Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven/Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2014
For the English pronunciation of Beethoven's name, the IPA seems to be inaccurate. It should be /vɑn/. */væn/ is incorrect -- that would be pronounced like the American English word 'van' as in 'minivan'. The audio file reflects the correct pronunciation /vɑn/.

REVISED REQUEST: The audio file for the pronunciation of Ludwig van Beethoven does not match the IPA transcription. If our source says the pronunciation of 'van' is /væn/, the audio should be replaced with a pronunciation as in the American English word 'van'. Pronunciation of æ

Chip.altman (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but User:Kwamikagami the previous "/ˈluːdvɪɡ vɑːn ˈbeɪtoʊvən/ (US) or /ˈlʊdvɪɡ væn ˈbeɪt.həʊvən/ (UK)" to "/ˈlʊdvɪɡ væn ˈbeɪtoʊvən/ (US) or /ˈbeɪt.hoʊvən/ (UK)". Three months later,, User:Xyzzyva removed the now shortened and pointless UK version. To my ears, File:En-LudwigVanBeethoven.ogg sounds like /ˈluːdvɪɡ vɑːn ˈbeɪtoʊvən/ and I would find /væn/ very odd, but http://www.forvo.com/word/ludwig_van_beethoven/ and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ludwig+van+beethoven use /væn/. I suppose there are substantial differences between English speakers, depending on their region and interest/familiarity with the composer. Only the German pronunciation is (more or less) certain (give or take a final /…ɪç/ vs. /…ɪɡ/ in "Ludwig" or a softer /ˈbeːt.hoːvən/ instead of /ˈbeːt.hoːfən/); maybe we should assume that all readers know how to pronounce LvB's name in their English, all Wikipedia needs to provide is the German pronunciation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I find the "van" pronunciation odd as well. I suspect what has happened is what you suggest:  that people half-way familiar with the German will use a pronunciation closer to the German, while the dictionaries are giving a more anglicized pronunciation.
 * The OED gives pronunciations of two names beginning w 'von', neither unfortunately Beethoven's. For one they have /vɒn/, and for the other /fɒn/ – neither really the German.  — kwami (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is something of a reference source available, Robert A. Fradkin's The Well-Tempered Announcer: A Pronunciation Guide to Classical Music.  The purpose of this book, I guess, is to help classical DJ's avoid embarrassing themselves with bad pronunciations of names of foreign composers and works.  It typically advocates a somewhat Anglicized but not fully vernacular pronunciation.  You can find the volume on Google Books.  For the van in Beethoven's name Fradkin firmly recommends [ɑ], quipping in a footnote "Reserve full-English [væn] for large motor vehicles." Opus33 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The German pronunciation is irrelevant for English speakers. I realize that to those who know German the native English "van" pronunciation sounds odd/wrong, but their feelings are also irrelevant (sorry!).  The only relevant fact is how actual English speakers say the name when speaking English, and I have never heard the pseudo-German "vahn" pronunciation from an American.  Those who want to try a German version know enough to know that German v is pronounced /f/, so they say "fahn"; most Americanize it to sound like the word "van."  Again, I apologize to those whose sense of fitness is offended by that fact, but it is a fact.  I'm not going to change the pronunciation in the article because I don't want to get into a tedious edit war, but I have to register here the fact that the article as it stands does not reflect normal U.S. pronunciation. Languagehat (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd argue the reverse: the English pronunciation is irrelevant for English speakers, because they already know it. Relevant for the interested reader is the German pronunciation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd suggest getting rid of all English pronunciations in English Wikipedia then, since you think English speakers automatically know them? In any case, it would certainly be better to have no English pronunciation in this article than an incorrect one. Languagehat (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Painting
I suggest to show the complete painting that now has an article. (See also) It is a welcome change from all the faces and shows the style of the time well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014
Under Memorial, first paragraph, last sentence:

Current text reads, "His name appears in gilded lettering above the stage of Symphony Hall, Boston, as it was the only one on which all the board members could agree when commemorating composers in the architecture." A citation is needed.

Found the citation but the text needs to be changed to reflect the source's information. Perhaps: Beethoven's name was inscribed on one of the plaques that trim the stage and balconies of Symphony Hall at the Boston Symphony Orchestra. While the other plagues were left blank, it was believed that Beethoven's popularity would not change.

http://www.bso.org/brands/symphony-hall/about-us/historyarchives/the-history-of-symphony-hall.aspx

Shortbread516 (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Shortbread516

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2014
66.204.176.254 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Unacceptable notice
This sort of expropriation of power is unacceptable: After lengthy consideration at the Wikipedia Composers project, it has been determined that infoboxes are not appropriate for composer articles. Before adding an infobox, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates.

Wikipedia Composers does not decide blanket policy for articles within their scope. The policy concerning infoboxes is clear and reinforced by a recent ArbCom case: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." - see WP:INFOBOXUSE. A new user has just had their good-faith addition of an infobox reverted with the edit summary "Revert to revision 635074684 dated 2014-11-23 08:04:44 by Moonraker: -infobox – see talk page archives and inline comment" which is tantamount to biting an inexperienced editor. By all means refer them to previous discussions in the talk page archives, but the onus is on the reverter to link to them if they want them to carry weight with new editors. To do otherwise is simple bullying and has no place in our project. --RexxS (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, it won't be getting an infobox, however the news is broken. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a consensus that any particular article should not have an infobox. I do have a problem with a small, self-appointed group dictating their personal preference as if it were policy and biting inexperienced editors. I would hope you could support those sentiments, John. --RexxS (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverting edits on a high-profile article is not biting or bullying – it's part of WP:BRD. Restoring the contested edit before discussing it might be called disruptive. Calling an editor who has edited for almost 3 years "inexperienced" seems presumptive. The onus to justify changes is always on the editor making changes. The archives are easily searchable and show that there is no consensus for an infobox. Then there is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates which were easily discoverable until the inline comment was removed. If an infobox is to be added to this article, changed consensus needs to be demonstrated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverting edits with a mendacious edit summary is is both biting and bullying, especially when it is done thoughtlessly to an inexperienced editor. The editor in question, User:Harsh4101991 has a grand total of 338 edits to date including 7 in the last year. Expecting such a user to be familiar with old debates - and basing your entire reason for reversion on that assumption - is beyond reasonable. The onus falls squarely on you to demonstrate that a consensus exists, "determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.", per policy.
 * Only a site-wide RfC can change our policy, not a four-year old discussion that came to no conclusion whatsoever on the question "To what extent can WikiProjects expect non-members to follow the former's preference regarding these?". It is ridiculous to suggest that the page has any bearing whatsoever on Harsh4101991's edits. Please read the other page you quote, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates, a collection of debates held more than six years ago. Then please try to explain how ploughing through those tired generalisations and personal opinions could possibly help any editor new to the topic to reach any conclusion about whether an infobox would improve this article, or not. When you can't do that, then try to find the debate in this article's archives that demonstrates the "consensus among the editors at each individual article" that policy requires. Afterwards, don't bother apologising to me - it's Harsh4101991 that you owe that to. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Bravo. It appears the reign of the anti-Infobox bullies has finally come to an end. Jus  da  fax   09:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2014
After a failed attempt in 1811 to perform his own Piano Concerto No. 5 (the "Emperor"), which was premiered by his student Carl Czerny, he never performed in public again until he conducted Ninth Symphony in 1824.

