Talk:Joseph (opera)

Sometimes known as Joseph en Égypte
Is there a reference for the alternative name? It doesn't appear in the Elizabeth Bartlet article in Grove. -- Klein zach  15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a "token' one but there are multiple references to it as Joseph en Egypte. See . Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See also this affiche for an 1816 performance in Calais. Re the section below, on this affiche it's described as "Opéra en 3 actes". Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if Joseph en Égypte is actually an abbreviation of Joseph, ou Jacob et ses fils en Égypte. I think this needs checking. Up to now we've never given alternative, informal names for operas. There are lots of them of course. -- Klein zach  23:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Genre: Opera in three acts?
I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that a "three act opera" is a genre, have they? Elizabeth Bartlet in Grove calls the opera a 'drame mêlé de chants', presumably following Méhul himself. Incidentally I don't think having a infobox here helps the article. As usual it's a just a trap for misinformation. -- Klein zach  15:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Pougin, it was basically an an opéra comique, but given the biblical subject, a more "tasteful" description was used in the opening night affiche: "drame en trois actes, mêlé de chant" . Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand it's basically an opéra comique, but the policy has always been to follow the composer's designation, like Grove. The implication of the lead is that Méhul either didn't endorse the designation or he removed it later. What evidence is there for thia? Elizabeth Bartlet simply calls it a 'drame mêlé de chants' with no qualification.-- Klein zach  21:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Copied from WP Opera talk page where, confusingly, debate on this is also being carried out:

[The Opera Project guidance] is explicit: 'the genre (opera, or a more specific sub-genre, e.g. operetta, zarzuela, etc.), the number of acts, the composer, [....]'. Thus, the genre here is simply 'opera'; the number of acts (per the guidance) is not part of the genre. You can either specify the no. of acts in as separate line of the box (if you really must), or you can leave it in the text of the article.[...] --Smerus (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this at all . It makes nonsense of all the work done in the past to provide accurate descriptions in opera articles (and in this case the List of operas by Méhul). Where did this concept of opera as the genre and opéra comique (or whatever) as sub-genre come from? It's historically illiterate. -- Klein zach  22:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only citing the existing guidelines (with which this box seems inconsistent)! Let's discuss the guidelines in the proper place, of course.--Smerus (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which.....a brief reading of this brief article showed, among other things, clunky writing, over- and under-linking, repetition of information (some of it false), and text under inappropriate headings. I have tried to correct these issues. It does suggest however, that work on the articles themsleves is rather more important and necessary that messing about with ancillary features.--Smerus (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked Wild & Charlton's book. According to their entry the livret (Duval) has Drame mêlé de chants and the score (Méhul) has opéra, which I believe we can translate as "opera". The ms livret has the title Joseph en Égypte. Certain editions call it an opéra biblique. They also confirm that it was "inspired" by Omasis, a tragedy by Baour-Lormian. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In the past we haven't translated 'opéra', but I'm also wondering about this. Is there more background here? Maybe we need a more detailed performance history? -- Klein zach  23:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with not translating opéra. It's close enough to English, that I don't think anyone should have trouble understanding it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I was wondering if there are different versions? Perhaps with and without dialogue? -- Klein zach  04:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From my quick look at contemporary sources yesterday, it appears that it may have also been performed as an oratorio without the spoken dialogue. Casaglia's documentation of the premiere calls it the "first version", but doesn't list any subsequent performances of the opera, so not much help as to what or how many different versions there were. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Foreign language performances are also mentioned. This is not the only opera with multiple genre descriptions. In the past we have simply noted the genre description of the first performance, unless we can detail different versions, in which case we obviously give the genre descriptions for each of them. -- Klein zach  08:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
The main contributor to this article is Folantin, who I believe is still infobox-sceptic. I've also done work on Méhul (List of operas by Méhul) and I think this box (in contrast to the lead) is confusing for the reader. Judging by the project discussion, Robert.Allen and Smerus are not pro-box either. So why is it here? Only because of the relentless pressure of one single editor? And what about Voceditenore? Does she support putting boxes on all the opera articles? I'd like to know if this is the beginning of a whole series of problems on these articles. I support removal. -- Klein zach  23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not support adding infoboxes to all articles, nor do I plan to add any myself, although I can still see a few cases where one might be useful. Since infoboxes of any kind are neither required nor prohibited, and given the reaction here, yes it probably will mean discussions like this on every page to which one is added or proposed. But on past form, attempts to add an infobox or propose one on the talk page (and the ensuing time-sink) will keep happening regardless of what the opera project has in its article guide. