Talk:Jo Bogaert

Infobox
Please explain why we should use an infobox which makes it impossible to list the acts he is most famous for (as producer and founder), and not the more general infobox whih fits his multiple roles better? What is actually lost by using the infobox person here? Fram (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Fram, you are currently engaged in an edit war with me regarding this article's infobox, which is discouraged on Wikipedia, as you know. Can you please explain your reasoning for changing the infobox from musical artist to person? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, perhaps you could have read the above section with the same title and answered there? As for the edit war, please see WP:BRD, and note that I have tried different compromises, while all you did was blindly revert. Fram (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point. I was triggered by your insinuation that I was acting in bad faith, so I reverted without careful consideration. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fram (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Oh, and just saw that you removed my message from your talk page (which you are allowed to do): "Undid revision 1131109852 by Fram (talk) Please keep conversation to article talk page. Also, keep in mind that the first revert is legitimate, but subsequent ones constitute edit warring." First, I just posted an invitation to you to use the article talk page, so I don't appreciate the implication that I brought the discussion to your talk page and should have kept it on the article talk page, where you hadn't appeared yet. Second, you are perfectly right: you edited (with a deceptive edit summary), I reverted, and then you reverted again, which started the actual edit warring. Perhaps don't lecture people when you are in the wrong again and again? Anyway, please use the previous section to discuss the choice of infobox. Fram (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that at the time of my responses, there were 2 sections titled infobox. These have since been consolidated, making parts of my responses seemingly meaningless. Fram (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: This discussion was listed at Third opinion and I am commenting in response to that request. I have never edited this article before nor have I (to the best of my knowledge) interacted with either editor. The dispute appears to be whether Template:Infobox musical artist or Template:Infobox person should be used. The rationale appears to be that Bogaert is a musician so the musician infobox should be used, and the counterargument to that appears to be that while he is a musician, that is not all he is known for and that the more specific infobox limits what can be included about him. From looking at MOS:INFOBOX, the purpose of the infobox is that it summarizes key features of the page's subject. The only real difference I'm seeing between this musicial artist version and the person version is the inclusion of the "Known for" parameter, which is not an option with the musical artist template. Nothing appears lost by using the person template so I'd have to say that absent a compelling reason why musical artist should be used, the infobox that can provide the most fitting information should be used, which based on what's currently in the aritlce appears to be Template:Infobox person. The article is still in its early stages (he was a musician but what did he play?) but what's there seems best represented by the person template. - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Aoidh, thanks for your input. The reason I requested a third opinion is actually not because of the infobox—I conceded that the person infobox is better suited to this article than the musician one. The issue I see is that User:Fram insists on including private commentary directed to me here, where it has no real relevance to the topic, so I think it should be removed. What are your thoughts on that? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the accusations of edit warring and such it seems in line with the rest of the discussion. While you're of course permitted to remove content from your user talk page, it's not private and you asked them to move the discussion here. Nothing in this edit appears to fall under any of the exceptions of WP:TPO, so I don't believe removing the comment is warranted when viewing it through the lens of Talk page guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)