Talk:Maurice Ravel

Infobox, revisted
I came to this page searching for some basic biographical information about Ravel - nationality, year of birth, year and cause of death, etc. - and was surprised to see that there is no infobox. I see that there has previously been shockingly heated debate around this question, so I wanted to ask the talk page before simply adding one. I see no reason not to add an infobox to this page, as it would simply make certain information easily accessible in the style and format that is typical of wikipedia biographies. But don't want my head to get bitten off for acting on that opinion... thoughts? Lamacha9617 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Info-boxes are useful when they give the visitor to the page a quick overview: a cricketer's statistics, a politician's posts, an animal's taxonomy, a place's geographical details and so forth. But for composers they cannot give the reader any useful overview. Have a look at composer articles where there are info-boxes: e.g. Robert Schumann: the one there tells us the name of his nine children and nothing whatever about his music. What could be added to tell people about his music? That he wrote some. What would we include? What criteria would be applied to the choice? The lead mentions some (not all) of RS's best-known works. We'd look pretty silly repeating them immediately alongside in the info-box. What is the best-known thing about Schumann apart from his music? That he went mad. Do we put that in the info-box? The musical artist info-box is designed for people in popular music: "label", "genre", "associated acts", "website". The works of classical composers do not lend themselves to being summarised in a few words, a fact realised by whoever added the staggeringly unhelpful info-box to Beethoven's article, which tells the reader his place and date of birth and death and then, God save us!, asks the poor reader to click into a different article altogether, where he/she is confronted with a list of 148 compositions, with no indication of which are the most important. That is frankly an insult to our readers. The info-box guideline says that i-bs are "'at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts'". What facts about Ravel could we usefully put in an i-b? No, let us give a pithy overview of a composer's life and works in the lead section and not pretend we can adequately summarise them in an info-box.  Tim riley  talk   17:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see this discussion only now. Schumann's infobox shows his work, and no children (as of ). I support a similar concise infobox for Ravel as well. Beethoven's infobox was commuity consensus, in 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I also see no harm in adding an infobox like, especially for readers who are just quickly gleaning the article for certain stats such as date and location of birth and death, age at death, birthplace, alma mater, signature, which era of classical music, etc. as I don't think anyone is suggesting that the article introduction or article itself be replaced by an infobox.
 * In my opinion, having infoboxes helps save time for readers, especially younger ones or those of non-musical backgrounds who don't have the time to read through the entire article in one sitting and just wanted to know one or two small things about the biography. For example, someone who just wanted to know Ravel's age at death without having to scroll all the way to the end just to find out. I do strongly believe in accessibility for all readers and that Wikipedia articles should be written for general readers per WP:TECHNICAL; however, I won't challenge the status quo if it has already been decided that Ravel won't be getting an infobox. Respectfully, WuTang94 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with @WuTang94, I also see no harm in adding an infobox. I don't see the purpose of not including basic information in an easily accessible manner, as nearly every other article includes it in some way. Personally, I also feel that it seems to place some articles above others. Why should a composer like Liszt have his birth and death, occupation, and signature placed for all to see, but not Ravel? It not only helps to have more uniformity among articles (in my opinion) but also seems to help break the "higher than thou" mindset often associated with classical music - which I highly detest. If great writers like Mary Shelley and Leo Tolstoy, artists like Da Vinci and Picasso, and nearly every great artist have one, why not honor composers as well? The average Wikipedia reader, likely won't think to themselves "Wow, Ravel does not have an infobox, I must therefore read the article in its entirety!" and more likely "huh, this Ravel guy doesn't have the little side thingy, weird. Maybe he's not that important?"
 * I also find it extremely useful simply for the brevity of it, where you don't have to skim essentially an entire synopsis of their life to find basic information. I like to arrange and transcribe pieces, and I try to add the dates of the composer's life, but often I can't find the dates due to being used to having an info box.
 * I do not see why we should distinguish composers by making it more difficult for the average reader. Pacamah (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See my explanation above. No consensus for adding this pointless and unhelpful clutter. Who in Heaven's name needs to see Ravel's autograph? And how is is compliant with Wikipedia's policy that IBs sum up key points of the text?  Tim riley  talk   07:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, how does an infobox relate to most pages? Shakespeare's infobox doesn't give me any information besides that he writes in a specific period and place, or yet, why should his father have an IB if it doesn't tell me any specifics about his life? Most pages relating to notable people seem to have signatures as well, so I don't see why Ravel's (or more generally, any composer's) autograph should be singled out. Should we replace it with how they pen their treble clefs?
 * Also, I think this is my first actual talk chain! (Is that the right word? I guess it keeps up with the notion of classical musicians arguing, haha!) Thanks for replying to my message literally two years after your first one, hopefully my contributions can reach the level of yours one day (though I have a lot more to learn before then).