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera for more, especially on the background. Voceditenore (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've seen this box in action. IMO, the unclear 'genre' field and the strange 'other title' field (for subtitles?) are problems. Also the 'premiere' field (hitherto unmentioned) confuses company and theatre (in contrast to the lead which explains perfectly clearly by the Opéra-Comique . . . at the Théâtre Feydeau).  Klein zach  08:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support the wish to have more specific fields for company, theatre, structure, - please take these concerns to the template talk, but remember that KISS was a main design feature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I linked the List of operas by Méhul in the navbox now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I support restoring Template:Méhul operas and removing Template:Infobox opera --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal per project discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal and restoration of Méhul template, as above.--Smerus (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Retain the infobox for the convenience of our readers and data reusers; refactor the Méhul template using navbox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have an infobox, but it's too early to vote, let's first see how it can be improved (see project talk). The navbox is at the bottom, - as not everybody who voted above seems to have noticed. Why have two navboxes? - Please: let's distinguish between the infobox for this particular opera, criticism of the template (at the template talk), and dislike of an infobox in general (at the project talk), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly the consensus here is for removing the box. Gerda Arendt please remove the box from the talk page above, as per your promise that you would not use this tactic again after the complaints about the infobox you put on the Richard Wagner talk page. -- Klein zach  13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have now replaced the infobox with the navbox — on the article. -- Klein zach  13:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now moved the infobox to user space, to please you - we had an edit conflict. (I promised not to one on a talk where it is disputed, such as a composer. I did NOT promise to show an alternative to a discussion I considered ongoing) - Did you notice the bottom navbox? Did the other voters? How much time do you allow for a discussion? As long as you get the result you want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. If it does the infobox can go back. If it doesn't the infobox should stay off the article. The editors of CM/Opera articles have always respected consensus. We hope you will as well. -- Klein zach  14:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Four editors against and two in favour of the infobox is not a consensus, much less a clear one. Your disruptive removal, while the discussion is ongoing, should be reverted. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a discussion time of one to two weeks, a greater participation than six people, of whom four didn't even have the premises right, and the discussion of improvements BEFORE starting to vote. But I'm getting used to "consensus". Do we agree that the side navbox is redundant? (I better don't comment on it's beauty.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the side navbox is not redundant. Opera navboxes have always been placed in the upper right corner. -- Klein  zach  15:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Opera navboxes have always been placed in the upper right corner" . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bottom navboxes that I recall from memory: Richard Wagner, Giuseppe Verdi, Antonio Vivaldi, - there is much more room to freely arrange groups of works, writings, people connected to a composer if you can play with the full page than a slim corner. The one for Méhul was added in response to the valid argument by Robert:Allen that it would be difficult to add a new work to both infoboxes and side navboxes, if the works of one composer were not treated equally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Richard Wagner, Giuseppe Verdi, Antonio Vivaldi are all navboxes of a different type — do i really need to point that out? -- Klein zach  22:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * However as the two editors in support of a navbox have made absolutely no contribution to the article except as regards the box, that could also be taken into account.--Smerus (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * sorry, Smerus, could you point me please to the Wikipedia standard that stipulates the relevance to a consensus of the number and types of contributions an editor has made, when contributing to a discussion of this type (especially after wider contributions have been solicited on a project page)? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have regulatory 'standards', but respecting the opinions of contributing editors is regarded as a fundamental value. It's a theme of the long-running current AN/I started by, and focusing on, Andy Mabbett. -- Klein zach  22:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are all "contributing editors". We have pillars, polices and guidelines. If you wish to assert that one type of contributing editor is to be respected more than another, then you should have no problem citing one of them to support your claim. The rest of your comment is utter bollocks. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition of a second navbox
Unfortunately a second navbox has been added. Why do we need a second virtually identical box?  Klein zach  15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't; as noted above, we just need the one, across the bottom of the article, in common with how they're done in the rest of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * sorry, Andy, could you point me please to the Wikipedia standard that stipulates that such boxes must be treated this way, as 'in the rest of Wikipedia'? - as I am aware of a great number which are in fact not treated in this way. Best,--Smerus (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For example Template:WW2InfoBox. -- Klein zach  10:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Restore infobox?