Above sentence under Loss of Hearing needs a "the" preceding "Ninth Symphony".

VBachani (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Image selection
I'm confused as to why the only images included here are of a white Beethoven. He was described as dark-skinned by almost everyone who made note of his appearance, including Frederick Hertz, Emil Ludwig, And Alexander Thayer in his Life of Beethoven. If this is news, perhaps a small informative subsection on heritage might be included, detailing his mother's Moorish lineage.



— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.88.196 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

These claims seem apocryphal at best. --50.201.196.54 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This article names sources for the claim that Beethoven had an at least partly black heritage. Alisio Star (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
About a month ago, I was asked to look at closing this section. There was an Administrators' noticeboard thread around the same time, which generated new discussion - so I've left it until now before commenting. For the record, I have no strong opinions on infoboxes - besides the fact that they're not important enough to get worked up over - and I was one of the arbitrators during the Infobox case. Based on that position, I've read the arguments in this section and I believe there is consensus that there should be an infobox in this article. Many of the arguments put forwards were not particularly helpful - either arguing for or against infoboxes in general or putting forward a simple "I like it" or "I don't like it" for this article, which would generate no consensus. Focusing on the remainder of the argument though, it appears to me that there is consensus that a short, well maintained infobox should be included, with effort to ensure that secondary information is not included in the infobox. Worm TT( talk ) 11:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