 * Thank you for all your work on the many pages you have helped with! Pacamah (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The only pointless and unhelpful clutter about infoboxes is the constant incessant warring about it that seems to happen EVERY DAMN TIME someone who isn't one of the small group of weird anti-infobox editors finds a page without one and wants to add one like almost every other damn page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I rather object to the hurtful comment that I am a "weird" "anti-info-box" editor. I add info-boxes to all sorts of articles, most recently this one, but only when they fulfil Wikipedia's policy of summing up key points in the text. The proposed box for Ravel tells us that he was born, died and could sign his name. As for directing the reader to another page entirely, that is a blatant breach of Wikipedia's policy. Not helpful to our readers, which is why almost every major contributor to composer FAs has been against adding them.  Tim riley  talk   13:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What's so wrong with having an infobox that shows a composer was "born, died, and could sign their name?" In addition, the infobox could show where the composer was born or died, what period of music they worked in or are generally lumped in, their families, if they had any, etc. Also, what Wikipedia policy would an infobox violate? I stand by my conviction that infoboxes would make the article more accessible to the average reader and data scientists/algorithms. WuTang94 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it respectful to our readers to imagine they can't work out that a chap was born, died, and could write his name. What an IB for a composer would need to meet WP's criteria - and is unachievable - is a summary of why s/he is notable. A sportsman is notable for career stats, a politician for the posts achieved, an ecclesiastic for the benefices held, and we can sum all those up in an IB, but any attempt to say which works of Ravel (or any other composer) are notable is bound to be subjective and unencyclopaedic.  Tim riley  talk   20:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, we don't have to list his works in the infobox if that's your biggest objection, and I agree that his list of works is probably best where it is in the article. But overall, I think Ravel's article would benefit from having an infobox with quantifiable biographical information, and judging from this conversation thread, it looks like quite a lot of readers would benefit to that too and seem to fall more into the "hmm, why doesn't Ravel have an infobox? That's weird" group as mentioned.
 * And yes, there are Wikipedia articles that don't necessarily need infoboxes like Architecture of Buffalo, New York as there really isn't that much to quantify in that article, but biographical articles like Ravel's should at least note some biographical details like place/date of birth and death. It's just weird that you seem to have such an adamant obsession with ensuring Ravel doesn't get an infobox with even those quantifiable, non-debatable biographical details, with all due respect.
 * WuTang94 (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The salient advice is at MOS:INFOBOXUSE ("The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article.") Also, you forgot to link with all due respect. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * this is so stupid. the only type of person who thinks this way is a wikipedia mega-nerd with too much time to overthink this kind of thing . every average person visiting wikipedia (including myself) looks at the infobox FIRST. I came to this page looking to find when/where he was born, only to be confronted by the very ugly lack of an infobox. even Jesus has an infobox. what a joke. 2607:F598:B40A:E0:8C8D:8D65:C23B:DC6B (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank you for a thoughtful, intelligent and civil contribution. Unfortunately I can't.  Tim riley  talk   12:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it we have consensus for creating an info box for Ravel. A lot of other composers like Mozart, Bach, Beethoven etc have info boxes so there are no reason that Ravel shouldn't have one too. DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Would you care to point out the discussion in which this consensus you hypothesise recorded?  Tim riley  talk   19:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC) You are the only one who object to an info box. Consensus doesn't mean that everyone have to agree. It's enough with the majority. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, for pity's sake! Please read the very extensive discussion.  Tim riley  talk   21:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Leading notes
Quote: "As a result, there are few leading notes in his output." This is referenced, but via a paywall, and its meaning is unclear. Does it really mean that he wrote mostly using only the first six notes of the diatonic scale? Surely inconceivable, so what does it mean? Imaginatorium (talk) Imaginatorium (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Imaginatorium, So sorry: I failed to spot this addition until now. The Grove article starts "The seventh Degree of the major, harmonic minor, or ascending melodic minor scale, so called because it lies a semitone below the tonic and therefore has a strong tendency to lead up to it." I haven't got Taruskin's book to hand any more.  Tim riley  talk   17:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Later: This is from here: "His themes are frequently modal instead of using the familiar major or minor scales. As a result, there are few leading notes in his output. Chords of the ninth and eleventh and unresolved appoggiaturas, such as those in the Valses nobles et sentimentales, are characteristic of Ravel’s harmonic language".  Tim riley  talk   18:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I later worked out what was meant: I learnt the "leading note" as the name for the seventh note of the scale, without any explicit explanation that this excludes a flattened seventh. I do not think the text is very lucid - it would be much clearer to say something like "a penchant for flattened sevenths", or show an example perhaps. Personally I think articles should be aimed at the non-specialist reader who wants to know about the subject and should therefore avoid jargon (however "precise") as far as possible. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Entirely concur about target readership. Shall ponder a modest redraft.  Tim riley  talk   19:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk   16:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Section titles
@Tim riley, I changed the titles of the sections because I thought that, if a section must use the full name "First World War", it ought to be the section which actually refers to the time period, rather than the previous time period ("1910 to First World War). I don't know, it just looked a bit funny to me, not a big deal. IntGrah (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that courteous and gracious explanation. I'm inclined to stick with the agreed FA text, but I shan't press the point.  Tim riley  talk   18:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)