I suggest to restore the infobox, with the related image, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I created this article. I do not want an infobox on it, for the reasons I have stated time and time again elsewhere. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Read WP:OWN. Given that you have not showed reciprocal respect to others on "their" articles, I'm extremely tempted to see if a consensus can be reached.  But it's probably not worth the bandwidth.  Nonetheless, Folantin, should you EVER show up at an article someone else created where they want an infobox and  you argue against one, trust me, we have this diff in history forever.   Montanabw (talk)  17:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please cut the personal attacks and unprovoked aggression and read Tag team. Because if you and your squad EVER try to organise something like that here I'm going to re-open the Arbitration Case against you. The article history shows you have no previous interest in this article (unsurprisingly).
 * FYI I have spent the past 18 months/two years mostly working on new content and on improving articles I created in the hope I would be left in peace at least in those areas of Wikipedia. So far, so good. If I'm now going to be subject to harassment and destructive behaviour again, I'll know who to thank. Gerda at least has been polite. Please chill out and go and do something constructive elsewhere. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Folantin, as I say, this article is not worth the waste of bandwidth and you can own it for all I care. But let's not be a hypocrite, if you want to own this article, then respect the "ownership" of others.  I watch Gerda's edits to help protect her from people who unjustly attack and try to play "gotcha!" with her.  (I also keep an eye on Eric Corbett for similar reasons).  So, all I am going to say on this topic is that I now hope we understand each other. And, incidentally, I have never been subjected to arbitration sanctions of any sort (other than those applied generally to all users/participants), I have never been blocked or restricted in any way on wikipedia, so if you want to go after me, I wouldn't make book on your chances of doing anything more than wasting your time.  Montanabw (talk)  00:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the Infobox ArbCom ended, Folantin has not once "attacked" Gerda or tried to play "gotcha". In fact, he has not interacted with her at all. He has not removed or even contested any infoboxes, let alone ones which she has added. He did not initiate or even comment in the two Arbitration Enforcement requests brought against her in the 18 months following the decision. Nor did he participate in, let alone oppose, her request to have her Arbcom restrictions lifted in May of this year. She has subsequently proposed several infoboxes on opera and musical composition articles. He has not participated in any of those discussions, let alone oppose her. This is the only one. Here, he politely pointed out that his opinion as the article's creator was that he opposed the infobox and pointed to his previous reasons above. And what happens? He is accused in advance of planning to "attack" Gerda and play "Gotcha", threatened that his comment will be used against him if he "EVER" [sic] opposes an infobox on an article he hasn't created, and gratuitously called a "hypocrite". Voceditenore (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears Gerda did not notice that Folantin WP:OWNed this article. After the drama over the recent block of Eric Corbett, I've been a little twitchy.  But Folantin most certainly made a lot of threats in the past, and he just did so again below, so this tiger sure hasn't changed his spots.  But I can drop the stick.   Montanabw (talk)  04:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What Gerda did or did not notice is immaterial to my comment. As is Eric Corbett. My comment above was about your entirely inappropriate and unconstructive aggression and name-calling which had nothing to do with whether an infobox would be beneficial here and which I note you have continued below. So it obviously had little effect. If, as you say, you "can drop the stick", then simply drop it. Voceditenore (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dropped. Here.   Montanabw (talk)  05:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What Voceditenore said. I have done my best to avoid such conflicts over the past 18 months, but obviously some users are incapable of dropping the stick. Also, Montanabw, you are in violation of the ArbCom decision which explicitly stated: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." You are also in violation of WP:TALK and WP:BATTLEGROUND, among other policies.