According to WikiProject Composers, shouldn't the deletion of this article's infobox be considered? I'm not there. Message me! 15:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. That page merely reflects the preferences of a small group and Wikiprojects don't decide site-wide policy. The actual guidance is at Manual of Style/Infoboxes : "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." You should, of course, feel free to start a discussion to see if any consensus can be reached. HTH --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the page should be changed by Wikiprojects, but it's customary not to include infoboxes in pages about classical composers, and in order to reach consistency, editors of this page could consider deleting the infobox. I'm not there. Message me! 15:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With over 2.5 million infoboxes in 4.5 million articles (which includes stubs, lists, dab pages, etc. that we would not expect to have an infobox), it's customary to include infoboxes in any well-developed article. In fact, over 75% of Featured Articles have an infobox. There's nothing special about classical composers that precludes having an infobox. For consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia, editors of the other composer biographies should consider adding an infobox to them. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Neither required nor prohibited" - so there's no need to try to bully people who don't want them into changing their mind. Happy Christmas! Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Neither required nor prohibited" also means that nobody should try to bully editors who do want them into changing their mind. It's perfectly symmetrical in the abstract. I'll cheerfully debate any real arguments, though - as long as you don't think that reasoned debate means bullying, of course. Merry Xmas to you too, John! --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that adding an infobox to this article simply because the majority of articles on WP have them is very loose justification for including one. I agree that neither side should feel bullied, which is why a discussion and consensus should be formed first before either adding or removing an infobox.  (Careful in that snow RexxS; I believe the next stop is London town! Shovels and sand at the ready, chez Cassianto! )   Cassianto Talk   13:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cass - Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year! You're absolutely right that adding an infobox here just because a majority of other articles have them is a very weak reason - and I hope you'll agree that removing it just because a majority of composer bios don't have one is equally weak. There are absolutely genuine reasons why a particular article should not have an infobox: aesthetics or the difficulty of summarising nuanced information are the most obvious. And there are genuine reasons why an infobox enhances an article, but they are more generic, of course. What is needed here is an informed discussion about what value an infobox would bring to the article on 'Ludwig van Beethoven' and what disadvantages it would confer. I've looked in the archives, but could only find these:
 * Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven/Archive 3 (2006/7)
 * Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven/Archive 5 (2013)
 * neither of which are particularly illuminating. Nevertheless, if you know of some that I've missed, they might be useful to point to when a new editor adds/removes or suggests addition/removal of an infobox. We should try to be kind to people who take an interest and (as you've probably noticed) I do get annoyed when fresh voices are dismissed with "because we've already made a blanket decision for all these articles". We'll never increase our editor pool until we take time to properly address other editors' views and concerns. In the meantime, I'll take care in the snow and I hope you will too! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Infobox - In my view the article is better with an infobox. Jus  da  fax   01:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox – In my view the article is not better with an infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Question regarding views: what would a reader say who never heard the name Beethoven before? Perhaps: I like to see at a glance that it is a composer who worked around 1800, located at places such as Bonn (now Germany) and Vienna (now Austria), + an easy access to a list of his works without having to search in the article? (about as suggested, and yes, we know baptism date but are not sure about birth date, - parameters can be improved). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Answer: Why should we assume that readers of the English-language Wikipedia are so much thicker than those of the German one? Vide de:Ludwig van Beethoven. Or the Italian at it:Ludwig van Beethoven? Or even the Simple English Wikipedia: simple:Ludwig van Beethoven? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another Answer: Simple English Wikipedia is based on this Wikipedia and you wouldn't expect it to have something extra. And other language wikis generally don't take precedence over this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another answer: Michael's reasoning would lead to the supposition that the English readers are much brighter than those of the other language Wikipedias which have infoboxes for Beethoven, including: Africans; Arabic; Belarussian; Bulgarian; Catalan; Chinese; Danish; Dutch; Hebrew; Hungarian; Japanese; Latin; Marathi; Polish; Portuguese; Punjabi; Romanian; Russian; Scotts; and Welsh. I find that frankly insulting and it shows the hollowness of his argument. --RexxS (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Infobox - The whole opposition to Infoboxes is insubstantial, unencyclopedic, and unwikipedic. The infobox gives the article a more professional look and it sums up the essential info for people who do quick searches. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 16:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support infobox - you know me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox to be clear. Has anybody here ever actually edited the articlwe otherwise, or are we all drive-bys? Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which means it is focused on presenting a subject for READERS of articles, not to boost the ego of editors. You do not OWN any article, no matter how many edits you have made. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless the encyclopedia should not be the hostage of those running around with their own little hobby-horses, and making no other contributions. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am immune to your holier-than-thou attitude. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 21:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am immune to your holier-than-thou attitude. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 21:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support infobox: This is just round 10,000 of the infobox wars.  Any biographical article benefits from an infobox that gives the casual viewer basic information and it can also draw the reader further into the article.   Montanabw (talk)  17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and well-known counter-arguments bla bla bla. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You talking to yourself again, Johnbod?  Montanabw (talk)  20:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Infobox "I like to see at a glance that it is a composer who worked around 1800, located at places such as Bonn (now Germany) and Vienna (now Austria), + an easy access to a list of his works without having to search in the article". — Ched :  ?  16:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All of that information is in the very short lead, and apart from his dates none of it was in the infobox when there was one, nor should it be in any infobox. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * John, that's fine if you prefer reading the article. As for myself, I like the infobox style of presenting information in many (if not most) of the wiki articles I look at.  Quite often my time is limited, and I prefer the summary.  Sometimes the infobox even encourages me to read further in the article.  That's just my personal opinion, to each his own in my view.  Best, — Ched :  ?  19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you try to summarize the whole article the infoboxes become as long and hard to navigate as large numbers are - for cities, ships etc. You said you wanted information that in fact would not be in a composer infobox, and is and was neatly summarized in para 2 of the lead. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is the eternal problem with these classical music articles, the owners of the project seem to feel that the great unwashed - meaning you, me, and anyone who isn't a hardore aficionado (even if I did study piano for about six years and voice for three) really shouldn't even do a drive-by reading, if people cannot read the entire article, then apparently the project owners don't want anyone to try to glean basic information.   Montanabw (talk)  20:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, you're right. That must be it ZZZZZZZZZZZ Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose needless visual clutter that steals space from meaningful illustrations. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * steals space from meaningful illustrations - Huh? An infobox in this article would use the existing illustration and whitespace where there is currently nothing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I wonder of some peole have any idea what we are even discussing.  I put in one version of the infobox here.  It's not long, it keeps the image, it covers the basics, it would be expanded, but doesn't have to be.   Montanabw (talk)  05:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder is some people have ever looked at an article with an infobox using a mobile device. On my phone, the box steals space big time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't steal space, it just appears first, summarising the key points of the article in a convenient form. What steals the space is the ridiculously small screen. If that's a hassle, use a PC or even a tablet. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 30% of views are on mobile devices, and growing. It is not for us to tell readers what devices they should use. The idea that an infobox summarizes "the key points of the article in a convenient form" is true for some kinds of article but manifestly untrue for others, like composers, indeed most biographies. For that a properly written first lead para is far better. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about telling people what to device to use, it's about countering and argument about "stealing" spacethat isn't credible. Infobox person does summarise the main points about a person, it's the other templates that fail to adequately summarise. The composer infobox is one such example. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not an either or situation. A lead paragraph begins the summary of an article. An infobox summarizes key points and is not meant to be an entire summary of the article but a view at a glance. Info boxes and summaries serve different purposes so we can't argue legitimately replacing one with the other. (Littleolive oil (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC))
 * If the infobox is meant to provide "a view at a glance", that idea fails on my phone, using the Wikipedia moble app, because it's shown after the first paragraph. In the case of a really long infobox, e.g. Albert Einstein, the box then presents, after the 1st paragraph, a major stumbling block to reading the rest of the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that an argument for deleting all infoboxes from all articles? Of is there a specific problem with musicians? Or with this musician? Or just long infoboxes? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are some types of articles that suit infoboxes very well, because there are standard bits of information that do include the key facts. For many other types, including musicians and in fact most biographies except sports people and perhaps monarchs and modern politians, they often don't work well at all. They also tend to get far too long, especially in some kinds or articles, which is a different issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with phones? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's complete clap-trap, John. Almost all articles suit infoboxes very well, because almost all articles contain those standard bits of information that you want the reader to go hunting for. Just about every biography, for example, contains simple facts like date and place of birth (and death for non-BLPs) which immediately give a context in time and place to the subject's life. The same goes for information like their occupation or what they were known for in many cases. You also conveniently ignore the advantage of having those "standard bits of information" in a standard format which makes them available to third-party tools. If we're ever going to be able to have a smart encyclopedia, where we can ask questions like "Which composers were born between 1750 and 1850?", you are going to have to stop regurgitating unfounded anti-infobox spin and give up that luddite opposition to progress. --RexxS (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, progress! We already have persondata for the most basic facts, and Wikidata. In fact infoboxes are not standardized at all - they are not designed as database entry forms and are generally not at all good in that role, if only because of a complete lack of standard vocabularies (but also many other reasons). Some of us are still trying to create an encyclopedia of reasonable quality, and have not abandoned that aim to pursue The Great Database of Everything. Happy New Year! Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's more complete disinformation from you, John: (1) Persondata does not provide the microformats that an infobox does; (2) Infoboxes are standardised to a set of label-value pairs and are exceptionally good at providing the information for a database - in fact Wikidata has been mainly constructed by bots reading the data from infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, you raise issues problem not solveable here. The infoboxes are not standardized- yet- in part because every time someone like Andy suggests that we don't need different designs for, (as an example) every mass transit system in the world, someone starts screaming about the template they own. Ditto mobile devices, not solveable here. This stuff may point to a need to fix the WP software so infoboxes appear properly on phones. To me, music lends itself particularly well to an infobox to summarize key points. Frankly, I would think that phones ought to display an infobox FIRST and then the narrative. All of this is a work in progress, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Montanabw (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support an infobox for all the reasons I've outlined above. --RexxS (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
I see that there has been an attempt to close this debate in favour of no infobox. That is clearly not where the strength of argument, nor the numbers of !voters lie. I've therefore re-opened the debate and I'll request a neutral admin to summarise the debate and close it. --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose infobox – FWIW, not needed here.  Cassianto Talk   19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to appear rude, but WP:OWNBEHAVIOR specifically discounts that argument viz. "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whose reverted? It sure as hell weren't me, so I'd ask you to direct that at someone else.   Cassianto Talk   20:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I'm really sorry I wasn't clearer. Opposing the infobox means that someone (Johnbod) had to revert the infobox from, when this debate began. I'm simply pointing out that stating an infobox is unnecessary without explaining why the infobox is detrimental falls foul of the guidance above, for exactly the same reason. I hope that makes more sense. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox arguments rarely make sense RexxS. And I'm also sorry I wasn't clearer; I'm opposed to a box here as per Johnbod and others.  Cassianto Talk   20:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support infobox for the very good reasons given by RexxS, Cush et al; and for the convenience it gives to our readers, and the metadata it emits. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose infobox - as I have said in similar discussions elsewhere on this topic, in my opinion infoboxes add nothing to an article that is not usually summarised in the lead. They detract from an article and are totally unnecessary. Jack1956 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you insist on using generalist arguments, ok, here's the generalist refutation. Infoboxes don't have to add anything to what is in the lead to be useful. They provide key information in a predictable place for those who want a piece of information "at-a-glance", or whose English comprehension makes it difficult for them to sift through prose for a particular fact. They also present information in a structured format and provide microformats, both of which are invaluable to third-parties who wish to collect and aggregate data from Wikipedia. You don't say how they detract from the article, so I'll simply say that they don't detract. Finally, arguments that a particular edit is "unnecessary" are totally worthless. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling me that my opinion is "worthless". I think that is rather uncivil. They detract because they encourage people not to read the article or even just the lead. You do not find them on other reputable encyclopaedias such as Britannica. If they are so useful then why aren't they on every single article here? I don't put them on the 570+ articles I have started. Jack1956 (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * RexxS, I appeal to you to let others have their say, and to leave it at that. Don't add them to any silly tables (below) and don't be uncivil towards them simply because their opinion is different to yours.   Cassianto Talk   06:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary
Every single one of the four actual arguments above was refuted.
 * 1) The original argument on 24 December 2014 to remove the infobox by Katastasi was based on the preference of a Wikiproject. Per WP:CONLOCAL, "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." The relevant guideline is at Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "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." (my emphasis) Wikiprojects cannot decide that articles cannot have infoboxes.
 * 2) Ghirlandajo opposed the infobox because it is "visual clutter that steals space from meaningful illustrations." - and it was pointed out by AussieLegend that the infobox uses the same lead image and only takes the otherwise empty whitespace to the right of the table of contents.
 * 3) Johnbod opposed the infobox on the grounds that the editors discussing the infobox might not have previously edited the article. Previously editing an article is not, and never has been, a requirement to take part in a debate about it.
 * 4) Cassianto opposed the infobox because it's not needed. This runs counter to the guidance at WP:OWNBEHAVIOR which explains that arguments that an edit is not necessary is not to be used because it improperly assumes priority of one version over an equivalent one.
 * 5) (Michael Bednarek expressed his view that "the article is not better with an infobox").


