject is about.  Cassianto Talk   23:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is bordering on actionable incivility. If you go back to any of my comments you will see that I argue against bulleted lists. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 09:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing uncivil about one editor asking another which they prefer, list-like points within an infobox, or professionally written prose. But congratulations,   now managed to shoehorn the first cliché essay in; just one more to go and you've got the pair.   Cassianto Talk   12:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Civil or not, the question of preference of parameter-value pairs (I guess that is what you mean by "list-like points") or prose has nothing to do with this discussion. The question here is if a few parameter-value pairs may appear in addition to the untouched prose, for those readers who, for whatever reason, prefer that, or if these readers will not be served, as for the last 14 years (calculated below). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was under the impression we were talking about infoboxes and Carl Fredrik's preference of "parameter-value pairs". If that's got nothing to do with this discussion, then I must've dreamt up the last week.   Cassianto Talk   20:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not clear. Our (the editors") preferences don't matter as long we have in the article both, "parameter-value pairs" and prose. Then the readers can take what THEY prefer, which may be one day this, another day that. It's called accessibility. - By asking Carl Fredrik's preference, you make it sound like it's either/or. Nobody I know has so far suggested to replace the prose by an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * People who rely on infoboxes to read an article are non-readers, IMO. I try to not cater for them in the arts articles I write. But here's an idea: Maybe we should just all go home and save our time writing quality articles. Instead, let's replace all the prose with one bloody great big infobox each.  I had no idea the clap-trap we write to FA status can be such a burden on the poor old fact hunters.   Cassianto Talk   22:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in ACCESSIBILITY that requires the use of an IB: this is just another straw man (or a clutching at straws, at any rate). – SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Accessibility is about making the information accessible, in different ways. I didn't say anything about "requires". I accept that you, Cassianto, don't cater for readers you don't find worthy of your "beautifully crafted articles" (quoted from The Rite of Spring, 2013) I (and others) want to cater also for the other readers. Again, the infobox suggested (not great and big) is not to replace, but to support. I praised a user the other day for "I don't see any logical reason to make information harder to access." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll go back to what I said way back up the page: the key details as are in the lead, and not just that, they very key details are in the opening sentence, accessible to all. More than that, the opening sentence actually provides the context of why we have an article on him. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support infobox per nom. Unless there is a unique new argument in here somewhere, this article would benefit from an infobox for the same reason virtually all articles benefit from an infobox. If anyone has anything new to say, do point it out.  Montanabw (talk)  20:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing new has been discovered on either side of the argument, which is why I'm bemused as to why it's been started all over again.   Cassianto Talk   21:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Further comment: This article was created as a stub on 15 April 2002. In its long journey from a single line to a current FA and former TFA it has not had an infobox. Now, I have heard it argued in other discussions that the presence of an infobox in an article over x years should be regarded as an ipso facto consensus for its continuing presence. I agree with that point of view; I have listened to people, learned my lessons and would not support the removal of an established infobox from any article on the grounds of my personal preference.  Why, though, should the argument not run just as well in the opposite fashion – why shouldn't the absence of an infobox for 14 years be equally considered an ipso facto consensus for its omission, and be respected as such?   That consensus would seem to me to have more validity than the   garnering of supports and opposes by each side, to produce an illusory majority that can be overturned in a re-run six, twelve, eighteen months hence. Is that what we want, endless arguing, insults, ill-feeling, the same points ground out again and again ad infinitum? Enough is enough, surely.  There are   many more constructive things we could be doing. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to further comment: It is perhaps time to reflect on what consensus is and, more especially, what it is not. As usual, Brianboulton is perfectly correct: precedence is ipso facto consensus, and what we are discussing here is not simply do we like or dislike infoboxes, but is there consensus for a change to the status quo. Because consensus is not established by a simple up-and-down vote (which, as both Brianboulton and the referenced definitions of consensus state, could easily result in a constant flip-flopping back and forth, as the narrow margin of one vote is overturned by an equally narrow margin in the next), we are talking about a broad agreement amongst the editors actively involved on this article to change the article's established condition. No matter how many further "votes" may be cast—one way or the other—it is plain that there is no consensus for change, and it is time (perhaps some would say long past time) to close this fruitless debate as "no change".