 * I have little time for editors who treat Wikipedia as a social networking site, so please go and play with your friends elsewhere. I have no appetite for such Wiki-drama; I just want to be left in peace to edit the articles which interest me, most of which I have created myself. Thanks again. --Folantin (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, all, blame me, - when I suggested I failed to look up authorship and the discussions above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Folantin needs to be held to the same standard as others. He's one of the most mean-spirited people I've encountered in nine years of editing wikipedia, and his little snide "go play with your friends elsewhere" comment above is a perfect example of his approach.  But I shall remember that Folantin owns his articles, and so it's not worth bothering him unless I'm ready to engage in mortal combat.  If he wants to play in his own little sandbox all by himself, then he can.   Montanabw (talk)  04:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok... this is one of the most immature conversations I've seen on wikipedia in a long time. Folantin didn't start this drama on this page. You did Montanabw. Maybe you should take a wikibreak. That said, I see nothing wrong with the infobox Gerda has proposed, and in fact I think it improves the article by removing redundancy in the nav boxes at the top and bottom of the page and by presenting the image of the opera characters in a more visually appealing way. Right now the layout of the opera roles section looks disjointed and awkward, That said, the article isn't bad the way it currently is and this issue is really more one of editorial preference. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the restoration of the infobox, as outlined by Gerda, for the reasons given above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether or not there should be an infobox, 's claim that he should decide the matter because he wrote the article is unacceptable. I wasn't on arb com at the time, and I have recused myself from any followup discussions on the subject, so I'm speaking just as an ordinary editor: their findings were "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." and    "it is not clear to what degree, if any, the views of editors with a particular connection to an article (e.g., the editor who created the article or knowledgeable members of a relevant wikiproject) should be accorded any added weight in such discussions, nor is it clear how the potential desirability in uniformity of formatting across articles of a common type should be weighed." .  DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The comment, "I created this article. I do not want an infobox on it..." was addressed specifically to Gerda Arendt. Gerda and I have a personal understanding that we don't try to impose our preferences on articles either of us create. This agreement worked well at avoiding conflict until Montanabw's belligerent and counterproductive intervention above and I accept Gerda's claim that she inadvertently posted here.  As far as I'm aware, both Gerda and Andy Mabbett are still under ArbCom restrictions saying they can only add infoboxes to pages which they themselves create. That suggests that "article creation" does have a bearing on the principles established by the Arb Case. But I will add no further comment regarding this issue here as it is not a suitable venue to discuss infoboxes in general, per ArbCom: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate, Folantin, if you'd speak about your understanding, not mine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This article would definitely benefit from an infobox, conveying the title, composer, and so on, as well as housing a relevant picture. The one shown above looks good to me. When the vast majority of WP articles carry infoboxes, it looks odd to have some that don't. When I first looked at the article I thought the Étienne Méhul navbox was the infobox, which confused me. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the restoration of the infobox because I consider it a useful way to summarize and display the most important facts about the topic of the article. Silver hr (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First edit in almost two years happens to be to this exceptionally obscure page. Amazing. --Folantin (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the topic? Silver hr (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose So how are you going to define this opera's genre? Is it: "opéra comique", "drame mêlé de chant" or "opéra biblique"? This is an important question. The box also looks ugly with the text at the bottom of the illustration creating a mess. --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support restoration for reasons outlined by others, whilst I detest bloated infoboxes, the short summary proposed seems clear and helpful. What are the arguments against? Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Input from previous contributors is requested:, , , . --Folantin (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A clarifying discussion on project level is ongoing. The results so far:
 * The parameter for what to tell the reader who arrives at an article (with a title which is often in a foreign language such as Die Walküre) was renamed to type, to say roughly what the article is about, such as Opera, Music drama etc., as opposed to Tone poem, Song, you name it.
 * There was no enthusiasm to mention a precise genre at all in the infobox, but if you feel you have to, you can list as many genres as you want in genre, sourced of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I oppose reintroduction of the infobox. Is this just going to be some sort of regular attempted 'flash mob' at this article by infoboxers such as Gerda and Andy and their cohort? Incidentally I note that of those who consistently turn up when Gerda makes these attempts, none except Gerda herself have ever made a substantial edit contribution to opera articles. Her edit here proposing the reintroduction gave no reason or rationale for doing so - and she well knows that that the right procedure (or at very least, the courteous procidure) for nominating addition of infoboxes (or for advancing any change to an article in a talkpage) is to advance reasons as to how they might improve the article. Folantin's 'ownership' of course has no bearing on the issue one way or another, save to provide an opportunity for the flash mob to screech. My reasons for opposing are the same as they always have been. The infobox adds no information and is pure clutter. The allegation that it is in some way helpful to users and readers is pure WP:OR and has no evidential background.  