 * 1) RexxS originally supported the retention of the infobox, countering the argument that most composer bios don't have infoboxes by observing that it's customary to include infoboxes and most Featured Articles have them. RexxS also raised the argument that simple facts like date and place of birth are made available to third-parties in a structured format suitable for easy re-use. RexxS also explained that Persondata does not provide the microformats that an infobox does.
 * 2) Cush stated that the "infobox gives the article a more professional look and it sums up the essential info for people who do quick searches."
 * 3) Montanabw added an infobox and stated that it was not long, keeps the image and covers the basics.
 * 4) Littleolive oil stated that an infobox summarizes key points and is not meant to be a replacement for the lead, but a view at a glance.
 * 5) AussieLegend commented that the infobox does not steal space on either a computer screen or a mobile device.
 * 6)  Martinevans123 commented that we wouldn't expect Simple English Wikipedia to have something extra, and also pointed out that viewing infoboxes of Classical Composers on mobile phones is no different from viewing any other article's infobox on a mobile phone.
 * 7) (Judasfax expressed his view that "the article is better with an infobox".)
 * 8) (Gerda Arendt simply supported the infobox.)

Not one of the six arguments above has been refuted.

The weight of argument is clearly in favour of retaining the infobox as was present when the debate started. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose IB. We are under no compunction to generate pointless metadata and the lead itself summarises the key information (mostly in the first line, making the IB superfluous. The "summary" above is, rather obviously, utterly twisted in one direction only – it's so one-sided it's meaningless and there's a reason this is considered poor for involved parties to try and pull this sort of stunt. - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We are under no compunction to make any edits at all, so there's no value in arguing that "we don't have to, therefore we mustn't". The structured data and microformats are of great value to third parties who re-use our information and distribute it in novel ways and to non-English speaking audiences. That sort of improvement to this article is a step towards Wikimedia's vision of "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." By your reasoning, since the body of the article contains all of the information in the lead, the lead is superfluous. But I don't see you arguing to remove the lead. Obviously the lead serves a different purpose from the rest of the text. In the same way, the infobox serves a different purpose from the lead, by providing key information in a predictable place for those who can't, or prefer not to, work through English prose just to find a single piece of information. I see that you accuse me of providing a summary that is "twisted" and "in one direction only" and yet you seem unable to express how the summary is twisted or one-sided. If you want to engage in debate about the quality of my summary, then you're going to have to address the points I raise, not simply use an ad hominem insult to try to smear my contributions. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have used no ad hominem insults Rex, as you well know. I've seen your modus operandi before and I'm unimpressed with your attempts to smear me by innuendo, which are as predictable as the bludgeoning that has accompanied every "oppse" comment here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that like being smeared by butter? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "twisted", "one-sided", "stunt", "bludgeoning" - that's the ad hominem and you need to learn what it means to be commenting on the editor and what is commenting on the substance of the edits. You have not raised one substantial argument here, just repeated the same tired, old, worthless mantra of "not needed" and "we don't have to". You have the nerve to criticise me for addressing the issues raised in the debate above, yet have failed to address a single one of my arguments in any meaningful way. Are you going to contribute anything of value to the issue of whether an infobox is an improvement to this article or not? --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Truth, please Rex. I have not said an IB "not needed": perhaps you could provide the diff where I have said that? As to the fact that "we don't have to" provide metadata, thatis, as far as I am aware, the current situation. Perhaps you could you provide a link to the centralised RfC which says otherwise, ie, that we do have to provide metadata? As to the bludgeoning, see WP:BLUDGEON: "Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own", which is exactly what has happened here, with every single oppose being attacked. I'm out of this Rex: I really don't want to be dragged into another IB discussion. I've registered my oppose, given my reason, and I don't see why I should be attacked simply because I have a differing opinion to yours. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I take issue with this. "the bludgeoning that has accompanied every "oppose" comment here."