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Response to Brian: The top of this talk says "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." - I didn't update. I only asked the question if this article could be improved by a box which shows at a glance has together when and where he lived and died, and his compositions. If the answer is no, I can live with that. However I felt that not even the question was understood ;) - If we disregard the comments dealing with infobox in general, not much is left of this long discussion. Thank you, Brian, for your model on FA Percy Grainger! Looking forward to the birthday of Albert Ketèlbey (with a nice hidden message). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jerome and Brian for two breaths of fresh air! Heartily concur. Tim riley  talk    12:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Infoboxes are a can of worms. Paul August &#9742; 21:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's essentially a content-free statement. Please provide an actual rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Must I? Then per Ssilvers above. Paul August &#9742; 20:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, of course don't.  Do like the rest of us and try to ignore SMcCandlish.  Trolls are best starved.   Cassianto Talk   12:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

(Following is an older discussion)
 * Support: Infoboxes are a de facto standard feature of articles now. Years of isolated campaigning against them have totally failed to turn the ship around, and it's time to just give it a rest.  Infoboxes are especially helpful for mobile users, to get basic details without having to wade through a huge pile of content that is difficult to read on such devices. We already know that the majority of our users are accessing WP via mobile at least part of the time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - infoboxes are good things. Sometimes a reader doesn't have time to read all the prose and can just glance at the infobox if they need a date, or something.  I find them to be quite useful. Atsme 📞📧 02:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- As I've said elsewhere, people who rely on Infoboxes to better understand a subject are, in my opinion, non-readers. I do not cater for them; I cater for people who have the intelligence to be able to string a couple of sentences together.  Cassianto Talk   07:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTYOU. This is also fallacious on several other levels. The presence of an infobox has no effect of any kind on how you get to write content in the article. Readers who depend on infoboxes on a device with a 2.5 inch by 4.5 inch screen are unlikely to do so on a 26 in monitor.  The most common use of infoboxes is not to "better understand" a subject anyway, but to get a précis, or some particular bit of commonly sought information (e.g. era of a composer, platforms for which a video game was released, taxonomic tree of a species, etc.); reading the full text of the article is how ones gets a better understanding of the subject.  We don't get to dictate to our readers how they use our articles, or for what purpose. Some want them for nothing but source citations and do not trust a word that we've written on the topic.  Others want to do nothing but but skim for basics on a wide range of topics to boost their trivia night scores. Others want to exclusively read every nuance of everything we write about early-modern British composers. And WP is written for all of them.  It probably takes more, not less, reading comprehension ability to understand infoboxes than regular prose, because the former is not written in complete sentences but in highly clipped table format with a lot of the semantics dropped.  I'm sure millions of our readers appreciate having their intelligence insulted by you, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is worth taking 's comment very seriously. We have room on Wikipedia for all sorts of editors and I wouldn't wish to discourage those who immerse themselves so deeply in the articles they edit, that they feel invested in their work. It is not unnatural to want readers to take in the whole article when you've spent so much time and effort in writing the bulk of it. Cass, SchroCat, Tim and the others produce great work, and I can understand why they don't want something that appears to devalue their efforts, even if I don't agree with the conclusions they reach about infoboxes. In this case, the contrary argument is mainly that half of our readers come from countries where English is not the first language. The English Wikipedia is unique in being the largest Wikipedia by a substantial margin, and we ought to cater for the many readers who have difficultly in understanding English, but have no article in their own language. Gustav Holst has articles in nearly 50 languages (although I doubt that there are very many native Esperanto or Latin speakers to cater for), but that still leaves a lot of potential readers who may find it easier to pick out some basic information from the infobox than from the lead. --RexxS (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that this does get to one real crux of the issue: Many who oppose infoboxes have previously stated things like "have the intelligence to be able to string a couple of sentences together..."  