Unless it can be demonstrated on a NPOV basis how an infobox enhances or improves the WP experience, the addition of one must be a matter of individual fancy; and indidual fancy, even when shared by Gerda, Montanabw, old Uncle Andy Mabbett and all, is not an encyclopaedic rationale. --Smerus (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OR does not apply here because it states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research", and no one is suggesting adding any original research to the article. The point of the infobox, IMO, is to summarize and display the most important facts about the topic of the article. Such facts should either already be present in the article and properly sourced, or if they are stated only in the infobox, also properly sourced. Silver hr (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, just following up on Folantin's comment about User:Silver hr. User:Amakuru, who has also never contributed to an opera article, has an admiring award from Gerda on his talk page. Montanabw and Andy Mabbett, together with Gerda are as is well known members of the egregiously named Qaulity Article Imnprovement project, whose members (according to its page) 'share some of the same ideas and values - one of them being that infoboxes are integral to the encyclopaedia.' (An idea which is not explicitly endorsed by Wikipedia itself). And, lastly, just to remind people about WP:CANVASSING......This includes 'bringing fictional or real outside participants into the discussion to create a false impression of support for your viewpoint'....not of course that I am suggesting that anything of the sort has taken place here......--Smerus (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As for your allegations that I am part of a flash mob or canvassing attempt, that is not true. No one invited me to vote a particular way or even share my opinion; I encountered this topic on my own recently while browsing Wikipedia, and I shared my opinion on it. That is all. BTW, these personal accusations by you and Folantin are off-topic and not constructive. This thread is for arguing for or against the reintroduction of the infobox, not discussing other editors. Silver hr (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note Just a reminder of WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not "the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." I note that legitimate concerns about the infobox, e.g. the genre issue, have remained unanswered for the past two years. --Folantin (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to do with, other than the aforementioned Precious award, which she kindly gave to me in recognition of work I'd done on the Rwanda article, nothing to do with music or infoboxes. True, I've never contributed much to opera or music articles up to now, although I am an amateur musician and have sometimes toyed with the idea of improving articles on some symphonies. But anyway, to cut a long story short, I categorically didn't come here because of anything to do with Gerda, I just wanted to state my long held opinion that articles on classical music and composers should follow the general trend of almost all other WP articles and have infoboxes. They do more good than harm, even if they only contain three basic fields. Whether my opinion is less valid because I'm not a regular, I've no idea. I tend to think all Wikipedians are created equal, but I don't know. Thanks, and I hope you'll assume good faith on this matter. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, canvassing is, basically, notifying only people on one side of an issue, here, the people known to oppose infoboxes. If you wanted to notify the relevant wikiprojects, (including both QAI and OPERA) that would be more neutral.  The real point here is that  WP:CONSENSUS is not to be derailed by "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."  And of course, Consensus can change.  I think that the new round of WP:ASPERSIONS against innocent participants in the above comments by the "usual group" of people who oppose infoboxes, and acknowledging my own loss of temper on this issue a few months back, I think perhaps it is time to seek the broader consensus of people outside this article and project, and hence I shall open an RfC shortly.   Montanabw (talk)  22:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What has canvassing got to do with anything? I notified people who commented in the prior discussion, hence "input from previous contributors is requested". Your failure to understand basic policy is perhaps one of the reasons you failed your Request for Adminship. We need people who actually know and care about this subject. Got any answers to the genre issue? Is it: "opéra comique", "drame mêlé de chant", "opéra biblique" or "opera in three acts"? Prose can handle such ambiguities, infoboxes can't. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Montanabw, I hope when you open the RfC you will note this comment on infoboxes at Talk:Albert Ketèlbey- "Whoa people, let's take a big, deep breath. I'd say we can respect article creators and lead editors - in both directions. Montanabw (talk)  03:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)" You surely can't mean that WP:OWN is a disqualifier when lead editors dislike infoboxes, but not a disqualifier when lead editors are pro-infobox? - Or maybe you can......I look forward to the discussion on this. --Smerus (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Montana has acquired a reputation for operating double standards: one set for her friends, one for her enemies. See the extensive commentary on this problem by many oppose voters at her failed Request for Adminship (note the references to this particular talk page) . She also frequently boasts of her respect for "content creators". Her content contributions to this article are still zero. She promised to take such criticisms about her battleground mentality on board but sadly it seems the "tiger can't change its spots". --Folantin (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I took the question of the precision of a genre to the relevant project. Thank you for good comments and actions, Smerus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose reintroduction of the infobox. I'm amazed and disappointed this circus is ongoing. As everyone probably knows, I am no longer involved in music-related Wikipedia articles. Why? Because of time-wasting, unproductive discussions like this one.  