 * Your argument here that the IB is superfluous because everything we need to know about one of the greatest musician/composers/ influences on music is contained in "mostly the first line" of the lead just isn't true. I understand some editors like info boxes some don't, but what are the arguments here on this specific article for removing this infobox. The original argument for removal "unwanted" is no argument for anything and indicates  a personal opinion. There was no good reason per Wikipedia to remove content, and I have yet to see new logic for disallowing that content to be returned to the article. Further, accusing those who commented here of bludgeoning is a red herring and sidesteps the summary Rexx provided and above all is not true and insults the editors who in good faith commented here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC))
 * You claim you have not said an IB is "not needed" and ask for a diff of where you said that? Read your comment at the start of this thread: "... making the IB superfluous". Do you not realise what 'superfluous' means? The dictionary definitions encompass "unnecessary", "not necessary", "needless", "beyond what is needed". Don't play word games with me - the sophistry of claiming you didn't say say the infobox was "not needed", you only said is was "superfluous" is breath-taking. And you need to understand what a talk page debate is: it's not a poll where you just register your vote; it's an exchange of reasoned arguments in threaded discussions - and if you can't stand to have your arguments scrutinised, I'd suggest keeping out of debates. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You put something in quote marks: that's a quote, so don't argue word play with me. Next time, be honest and quote the words I've used, not your version of what you want me to say. I'm out of this. Your (passive?)-aggressive incivility and patronising attitude make this an unhealthy place to have to be bludgeoned. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quote marks are used for other purposes than quotations. See MOS:WORDSASWORDS. You didn't literally use the words "we don't have to" either, but we both know that's what your argument boils down to. You can't defend your position, so you choose to riddle your replies with personal attacks - "passive-aggressive incivility" and "patronising attitude" being only the latest examples. --RexxS (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of this ;-)! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support infobox The need for standardized data is more important than the preferences of a project. Infoboxes, among other things, aid translation into little used languages, and facilitate the quick finding of basic information They are part of the basic WP style--and Ihave never figured out any reasons at all why this particular project dislikes them. There's nothing about classical music that makes the articles on composers less suitable than any other people. Looking at the reasons given on the projects page, none of them make sense to me as applying specifically, and all the problems mentioned can be dealt with:
 * 1,"They often give trivia undue emphasis and prominence". They do often contain some secondary material--this can be dealt with by not including those elements
 * 2, "They tend to become redundant (by duplicating the lead" -- that is in fact the idea, to duplicate the key information in standardized form, unlike a lead.
 * 3, "They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, .. ." This is an argument for doing them properly, not for avoiding them. If they duplicate errors in the article, the think to do is obviously to correct the errors  If lists of works are haphazard, they can be trimmed.  If they confuse style and genre, they can be edited to show these correctly.
 * Perhaps my many friends in this field can help me by explaining why only they, rather than people working with other creative fields, feel this way. Is it just a chance concentration of editors, or is there a principle?  DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Straw man argument. I suggest to raise a discussion to change WP:INFOBOXUSE to mandate infoboxes. Until then, consensus is determined at each article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very far from just this project! You obviously haven't being paying attention. All these issues were gone into at vast length in the arb case, & I am sorry to see you apparently joining the ranks of those who simply ignore that case and its decision. The people who like adding infoboxes are very often not very good at doing so, so that they become sources of misinformation. The project (WP generally) simply doesn't the editorial resources to keep them accurate. Data-fans should settle for whatever they want at the foot of the article, hidden or not. I support them for types of articles which are more standard, whether baseball players or beetles. Johnbod (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the various valid points made there, refuting the same canards that DGG refutes here, were ignored by the arbitrators, not least in their decision Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The important issue to me is that standard data is most useful when standard across the encyclopedia. To not do something because it might be done wrong would paralyze us in doing anything anywhere. Theis project should have less problems maintaining accuracy than most, because it doesn't have the worst controversial issues found in other biographical topics and the editors are on average much more competent. I agree with the arb decision because I don't think there is currently community consensus to require it everywhere. (I didn't take part at arb in questions involving the decision because some people apparently thought I would vote for my preference regardless of what I thought the actual situation was.)  I think there ought to be such uniform consensus.  but until there is,  we must   argue it   article by article. Arb com did not say that the project had a role as a project in determining this within its scope-it said the matter was unclear and must be discussed for each article. As the option exists to have it for any article regardless of what the relevant project has a majority to want,  I don't see how you can say those who want one shouldn't say so each time, just as those who don't want them say that.  DGG ( talk ) 14:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support infobox (for this article; using the infobox posted on this Talk page) per DGG. It adds structure and immediately and quickly viewable important data. The deprecation of composer infoboxes was an idiosyncratic decision made by a handful of wikiproject participants at a single point in time in the fairly distant past, and should not and cannot be binding when consensus or common sense dictates otherwise; never mind that (in my opinion and in many others') a wikiproject should not make up its own rules counter to prevailing practices and expect them to be enforceable. Not to mention, as ArbCom repeatedly asserts, ArbCom does not and cannot make policy; that is not its function. 22:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support infobox - mostly per DGG. Also I do not find the opposing arguments convincing.  For example, it requires no more editorial resources to insure that the infobox contains accurate information than it does to insure that the article itself does. Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Trimming back "Notable work"
I removed the Notable Work entry from the infobox on grounds of truth in advertising. It gives a link to an article covering the complete works of Beethoven, but in fact quite a bit of Beethoven's output is strikingly obscure and hardly ever performed -- hardly notable at all. For instance, do you know the "Kriegslied der Österreicher," WoO 122? (I do, but I wouldn't mind if I didn't, it's pretty crummy music).