implying that unless you read the entire article, you shouldn’t bother reading it at all.  Yet, many people seek basic information, and it is often a question of time or interest, not intelligence (and frankly, even if they are of limited proficiency, shouldn’t we draw them in?). An infobox is a good place to put the information most often sought by the non-aficionado on a topic, precisely so it does not clutter a well-written lead.   Montanabw (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question for Montanabw: You have cught my attention with an intriguing notion, but I am not quite certain what it is you mean. You hold that an infobox is a good place to put information "so it does not clutter a well-written lead". Could you expand on this, please? What information should be removed from a well-written lead (on fgounds that it would clutter it) and put in an infobox instead? I think this is the first time I have heard an argument for leaving basic information out of the lead, in favour of putting clutter into an infobox. This cannot possibly be what you meant to say.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Montanabw seems to have moved on, but I can answer this. Many i-boxes contain information that is not in, and does not (at particular articles) belong in, the lead. This is more common in non-bio articles, but is hardly rare in bio ones. E.g., someone's death place may be saved for a "Later years and death" section in the main prose; the fact that a musician is notable as a guitarist may appear in the lead, and the fact that they also played bass in an earlier band might not be mentioned in the main text except in an "Early years" section, but the i-box instruments parameter would probably list both; etc. The general rule of thumb with i-boxes is that the info in them should appear elsewhere in the article, not necessarily in the lead (and there are exceptions, like the full taxonomic tree in Taxobox, the original infobox; the article Tiger should not in its body say that they are animals, chordates, vertebrates, etc.). If there were a 1:1 correspondence between leads and infoboxes, a stronger argument could be made for redundancy (though it might also inspire disruptive gaming by padding the lead clumsily with material that really should be lower in the article, just to get rid of the i-box).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (Responding to ping) IBs also contain information that might never make it into the article, such as, for example, a drug or chemistry article that contains technical data in the infobox, or perhaps species taxonomy details (which phyla a creature is in, for example). Montanabw (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very interesting discussion, thank you both. I do wonder whether a drug or chemistry article is an apt comparison for a biographical article (except perhaps for a notrious drug user, which I trust is not being suggested to be the case here). Is there an appropriate parallel for a composer biography?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Re information appropriate for an infobox, not discussed elsewhere in an article: For a classical composer, not much comes to mind, apart from the "Years active" (that may need some care), and the "Signature" (although God alone knows why people want it in an infobox); maybe the coordinates of their "Burial place". Modern composers might have a "Website" not discussed in the article (although that may also be present in External links), and perhaps a few other trappings of modern life such as Paul McCartney's brother being known as "Mike McGear". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed "Years active" can be problematic (certainly not as easy to determine as dates of birth and death). As for things like burial place and trivia like a non-transparent name of a close relative, I think Brianboulton has got it right in his comment just below (beginning "Both SMcCandlish and Montana have inadvertently highlighted ..."). This kind of information is about as far from being " essential key" as you can get, without being entirely off-topic.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Kurt Cobain learned the guitar in 1981 and was active 1982–1994 (the year of his death). Quite clear-cut and summarised accurately in his infobox, although not stated anywhere else in the article. I see no problem there with providing an at-a-glance summary for those who want it. If you think that items like Paul MCCartney's brother's stage name are too trivial for an infobox, then WikiProject Musicians/Infobox might be a possible venue to discuss it. My experience is that most Wikipedians are happy with the contents of an infobox being "key facts", rather than the impossible to define "essential facts" that you seem to now want. --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, let's redact my sloppy usage to read "key facts", then. (Apologies, buy you really cannot expect me to keep up-to-date with all the arcana of Wikipedia editorialese! ;-) Certainly it is possible in some cases to establish "years active" with some precision, but this is perhaps easier with performers (and especially popular-music performers) than with composers of so-called classical music. Keep in mind that the "debate" ("affray" would perhaps be a more accurate word) in which we find ourselves enmeshed once again has to do with composers of "classical" music. And, of course, the lead section is supposed to provided such an "at-a-glance summary" already. I had hoped to hear of some "key facts" for composers of "classical" music that would be appropriate to an inbox but not to a lead section. It seems they are rather thin on the ground, not to mention the fact that there is some doubt about the definition of "key fact".