Klein  zach  07:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall you were admonished at arbcom for you behavior and further discussion here is subject to that decision, and in particular the following excerpts: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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." and your cracks are the sort of personal remarks noted here:  "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general."  Montanabw (talk)  09:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have remembered that before making baseless accusations about canvassing then. You have never once addressed the content issues on this individual article. --Folantin (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Folantin, putting out pings only to your own supporters was canvassing and you know it, not that it's worth taking to a drama board. Now, please remember the clean hands rule before you continue to attack everyone who disagrees with you. My concern about content is that an infobox makes an article like this - about an individual operatic work - far more accessible to the non-expert reader: on a more obscure work such as this one, an illustration about the work itself (and not a mere image of the composer), with essential details, helps pique the reader's interest far more than a wall of text.  I'll leave the expert details to the experts, I wouldn't think of interfering with your content research (though I'd be glad to assist with a task such as locating an article that's behind a paywall or something); I am interested in making classical music more understandable to ordinary people, and good graphics and basic information helps make this work.   I don't think that great art and music should be a walled garden only accessible to the elite.  For that reason, this article needs an infobox.  Montanabw (talk)  22:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again with the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Let's spell out why that wasn't "canvassing". Those editors were not "my supporters", they were editors who had taken part in the initial discussion above. There used to be a note by an admin on this page  (since removed, I don't know why) making this very point: "most of those who commented in the first discussion did not participate in the second discussion, though they are still active. I cannot tell easily whether they were notified or not, and that's kind of a weak point also in this section." They hadn't been notified, so I rectified that omission.
 * Equally importantly, Smerus, Kleinzach and Robert Allen have all made substantial contributions to the content of this article, which strongly suggests their expertise might be welcome here ("I'd say we can respect article creators and lead editors"). Their opinions are certainly more informed than vague gesturing to a hypothetical "reader" who can't manage to read basic prose. All four of us have provided a much greater service to the reader than people who turn up to harass and abuse content editors on pages to which they have contributed nothing. --Folantin (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have replaced the image in the second form of the box above with one of Jean Elleviou (the role creator) as Joseph. The previous image was a poor choice, a messy, do-it-yourself collage with distracting superimposed lettering. It was definitely not an improvement on the image of the composer. Later I will also upload to Commons the two other characters in their costumes as single images, which could ultimately (and preferably) replace the collage. I have also removed the field "Other title". I feel this is best explicated in the text (the opera was rarely performed after its premiere) and according to the BnF, Joseph is its official title. As far as I can see, this new version of the box is clean, simple, informative, attractive and not misleading in any way. Joseph is an opera. The header on the box does not mislead the reader. If it did, then so does Template:Méhul operas (the vertical navbox currently in the article) with its collapsed list titled... er... "Operas". OK, I'll now let you all get back to your slanging match. SMirC-crazy.svg Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to replace the navbox at the top with that picture but not with the infobox, which is minimally informative and dodges issues such as genre which are handled in the introductory paragraph. I've never understood the arguments that "readers" can't read a few sentences of prose (although I have a strong suspicion one or two infobox fans aren't talking about human readers). --Folantin (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)*
 * It doesn't "dodge" issues of the genre, any more than the vertical navbox does. It's not meant to be a complete explication of the opera (although at the moment I don't think the current text does a very good job of explicating them either). It's meant to provide the composer, librettist and date and place of premiere. Of course readers can read the full text. The box doesn't prevent them from doing so. Nor does it discourage them from doing so. I've never understood the argument that some very basic data presented in a well-designed, simple infobox on the right-hand side of the article is a bad thing because it's repetitious. Good articles already repeat the facts in the lede in the body of the article (or they should do). Ditto image captions which often repeat material in the article, and rightly so. As a reader as well as an editor (almost exclusively on opera-related subjects), I find the boxes helpful for quickly checking or reminding myself of the key facts about an opera. Voceditenore (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've said my piece. I'm now going to abandon this discussion for the Christmas period. --Folantin (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support addition of infobox per voceditenore's changes and comments. While I am not a fan of infoboxes per many of the reasons mentioned by User:Smerus and User:Folantin, I am of the opinion that the infobox war (which I waged for many years) has been lost. This infobox is inoffensive. To other naysayers, I strongly urge you to accept the fact that the larger wikipedia community has embraced infoboxes, and fighting it is a pointless time-suck.