If the infobox format were not such a straightjacket (everything must be formatted "label + entry", no matter how redundant), we could simply include a labeled link to the List of Works article. Maybe someone could fix this? Opus33 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done I added a sub-infobox with an accurate heading for the list of compositions. Jus  da  fax   06:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ...result: Gerda superseded my appendix box with a non-captioned link to the list, and she was then reverted back to the Opus 33 deletion. Which takes us back to square one. The infobox template would have to be modified to get past Opus33's objection to the caption "Notable work." One thing I noticed is that the current infobox is the "Person" version, not the "Composer" template. The latter box indeed has issues in its format. I maintain it would be nice to have the link to the list of Beethoven's complete work handy in the infobox. Let's have a nice polite discussion on where we go from here, shall we? I maintain that either Gerda's, or my idea, would be better than nothing. Or perhaps someone knows how to modify the infobox template. Jus  da  fax   11:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Does anybody really think that where the article starts, above LvB's name, with "Compositions" is acceptable? Or Jusdafax's, where a boxed piece of text, "Complete list of Beethoven's works: Compositions", appears oddly below the infobox? There's plenty of material in the article that some people might find "nice to have in the infobox". But MOS:INFOBOX advises: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". It should be noted that the wikilink in question is already in the article, and exactly at the expected spot: Ludwig van Beethoven. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I didn't notice my unintended little mistake until now, - in the preview, I only looked at the link in the box, without a label, - however, if we can agree on a label (as it looks below) it's better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you reverted both versions back to the Opus33 deletion, as noted above, your view is hardly a surprise. Let's hear from fresh views, and we will take your position into account. Thanks. Jus  da  fax   12:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Link to Beethovens work in the infobox
I believe that it is desirable for the reader to have the link to Beethoven's works - as the most important fact about him - in the infobox. Yes it's "already in the article", but not in the lead, and even if it was in the lead I think it should appear where key facts are collected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A link to the compositions in the infobox certainly makes sense. Since somebody found fault with listing all compositions under the title "notable works", how about having the parameter render a title of "works"? The argument that a link to his compositions is not in the lede, and therefore should appear in the infobox, is sound. I think there is consensus that any artists works are the major key fact about his life. In Beethoven's case it would be equally inadequate to list either only a few works (and risk getting another debate of which works are important and which ones not) or all works (and get a mile-long infobox). Now that we have a box, a link to his compositions doesn't really hurt anybody, or does it? We just should agree that after this one added, we close the bag. Kraxler (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox is not a primary navigational tool. "See list" (or variations thereof) is not an appropriate value for "Works". All values should carry meaning. Alakzi (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would see that point if it was a header in the Beethoven article, but the list is a different article. - To Kraxler's comment: I would also prefer a parameter "Works" or even "Work" because all work(s) listed should be notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we consider that by User:Pigsonthewing created links in the infobox that show nothing when followed from a mobile device? Wikipedia App: "does not show categories". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They work. Alakzi (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only in browsers, not in the official Wikipedia app (Android, iOS) which "does not show categories". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you confirmed that they do not work? By "not showing categories", I assume that they mean that these apps lack the category navigation bar found at the bottom. Alakzi (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, it doesn't show those. But I also confirmed that the official Android Wikipedia app doesn't show any content if a category link from this article's infobox is tapped. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've confirmed that they don't work in iOS either. Alakzi (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The app is not Wikipedia; it is a tool that reuses our content, as do many others. You can, though, raise a bug when its faults mangle our content. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kraxler and Gerda that an entry whose labels is Works and content is the link to the list of compositions would work best. Above all, it gets us out of the business of specifying what Beethoven's most important works are. Not even expert scholars try to produce such list, which inevitably would be very subjective; and we as amateurs shouldn't even try. Opus33 (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see two possible changes that might be an improvement. Like Michael, I'd prefer us to link to lists, rather than categories, so one possible improvement may be to create List of notable symphonies by Ludwig van Beethoven, List of notable symphonies by Ludwig van Beethoven, List of notable operas by Ludwig van Beethoven, List of notable piano concertos by Ludwig van Beethoven, List of notable string quartets by Ludwig van Beethoven, List of notable piano trios by Ludwig van Beethoven and List of notable sonatas by Ludwig van Beethoven to use as targets to replace the category links in there at present. Populating those lists would be a trivial exercise using the categories, and it might encourage editors to flesh out such lists and provide a resource for the casual reader unfamiliar with Beethoven's works.
 * Optionally, we could produce a wrapper for infobox person that changed the label from "Notable work" to "Works", specifically for use where it may be assumed that all of the subject's oeuvre would be of interest to the reader, and then link it to List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven. I must admit I did have to search a bit to find a link to that list from this article, and that's a shame because it's a decent list article and is worth a prominent link. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Here's a sandbox version of Infobox person that allows a works parameter, overriding the credits and notable_works parameters. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That still is self-referential. If we're keeping just the link, then, in the very least, it should be distinguishable from regular fields, e.g. by being typeset in italics. Alakzi (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've lost me there. What did you mean was self-referential? The current links in the article lead to categories, which is a bit unexpected for the average visitor, so this demo doesn't keep any of them. I'm also not sure what a regular field would be, but it's not unusual for links in infoboxes to lead to list articles; and I think a visitor wouldn't be surprised if a link labelled "Works List of compositions" took them to the list article List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven. I'm not averse to giving an indication that something's different when it is genuinely different; but I don't like using italics to indicate that because it generally excludes screen readers from the hint. Can you think of some other way to distinguish it? --RexxS (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The value of "Works" is a lengthier rephrasing of its label and is only meaningful when linked; something like "See list" would be both more helpful and concise, and in a similar fashion to MOS:XREF. Alakzi (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK - I see what you're getting at now. With all due respect, I would beg to differ with your conclusion. Wikipedia articles are often printed and having descriptive text for a link to another article is essential in those cases. Imagine reading a printed article on ComposerXYZ that stated "Works: See list" - my first reaction would be what list? Whereas a printed article on ComposerXYZ that read "Works: List of compositions" might suggest an article something along the lines of 'List of compositions by ComposerXYZ'. The redundancy in "Works: List of compositions" isn't what I normally associate with a self-reference, but rather a helpful duplication to hint at the name of the actual link target. Personally, I rarely find conciseness a desirable quality in these sort of cases. But then, I probably have a jaundiced view of conciseness from having spent too much of my life trying to pick apart programs where the variable names were chosen solely from the single letters A to Z. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I defer to your judgment. Alakzi (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, RexxS. I think the article would benefit if you install your version. Opus33 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A different approach might be to have a parameter showing as "List of works", - something we may want for more prolific people than this one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've "been bold" and installed RexxS's infobox. It's nice and short. Moreover, the "big list" approach, even as it stands, is not covering all of the biggies, leaving out in particular the Missa Solemnis, the Diabelli Variations, and the Leonore Overture #3. Let's let the article itself impart to the reader what the most significant works are, putting this information appropriately in its context. Opus33 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best solution. Thanks to all concerned. Jus  da  fax   08:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Beethoven "intended" to study?
"During his first 22 years in Bonn, Beethoven intended to study with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart..." what does this even mean? Did he or didn't he. This is very confusing. 71.80.140.15 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Harmonic innovation
I'm no expert, but I recall reading that Beethoven was the first composer to use the ninth chord (in the Eroica). If this is true it's important and deserves mention. And in the article on the Ninth chord, which has nothing on its history.

I also recall reading that Beethoven's music was found at the time inappropriate for young ladies. Sort of musically uncouth, too radical. If this is true it should be mentioned too. deisenbe (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox removal
(Yes, I know this is one of the most discussed topics in Wikipedia, but needs to be addressed) Per WikiProject Composers, classical composers shouldn't have infoboxes, as it adds nothing to the article, and keeps consistency to all other articles on classical composers. I say just the painting by Stieler and the signature are fine. I'm not there. Message me! 17:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was addressed in discussions (see Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven/Archive 6). and, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox was changed a few days ago, and the List of Compositions disappeared. Is there a reason for that? Kraxler (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikiproject Composer doesn't make policy over infoboxes. The guidance is at Manual of Style/Infoboxes and states "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Classical composers should have infoboxes to the extent that any article should, as it allows an at-a-glance overview of key facts, provides microformats and structured data for third-party users and keeps consistency to [sic] the majority of articles on Wikipedia. I say a well-designed infobox is much finer than a painting and a signature.
 * Nevertheless, neither your opinion nor mine determines the issue. It's done by consensus and you can read the debate above.
 * The "sandbox" version of infobox person that I created as Infobox person/sandbox-LvB was only ever intended to be a temporary demonstration version of how we could implement a works parameter. In this edit, restored the proper infobox, which had the unfortunate effect of no longer displaying the "works" field. What we really need to do is to ask for infobox person to include the works parameter. I'll make a start on that. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I've made a request at Template talk:Infobox person . All opinions welcome. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As there were no objections at the template talk page, I've updated the template. Beethoven's "works" link has now re-appeared. Thanks to all who commented. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Name Beethoven
in the text: ''In "Beethoven", "Beet" stands for beetroot while "hoven" is the plural of "hof" (a walled garden or courtyard; but in this case likely farmland).[2] Because the Dutch word van in family names is usually followed by said family's ancestral home, it's likely "Beethoven" was once a settlement. The online dictionary published by the Dutch Language Union notes that there were several mentions during the late 12th century of a settlement called Betheoue or Bettingahofa (modernized: Bettinghove) at an unknown location, but supposedly in Limburg.'' Is nonsense. 1. The name van Beethoven is derived from "van Bettenhoven". 2. "hoven" is not necessarily the plural of hof. 3. Bettenhoven is indeed at an unknown location (50° 42′ 33″ N, 5° 14′ 7″ E), except for the 200 people living there. Get to Tongeren, and ask for directions. 4. Beetroot is for amateur etymologists. The name Bettenhoven is the court of Betho. Who invented this beetroot stuff? It seems to be repeated all the time. The reference in the lemma is not an authoritative text, but an amateur's website on Beethoven. An authoritative text would be e.g. a toponymical dictionary. Beethoven's earliest known patrilineal ancestor was Cornelius van Beethoven (died 1716),  To be "unknown" is sad news for Cornelius' father, Mark (Boortmeerbeek 1601), for Mark's father Hendrik (1572, Boortmeerbeek before June 1652), his father Aert (Arnold) (Kampenhout ca 1535-1609), Mark (1510), Jan (Kampenhout 1485)... Sloppy research. I found this list in