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I thought that this bit of the thread was exploring the idea of information suitable for an an infobox that was not discussed anywhere else at all in the article, rather than merely being absent from the lead. I think we've already mentioned the date of/place of/age at death as often missing from the lead, yet being key facts in a biography. There are several others listed in other discussions. I also assumed that you were looking to tease out what might make composers as a group less suitable for an infobox than some other topics; and thought when you said "composers" you were leaving aside the distinction between classical and modern - after all, given enough time, even Paul McCartney will be viewed as a classical composer. I doubtless do not possess your reading speed, so I find that although the almost 400-word lead of Gustav Holst gives me a fine summary, it does not afford me an "at-a-glance" presentation of the kind of key facts I'm accustomed to seeing in other biographies. I appreciate that others may have a different experience. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise. I accept the broader field as well, and "teas[ing] out what might make composers as a group less suitable for an infobox than some other topics" was also part of my objective (though I am open to arguments for the opposite point of view: that composers are no less suitable than other topics for an infobox). Longer leads of course are not usually monolithic. The first sentence for biographical articles is rather tightly constrained by the Manual of Style, and usually gives only the subject's name (with any usual alternative spellings or aliases), dates of birth and (if appropriate) death, and a brief characterisation (in this case, "was an English composer, arranger and teacher"). Granted, that does not cover all things that may be regarded as "key" facts, but of course the first sentence is also not the entire lead section. If we broaden our view to cover the entire article, it is difficult to imagine any "key facts" that cannot plausibly be covered in a biography. FWIW, the resistance I feel toward composer infoboxes does not extend to other topics. In articles on musical compositions, for example, I find that many "key facts" are indeed best collected together in an infobox, for example here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised that this discussion has started again, after four weeks of silence and with several requests that the thread be closed, but perhaps there are still useful things to say. For my part, in general I would not greatly object to a mini-infobox such as adorns the beginning of this thread (I have inorporated similar into other articles I've expanded), provided the box is not later cluttered with non-key information or outright trivia. The trouble is, if I suggest any constraints on editing the box I am likely to have WP:MERCILESS shoved in my face. Should we risk this? Lately, I've been trying to think of fresh approaches to the infobox issue in relation to certain articles, and have come up, experimentally, with what might be term the "nutshell" box. An example, using Holst, is shown here The idea is to replace the general infobox  format with a short statement (c.75 words max) that very briefly encapsulates the key features of the subject in about ten seconds of reading. Such additional data as "list of works" can be included, as if necessary could another collapsed list containing information in metadata form. Such a box might be very useful in some circumstances, e.g. for articles such as Boroughitis or Tichborne case, where it's difficult or impossible to adapt the normal box format. Bear in mind this is a rough draft.  I haven't worked out how to get round the centre-justified text, but I'm no techie. Nor is the  text itself  intended as definitive. Is this worth considering (though this thread is long enough already so I'll take it elsewhere if necessary)? Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree,, that another venue would be better. I also have a strong preference for "minimal" infoboxes such as the one above, and I assure you that you can count on my support in any case where other editors attempt to bloat an infobox with trivia. Establishing constraints on the fields selected for an infobox is, for me, an essential part of any decision to have an infobox. My suggestion would be to always leave on the talk page an invitation to discuss such constraints whenever there's any doubt that the constraints might be challenged. At least there would be the presumption of consensus afterwards and a place to direct other editors to when they attempt to pack Holst's infobox with a list of Pokemon characters based on his works. I'm interested in the concept of a "nutshell box", although it would take some work to match the ability of an infobox to emit metadata. Nevertheless, I'm always willing to examine technical challenges, and if you make a mock-up, then please feel free to ping me and I'll do my best to solve any problems like centred text for you. For my own part, I'm seriously considering a discussion to amend MOS:INFOBOX, so that it recognised everyone's desire not to have constant, repetitive and acrimonious arguments. We would have to agree some way of encouraging civil debate; of laying out agreed principles; of documenting best practice; and of specifying the factors that count when deciding on whether or not to have an infobox, along with more specific content constraints if an infobox exists. I won't be available to do much more this month, but if anybody else was interested in such a discussion, perhaps somebody could throw out some ideas at WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes? --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect the Infobox Brigade will take exception to your proposed "Infobox Lite", since it does not have categories in a bulleted list, and the all-boldface text is as off-putting as the centred lines. I do agree that another venue would be better (it would have to be, by default). Where do you suggest?