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just added a  to the above new infobox. Per Voceditenore, the vertical navbox is really quite redundant and not a substitute for an infobox. However, if Folantin likes the concept of a single image related to the article rather than the navbox (wow, we agree on something!), perhaps a collapsed infobox is a reasonable compromise; we settled an infobox dispute at Frank Sinatra that way. Thoughts?   Montanabw (talk)  06:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like to collapse three items which a reader would like to see at a glance. Collapsing makes sense if there are many items within one parameter, for example the countries where Elizabeth II is queen, which is done properly by using longitem and Collapsible list. I wonder how many readers realize that they don't have to click on "additional data" but on "show" in order to see more. I confess that I discovered only after years of seeing the opera side navboxes that they offer more than an image of the composer. In this article,wehave a bottom navbox, and we seem to agree that the side navbox is not needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gerda, it's a silly thing to do for such a small number of key facts. There's no reason to collapse it and make the reader click to find out what should be available at a glance, i.e. the whole point of the box. Another issue I have with collapsing is that it makes errors and/or vandalism introduced into the box less easy to spot. PS. I've re-added the simple box above the collapsed one for ease of comparison. Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally would prefer the extended infobox Gerda first proposed, though perhaps with the single image. But the idea of collapsing it was a good-faith attempt to see if  would consider any compromise at all; a collapsed infobox would look about the same as the side navbox that's there now.  Folantin?   Your position?  Montanabw (talk)  21:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Do you know that research shows that Infoboxes are preferred by readers on small form factor devices like smartphones and the smaller tablets, because they give the reader an instant view of the facts, which by design fits the full form, without having to navigate the unwieldy WP index, particularly on the smaller form factors. The index is unwieldy in a manner which reduces the page view time by around 40-60%, which is a lot. Smartphones now fill almost 60% of a computer market, and are only projected to increase. So the idea that the infobox has only a few facts is neither here nor there. It is how accessible the facts are. I think infobox should be on every page that needs it. scope_creep (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph (opera). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222150205/http://www.operamanager.it/cgi-bin/process.cgi?azione=ricerca&tipo=OP&id=1350 to http://www.operamanager.it/cgi-bin/process.cgi?azione=ricerca&tipo=OP&id=1350

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Restore infobox? - next round
The last discussion is still on this page, 2013. In the meantime, the Méhul sidebar was deleted, and the guidelines of project opera were updated. This opera could have an infobox, as other great French operas such as Carmen (and, as of today, 1523 other operas). Even if not, the article should present an image of the composition on top if we have one, not of the composer. Let's see for a week what others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have rearranged the images, as suggested. I don't see a rationale to go further. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we don't have to rehash the (3) opposes and (5) supports above, regarded by several participants as a waste of time then already. Also the voice of an arbitrator about one of the opposes: "Whether or not there should be an infobox, Folantin's claim that he should decide the matter because he wrote the article is unacceptable." Voce said it best then: "As far as I can see, this new version of the box is clean, simple, informative, attractive and not misleading in any way". (22 December 2015, 08:01) No good reason I see to treat this article other than the normal opera article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As you know, there is no "normal"; what appears is decided on a per-article basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I know, that's why I'm here. Waste of time every time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the first 500 operas with infobox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually there is such a thing as "normal" with respect to these infoboxes. That is not in contradiction to deciding on a "per-article basis" if there is some sort of disagreement. Infobox Opera is transcluded in 1500 opera articles, approximately half of all opera articles and the number is growing. Many of the articles which do not contain the box are very short stubs and/or obscure works which editors visit very infrequently if at all. As for this article, the last discussion had a majority for restoring the infobox (5 to 3), and I am adding my support now as well.

The boxes are particularly helpful to readers accessing via mobile phones, and provide very basic key data presented in a well-designed, simple box. As such they are also helpful to desk top users as well.

The last discussion was six years ago and despite the majority of participants being in favour of adding the infobox, nothing came of it because the article's creator said "no", and in my view undue weight has been given to that. The article’s creator has not edited Wikipedia for three years. If at the end of the week, there have been no further comments, I will restore the infobox. Anyone who really cares about this article will have it on their watch list. Voceditenore (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They are particularly unhelpful for readers accessing the mobile view, actually: they don't appear until after the lead paragraph in which most if not all of the information they contain has been displayed already, past the fold, and depending on screen size cause massive amounts of whitespace. This isn't a data-heavy article which benefits from tabular compilation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)