Riyadi (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Would it be unreasonable to expect you to provide some reliable sources? Alakzi (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever might eventuate from reliable sources about the lineage, the nonsense about the name's etymology, recently added by User:Prinsgezinde, should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's correct, the name's etymology may be discussed at a name or dab page on "Beethoven", not at any page of any bearer of the name. It's out of scope here. Kraxler (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't just randomly remove sourced info you find unlikely.
 * 1. Simple resemblance does by no means equal correlation.
 * 2.
 * 3. Again, the correlation is unverified.
 * 4. We may have to consider the possibility of the name's etymology not being as creative as Bettincourt's.
 * What authority does that geneology site have? It's synthesis of info anyhow. This refers to his earliest forefather, of which the name was known, to identify as van Beethoven.
 * As for attacks on source credibility: Dominique Prevot, the founder of LvBeethoven.com, is chairman of the ABF - Association Beethoven France et Francophonie since 2002, and a history professor.
 * It barely took up a small piece of the biography section on his early life. Nice for some to know. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The factual accuracy or their controversial aspects are irrelevant, it's out of scope here. In encyclopedias we do not usually discuss the etymology of names at their bearers' articles, but at an article on the name. That's not so difficult to understand or is it? Kraxler (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kraxler: Enough with The pot calling the kettle black-either abstain from making pithy comments like these or quit bringing up the issue of civility to those who don't agree with your editorial assessments. As admin, you should set the example, not abuse the privilege. SnowdenFan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but I certainly strive to be an example of civility and helpfulness. Kraxler (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, nice for many to know. So which is the page where surname etymology is presented? And why not a note here saying "For an explanation of the origin of the surname van Beethoven, see x"? 217.38.191.253 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We've got no page better than this one, unless somebody would be so inclined as to start a Beethoven family article. Alakzi (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Other Beethovens exist". 217.38.127.253 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate brevity, that is perhaps too brief a response. Alakzi (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create an anthroponymy page Beethoven (surname), splitting off the surnamed people section from Beethoven (disambiguation). But, don't forget to add sources at the etymology section. Kraxler (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that a surname article is necessary. The only Beethovens are the Beethovens, and the origin and etymology of their surname would best be addressed in an article about the Beethoven family, provided there's some literature out there on the topic of their genealogy; if not, Wiktionary beckons. Alakzi (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's another possibility, create Beethoven family with family tree. I think that's an interesting topic. Kraxler (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to come back to references: here is a toponymic dictionary, digitised from a serious reference. It says Bettenhoven, Bettincourt (arr. Borgworm): ‘de boerderij van de Bettingen, de lieden van Betto<Berhto’. Note that we're not short of people disseminating this funny "beetroot" theory (beetroots are cultivars developed in the XVIIIth century). Ridiculous etymologies are called "goropisms".Riyadi (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of Beethoven on that page. Alakzi (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, that page explains that "Bettenhoven" (or "Bettincourt") denotes people from the hamlet of Bettingen. As User:Riyadi points out, beetroot as we know it is a recent development. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What Alakzi meant was: we see "Bettenhoven" and "Bettincourt", but "Beethoven" is not there. Could all of you get some source that has the etymology of "Beethoven" (literally)? I'm really curious now. Kraxler (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Cooper (2000), "[Beethoven's] name suggests that [his family] lived at one time at or near a beet farm, although this etymology has been questioned." I've not been able to find any other RSs, though I've got limited access to journals. Alakzi (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From "Miscellanea: [Beethoven's Name]", 1988, The Beethoven Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 23.: "In German, following the sense of the Flemish origin of the name and its probable meaning 'beet yard,' the first syllable is considered to be 'Beet' and hyphenation is accordingly: 'Beet-hoven.'" So, nothing new there. Alakzi (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This may not be a published reference, but in it a genealogist has been skimming records and fill databases with his findings. The change from Bettenhoven to Beethoven and Bethoven happened after 1485. Amateur etymology is a real plague. Look what some did to Arnold. The process is the same: cut a word in two and then translate the two halves. Beet-hoven, Schwarze-negger, Kis-singer, Washing-ton. Riyadi (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Was Beethoven African?
Evidence that Beethoven might have been African. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This nonsense has been discussed before, at length; see Beethoven was Black, Beethoven the Negro?, Beethoven's ancestry in the archives, and above at . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, that opinion piece in the Kenyan Daily Nation is actually a debunking of the myth. "Evidence" indeed! --RexxS (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

http://raptorific.tumblr.com/post/16866729630/beethoven-was-black Screen Shot 2015-10-10 at 19.54.16/ Screen Shot 2015-10-10 at 19.54.16 His skin was so dark that, despite not being black, was often mistaken for being black. The rhetoric used to describe him matched up perfectly to then-contemporary description matched that used to describe the Moors completely by coincidence. Despite the following two things, his family came from Spanish-occupied Flanders (now Belgium) during the Moors’ reign over Spain without including any African genetics. Said directly, Beethoven was a black man. Specifically, his mother was a Moor, that group of Muslim Northern Africans who conquered parts of Europe–making Spain their capital–for some 800 years… http://theafricachannel.com/was-beethovens-african-heritage-whitewashed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealTruthIsComing (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2015
Please ADD Beethovens AFRICAN ancestry because the TRUTH deserves recognition. -Specifically, his mother was a Moor, that group of Muslim Northern Africans who conquered parts of Europe–making Spain their capital–for some 800 years. http://theafricachannel.com/was-beethovens-african-heritage-whitewashed/ http://blackthen.com/was-beethovens-african-heritage-whitewashed/ http://theafricachannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/beethoven.jpg

RealTruthIsComing (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: These are not WP:RS, and this is not new ground you're breaking. Take a look through the talk page archives. Cannolis (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He looks black but that's me looking at old paintings, not a reliable source. Babe Ruth also looks black but no reliable sources mention it, so it isn't in Babe's Wikipedia article. And it's clearly why the Nazis tried to deny his Flemish roots. But that's just common sense not a reliable source. Popish Plot (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015
please change "December 1770" to "December 17, 1770" because it is not very accurate. Resource used: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Ludwig-van-Beethoven