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea is only in its earliest stages as yet. If I can get some technical help in getting it to look more presentable, I'll open up a discussion page and notify likely interested parties. Some will reject the idea out of hand, but others may see it as providing a useful option in certain instances. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Further: "if they are of limited proficiency, shouldn’t we draw them in?" – Simple Wikipedia is thataway, without an infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Both SMcCandlish and Montana have inadvertently highlighted one of the main reasons why attempts to impose infoboxes on all WP articles are strongly resisted by certain factions. Both these editors appear to see the box as a useful repository for trivia, rather than as a means of summarising "key facts" which is what it was originally devised for. There may be differences of opinion as to  what are the key facts in individual cases, but the arguments that infoboxes should be used to store factoids to enable readers "to boost their trivia night scores", or as a good place to hold information to avoid "lead clutter", are new ones on me – and nothing to do with WP policy. I have said earlier that I would not particularly object to the limited box presented at the top of this thread, but in view of these recent comments I wonder for how long it would be left in this format? If a clutter of out-of-context trivia is the first thing that our readers see, how is that going to help their understanding of a subject? Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a total misunderstanding of what I wrote. I said people "use our articles" (not "infoboxes") for all sorts of purposes, including trivial ones. I'm adamantly opposed to including trivia in infoboxes, routinely remove it, oppose the addition of i-boxes if they'll mostly just contain trivia, and even remove trivia parameters from infobox templates (or RfC their removal on major templates). It drives me nuts when I see people adding non-notable family member's names, trivial local awards, misdemeanor convictions, hobbies, and other People magazine crap to bio infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as it's a month since I posted that comment, I'm not going to resume the discussion except to say I'm sorry I misunderstood your position, which appears in fact to be quite close to my own. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * NP. I've been ignoring this page in the interim myself, or would have clarified position sooner. Just noticed this while looking for something else, and supporting your motion to close, below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few examples of where an infobox contains information that doesn't appear in a well-written lead. An example I'm familiar with is infobox medical condition, where there are fields for the ICD-10 and similar. These are simply an aid to classification and don't render well in prose, so don't actually appear anywhere else in the article; they certainly would clutter the lead. A similar situation applies to infobox drug where most of the fields don't appear elsewhere. And you can look at Template talk:Video game reviews for examples of discussions about whether release dates are better just in the infobox or rendered into prose in the text. At some point, as says, the information spills over into trivia; but I'm afraid that we'll all find that one person's "trivia" is often another person's "vital information", and we have to treat other editors' opinions with respect. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on making the first serious attempt in this discussion to persuade anyone to change their mind. Please tell me more. Since the currently proposed infobox contains nothing in addition to the basic data contained in the lede (apart from a link to the List of compositions by ...), what kind of information would you suggest should be added, in order that this infobox would contribute useful information that does not belong in the lead, along the lines of the non-biographical examples you have offered?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words,, but I have to admit I wasn't trying particularly to change anyone's mind; rather I was hoping to add further information to the debate, so that people could make a more informed decision. Whether someone supports or opposes an infobox on any given article will depend on the weight they ascribe to multiple aspects: functionality, aesthetics, the degree to which the key information can be concisely summarised, and probably others. When I try to weigh up the common advantages of at-a-glance convenience for readers, reader expectation, microformats and structured data for re-users against the common disadvantages of aesthetics, maintenance, and opposition by the core editors of the article, I don't see an overwhelming strength of argument for either side in this case. My natural inclination is to give more weight to the metadata aspects, but I can see that many others may allow very little weight to those, and reach an opposite conclusion to me. I'm not too worried about that as long as they have considered seriously the arguments before reaching their decision. To answer your direct question: Out of the six pieces of information in the illustrative infobox above, three don't appear in the lead: Holst's place of birth, his place of death and his age at death - they possibly don't fit well into the lead (which is why they are more useful in an infobox). If I were to suggest another piece of information that might be appropriate for the infobox, not summarised in the lead, that would be years active (1890–1934, perhaps?), as it should give the reader an immediate insight to the period in which he was composing - but of course, it is only useful if there's general agreement about the dates, and preferably a source. --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to respond, but there was such a flurry of "discussion" following your post, along the lines of, "Oh yeah? Well, your grandma wears combat boots!" that I was unable to get a word in edgewise, and went on to other things. Your point is well taken, but leads to another question: If such things as place of birth and death are vital basic data, why is it that they are excluded by the guidelines from the lead? Put it the other way round: If these data are of such secondary importance that they must not appear in the lead, why are they permitted in an infobox? I have been editing on Wikipedia for ten years now, and I believe that exclusion has been in place for all that time. This is not the case on other Wikipedias (French Wikipedia, for example, where such data routinely appears in the first sentence of biographical articles), so whether or not they fit in the lead must be a judgement call, but I have never seen the rationale for the policy/guideline on English Wikipedia (I presume that there must be one). You are right to waver on the issue of "years active", and this is not the kind of thing that will be easy to find in a reliable source, since it is not usually regarded as important by biographers and lexicographers. I am afraid that our little discussion is unlikely to attract much attention here in the midst of all the rubble of battle, but I do think these points are a lot more interesting (and important) than the debate over just who is calling who names, moaning about the colossal waste of time while doing nothing but adding more waste, or chiming in with another pointless vote "per editor X" without adding any fresh ideas in support of one side or the other. Please let us continue this discussion, which could possibly lead to one of us changing our own pointless vote! In the meantime, if there is anyone else out there, please do feel free to join our discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a most interesting suggestion. I have often wondered why we don't include places of birth and death in leads, and would welcome a fresh look at the practice. I'll leave a note on Jerome's talk page rather than clutter up poor Holst with more expressions of opinion.  Tim riley  talk    06:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I look forward to continuing this discussion in a less boisterous venue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose 'Readers' are by definition able to read; the key information can readily be gleaned from the first sentence of the lead. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a bit oversimplified. Blind users are unable to read, and yet we do count them as "readers" and editors.  Some dyslexic readers value infoboxes precisely because it minimizes the need to read a gray blur of text, which is something that they aren't "readily" able to do.  We also get feedback from people who struggle with English, who prefer infoboxes because they don't have to read sentences (or paragraphs, or more, depending upon which specific fact is being sought) if they can find it quickly in an infobox.  This isn't necessarily an argument for or against an infobox in this specific article, but I think it is important to remember that different people get information from Wikipedia in different ways.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A kind thought in theory, but the important facts about a composer can't be squeezed into an info-box. I know from experience that we tend to end up with name of spouse and place of burial etc etc, which don't help all that much to convey in a couple of dozen words why, e.g. Mozart is among the greatest of composers. Where one can get the essential facts into an i-b, I am an enthusiastic proponent of them. The article I am currently aiming to take to FAC will have an i-b, because it will be helpful and relevant. But they aren't always.  Tim riley  talk    16:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually the crux of this issue, Tim. You think that "the important facts about a composer can't be squeezed into an info-box", so no composer article could possibly be improved by an infobox. I don't accept that any editor - even one as eminent as yourself - can pre-judge the suitability of every article for an infobox and I'll continue to oppose your attempts to straight-jacket every one of these articles into the form that you have decided they should have. The Beethoven article has an infobox with eight key facts (at least two of which are not mentioned in the lead), along with a link to his works and a specimen signature. Those don't explain why Beethoven is among the greatest of composers, but they do satisfy the need that someone might have to place Beethoven's life in time and location. Biographical infoboxes rarely explain why a subject is interesting, but do help with the 'when' and 'where' of their life, regardless of the topic area for which the subject is notable. If the infobox doesn't make a net improvement to the article, let's not have it; but let's have a reasoned discussion, rather than a diktat from those who think they know best. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Who Reads Wikipedia?--Moxy (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tim, I agree that all the important facts can't be squeezed into an infobox. But from the POV of a reader who is in search of an individual, simple fact, e.g., "Where was Holst born?", it is certainly true that "the only fact that is important to me at the moment" could easily be placed in an infobox.  Right now, to find Holst's birthplace, you have to search through 400 words first.  So imagine that you don't actually care why Holst is awesome.  Imagine that you really only want to know if he is a potential subject for the homework that your history-of-music teacher ordered on "Dead Composers from England".  And imagine that you can't read English easily.  From that POV, an infobox would be very helpful in meeting your needs.  Or perhaps you're looking for a list of his compositions, which appears halfway through the article, and again in the navbox, which is invisible on mobile devices (=about half of our readers).  Having that at the top would be handy for that reader. More generally:  are we at risk of imposing a single narrative on readers?  Is there only one Correct Way™ to use an article?  Are we starting to think that All True Readers want to know the whole story, as explained in 9,000 carefully chosen words, and to design articles not only to support this rare person, but also to ignore and exclude the others?   Perhaps we should spend more time thinking about our average reader, rather than our ideal one.  This particular article gets about 400 views on an average day.  Based upon research with mobile platform, many of those 400 readers never progress past the lead, and very few – maybe just one or two each day – read the whole thing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, what a relief to see a view so gently expressed against one's own. Bless you! We can agree to differ on the best means of presenting the essential content for the benefit of all our readers, and yet keep our discourse friendly. O si sic omnes!  Tim riley  talk    13:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing time: It's surely time to close both of these threads, neither of which has added anything of substance for some time, and neither of which has achieved the required consensus for change. The page looks like a disaster area, and anyone who came along innocently to discuss aspects of Holst's life and works would be horrified. Brianboulton (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I know I am (horrified, that is). Second the motion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given how contentious this topic area is, both of these discussions should probably have an un-involved user (or even an administrator) close them. As regards the RFC, that was pretty clearly a premature archival, given that that is presumably a community discussion. I have reverted your changes, Brian. --Izno (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * see my note in the Arbcom thread, below. Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would hope the hidden-comment discussion is closed on the merits, the infobox one closed as no-consensus because it's noisy rehash of the i-box wars and not focused on this article, then both threads archived immediately to clean up the talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Can anyone advise what, exactly, is preventing the closure of this Rfc and the subsequent thread? Nothing of consequence has been added to the Rfc for a long while. There has been a request here for the Rfc closure since 28 August; I have asked two administrators who say they can't do it. Surely someone can? As to the infobox discussion, it's not an Rfc. Can anyone see any point in its remaining open? Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Full Flowering
Why is his list of works entitled "Full Flowering"? I can't see any other reference to this use of words via any search engine and it doesn't seem technically correct. Surely his "Complete List of Works" would be more accurate? Jellinator (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The complete list of Holst's works is in a separate article, linked just after the heading "Music". I see "Full flowering" only as a subhead, referring to his middle-period works. Admittedly, this is not as sober a heading as "Middle period" or "Mature works" might be, but battleship grey has never been one of my favourite colours.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hymn Of Jesus?
There really should be a page for this, one of Holst's masterpieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil6875 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Phil6875, feel free to create one! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry
As a Swede living in Norway I have long been intrigued by the claim that Gustav Holst had Swedish ancestry. The claim is made without source in Encyclopedua Britannica as well as in other works of reference. The Wikipedia article states tthat the Holst family was of mixed Swedish, Latvian and German ancestry, with Grove Music Online as source. Grove'sDictionary  is not available to me. Since I doubt the statement of ancestry I aske whether Grove provides further explanation.