Clip215 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

❌ Both mentions of his baptismal date already say "17 December 1770", which is UK-style or European-style date formatting, which is what is being used in this article. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Source for "citation needed" tag in section Character
here: Wikirictor (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Google Doodle mention
Google recently featured him as today's Google Doodle (2015-12-17) so I placed it in the appropriate subject with some information I entered. Expanding the Google Doodle mention section is encouraged. Feedback welcome Ryan (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat trivial and, if included, certainly does not warrant its own sub-section. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The doodle (turn your sound on and click) is sensational and it won't hurt to leave the text in the article for a few days. However, I would support its removal in due course as it is not encyclopedic information for this article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest, Ryan. Google Doodles are however generally considered overly trivial to mention in Wikipedia articles. Particularly for someone as renowned as Beethoven, who is the most widely celebrated composer in the world. I have removed the mention. If you feel strongly about the mention, please establish a consensus here on this talk page first. Thanks! (NB: In spite of Johnuniq's comment, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we don't add information to it on a temporary basis.) Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC); edited 11:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As per Johnuniq, have no objection. There are plenty of examples all over Wikipedia. But 245th seems an odd anniversary! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq supports its removal, so there's still no consensus for its presence here, per WP:NOTNEWS. See also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which just means no one has bothered to clean up some articles yet. You'll not see a Google Doodle mentioned on Bach or Mozart. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you checked that both Bach and Mozart had one? Is there some kind of "notability gradient" we have to follow? But Johnuniq said "in due course". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To repeat, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't add something to an article temporarily. It's either notable/noteworthy or not. Notability is not temporary, and a Google Doodle of the world's most famous composer is decidedly trivial and not noteworthy. If it merits removal "in due course" it should not be included at all. Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that we have multiple articles and Categories dedicated to Google Doodles suggests they are not that trivial? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are conflating the fact that Google has Doodles (which have a wiki article and lists) with the relevance of one Doodle in the article on one of the most famous people who ever lived. If Beethoven had a Simpsons' episode about him, that wouldn't merit a mention in this article, even though The Simpsons and most of its episodes has/have an article on Wikipedia. Our only Popular Culture mentions that merit mention in this article are feature films that star Beethoven as an historical character. Softlavender (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I look forward to that Simpsons episode and I'll probably try to add it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When it happened to Kafka I removed it as trivia. It made the article the most so far most successful TFA, - so I didn't remove it a second time. Like it or not, it's an influential part of our culture. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose we are not concerned how or why readers arrive at articles. We have no obligation to Google's Doodle policies. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Martinevans123's of the mention of LvB's Google Doodle in a long list of items "In popular culture". Maybe Softlavender can provide some links where such mentions are discouraged. Special:WhatLinksHere/Google Doodle suggests otherwise. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Softlavender seems to be saying that Beethoven is too famous to deserve mention of a lowly Google Doodle. Indeed, that he is "the most widely celebrated composer in the world", a claim I can't currently see in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My view, if I may chime in here, I think is that for the less well-known people/events that Google chooses to celebrate, their recognition by Google can be considered a relatively notable "award" that stands out compared to their life or the event, but for notable subjects such as Beethoven (or a national holiday), it shouldn't be considered so unusual and unexpected, and therefore may not be notable enough for inclusion in the article. Jason McHuff (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds quite reasonable. But how does one decide who "qualifies"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Mentioned or not in the article: the article was viewed more than 350k times that day, and even the list of his compositions (linked from the infobox) more than 10.000 times. I didn't check other secondary items from the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Birth date discrepancy – lede, infobox, and body text ....
The cited info in the body text gives 16 December as his birth date – that's when his family celebrated it and that's the date most scholars accept as his birth date. Why then are we listing his baptismal date in the lede and infobox, and not his birth date? This needs to be fixed to conform to the cited info in the body text. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody knows the birth date for sure, not even socalled reliable sources. the date of baptism is sourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We know that:
 * He and his family and associates celebrated his birth day on 16 December. Why would they all celebrate it on that day if it wasn't his birthday?
 * Babies were baptized the day after their birthday; and he was baptized on 17 December.
 * Scholars agree that 16 December was his birthday.
 * We don't have birth certificates for the vast majority of people born prior to 1800, and we nevertheless use the accepted scholarly, self-identified, and logical birthdate.
 * I'm confused then why an exception is being made for Beethoven. It's quite misleading because people coming to the article only see 17 December and they don't see the word "baptized", so they make the mistake of thinking that was his birthday. Softlavender (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that I don't see your problem. There's a note behind the date of baptism saying all this (that the family celebrated the 16th etc.). What else do you want? Babies were usually baptized within 24 hours, that could have been the 17th also. - At Beethoven's time, a birthday wasn't even of much importance, - name day was. For Verdi, we have the same situation.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is, as I mentioned, is that everyone coming to the article reads "17 December" as his birth date, which is incorrect. They do not see or read the word "baptism". Therefore, we should reverse things and use the correct birth date, adding the footnote that states the above information. We do know (it has two citations in the article), that his birth date was celebrated by his family and friends on 16 December, and he himself believed that was his birthday. This wiki article also says that children of that era were traditionally baptized the day after birth in the Catholic Rhine country. In my opinion we need to add the accepted birth date to article as there is no logical reason not to, and every logical reason to do so. We can add the footnote that explains there is no birth certificate but all of these various facts and the agreement of nearly all scholars indicate this to be so. Here is more evidence: a Birthday visit and birthday composition, both on December 16:, ; more: , , . -- Softlavender (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above request made by Softlavender and would like to know why Wikipedia will not correct this error? As Softlavender stated: We know that: - He and his family and associates celebrated his birth day on 16 December. Why would they all celebrate it on that day if it wasn't his birthday? - Babies were baptized the day after their birthday; and he was baptized on 17 December. - Scholars agree that 16 December was his birthday. - We don't have birth certificates for the vast majority of people born prior to 1800, and we nevertheless use the accepted scholarly, self-identified, and logical birthdate. Why should Beethoven suddenly be the only well-known person whose birthday gets erased by Wikipedia?

For sixty years of my life, we have always recognized Beethoven's birthday as December 16th. This is the very first reference that attempts to change or erase the date. Historical biographies for the past two and a quarter centuries have always used December 16th for the date. I concur with Softlavender that Wikipedia editors need to correct the page to the original birthdate. Thank you. http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ba-Be/Beethoven-Ludwig-van.html
 * Similar to User:Gerda Arendt, I don't see the problem. There's no record/source for the date of LvB's date of birth, only for the date of his baptism. The footnote and the text of the article explain that and what the likely date of his birth is. I don't believe readers "don't see or read the word 'baptism'", nor that they stop reading before the 4th paragraph. If we believe that, we might as well all go home. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of records, in fact, every record available that states a date for Beethoven's birth has always indicated 16 December. Also, I didn't mention anything about people not reading down to the fourth paragraph. Why won't you be consistent? The vast majority of people born before 1800 do not have the type of records you suddenly seem to require. If those people and their families celebrated the birthday on a particular date, that has always been adequate to document their birthdates. Even if you cannot edit this page accordingly, can we at least add Beethoven back to the list of December 16th birthdays? Thanks. ref: http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ba-Be/Beethoven-Ludwig-van.html

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place for original research? If all the academic sources say Beethoven was "born" on December 16, set this infobox to December 16 and go write original research about the uncertainty of his date of birth somewhere else. bendodge (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * IF - but not "all" academic sources say so, see . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, the vast majority of people born before 1800 do not have the types of birth records that we have today. If Beethoven, his family, and the vast majority of historians and scholars acknowledge December 16th as his birthdate, you really do not have a sound reason not to include it. Not acknowledging a famous birthdate is an editorial decision by Wikipedia that your editors should have the burden to justify, not the other way around. That is all.