The Geni database includes Holst family ancestors living in Northern Germany and the Baltic region of Imperial Russia but none from Sweden. All names look German to me. The first recorded members of the family were in fact pastors in the Rostock region of present-day Germany.

If we are to believe Geni several members of the Holst family lived in Riga in the 18th century. At that time Riga was a city dominated by German-speakers. Gustav Holst's ancestors there are correctly described as Baltic Germans. They were not ethnic Latvians.

Gustav Holst's grandfather Guetavus Valentine Holst, was born 1799 in Riga and came as a child to Britain with his parents. Like several members of his family he becake a professional muusician. The present article tells he  added a fake von to his family name. Gustav Holst's daughter Imogen tells that by posing as a nobleman he hoped to increase his prestige and attract more pupils.

The Swedish version of this article has stated that Gustv Holst belonged to a Swedish noble family, and Encyclopedia Britannica states that Gustav Holst's father (=Gustavus Valentine's son) was Swedish. Both these statements are positively false. On the other hand, his first name Gustavus may be taken to be Swedish by English-speakers, and the Swedish king called Gustavus Adolphus (1594–1632) in English obviously inspired him to name two of his sons Gustavus and Adolphus (also written Adolph), rspectively.

With his false claim of nobility in mind, I now ask whether the claim of Swedish ancestry was also a fake. There seems to be no ancestors that can be positively identified as Swediish.

I don't know the answer. Does Imogen Holst tell more about the family ancestry in here biography of her father, and is there relable sources which corroborate the Geni database?

If the claim of Swedish ancestry was deliberately false it was well made. Few people, including encyclopedia authors, have reasons to doubt plausible statements of this kind. Roufu (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the above
The matter seems rather hazy. Imogen (1969, p. 1) says sans phrase that Gustav's great-grandfather was Swedish. Grove says "Holst’s great-grandfather Matthias (1769–1854) was born in Rīga, of German ancestry". The ODNB says "His great-grandfather Matthias (c.1767–1854) was of Scandinavian origin". Short (1990) says:
 * Although the Holst family probably originated in Scandinavia, by the late seventeenth century branches were established in Poland, Germany and subsequently Russia, when in 1703 Christian Lorenz moved his family home from Rostock to Riga, in Latvia.

Unless something comes to light to suggest changing our text I suggest we leave it as it is. The nationality of Holst's great-grandfather, though interesting, is not, after all, the crux of the article.  Tim riley  talk   12:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to see the various attempts to explain Gustav Holst's possible Swedish ancestry. In Sweden, where Holst is largely unknownm, it is presented as a prominent fact which, however, is not elaborated upon. Thus Sohlmans musiklexikon (Sohlman's Dictionary of Music, 5 volumes), 2nd edition, Vlume 3 (1976) describes Holst as am "English comoser and conductor of Swedish descent".
 * Tim riley makes it clear above that the Holst family believed in their Swedish ancestry. This is one of the few things that can be said with certainty. A note note to that effect and a statement of the general uncertainty of the matter might eventually be added to the English-language article.
 * Short, who looks to me like the best modern sorce, traces the family's Baltic German rooots in line with the Geni database, which is not a reliable source in itself. If one were to look futher for Scandinnavian roots one might go to the records of University of Rostock where the first recorded family member most likely studied. Rostock had numerous Scandinavian students at that time, and one could think that a few of them stayed in the area after graduation.
 * More importantly, Tim's note above provides material for the revision of the Swedish Wikipedia article on Gustav Holst. That is my first priority.  Roufu (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The print edition of The New Grove does not list any Swedish ancestry, only German - a great-grandfather born in Riga, Latvia  and the emmigration to England by same. - HammerFilmFan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.12.90 (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Simple improvements?
To User:Tim_riley, I have explained my edit now. I hope the reasoning makes sense to you. Zaslav (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. Please be sure to add edit summaries for any future changes to articles to save wasting other editors' time.  Tim riley  talk   07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)