Talk:Robert Stoepel

Information
A hard topic - but now there's more information here than in Grove's or any other source! -- kosboot (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox proposal
I suggest to add an infobox, for example --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all for an infobox. I'm glad you don't have the "influences" section here (influences can be a very subjective matter). -- kosboot (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK, especially since the article's creator and main contributor is in favour of it. I would suggest, though, that the "Known for" field be eliminated. Not only is it space-greedy with no significant value added, it's not accurate. From reading the sources about him, he was primarily known for his conducting, the incidental music he composed for plays, and one work, Hiawatha (already covered under notable works). The fact that he's got an article and that he is described as a composer and conductor makes it obvious what he is known for. Simply listing all the various types of things he composed (practically all composers of this type composed songs, piano works, etc.) doesn't add informational value and is a bit of a subjective judgement as to what he is "known for". There is no evidence that he achieved any kind of fame for his songs or piano works, and his operas sank without a trace. Just because parameters are available, doesn't mean they all have to be used.  Voceditenore (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will leave it, but please consider: some composers of classical music compose symphonies, some string quartets, some operas, some Lieder, some piano music, - it would add information to a very general boxing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's better the way it is now where it lists him as as "Conductor and Composer of incidental music, songs, piano works, operas" rather than listng them vertically under the subjective "Known for". Obviously, one could put virtually all the contents of an article into the infobox, but infoboxes shouldn't be vertical articles. They become very intrusive when they are and the key facts are lost in an (often misleading) morass of detail. They should stick to strictly objective, verifiably accurate, key attributes. Incidentally, I also expanded the lede to include the information that's in the infobox for people who prefer read basic facts horizontally. An infobox should never be used as a substitute for a well-written lede. Voceditenore (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This raises the very important question of what actually constitutes this "known for" thing, the critical issue being "known by whom"? If this means the general public today, then clearly the word "nothing" is the only accurate answer; if it means "music scholars in general", then it may still be argued that "nothing" is the correct answer, since Stoepel does not exactly loom large on the horizon of music scholarship generally; if "specialists in 19th-century American music history" is meant, then it is probably Hiawatha, but more likely "conducting" for "his American or European contemporaries". By the way, this is an excellent illustration of the problem with infoboxes generally, and with music subjects in particular.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is kept here to understand the discussion, - the one in the article is different, no more "known for", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposed. I don't think this discussion was notified to either of the CM projects — not that it's required. Anyway, since I have found it, I would like to express my view that the article would be better without an bio-inofbox. In particular, the 'occupation' field seems inappropriate for the 19th century. I see 'conductor' comes first, though his notability nowadays is surely as a composer.  Klein zach  08:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kleinzach - the pertinent discussion is the one below. I'm not going to revert your deletion, but as you can see above members of both groups pretty much accepted an infobox for this article.  I still strongly feel that infoboxes are important - they're not about style - but crucially they are all about making Wikipedia are more structured environment for the future. -- kosboot (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I haven't edited the article and the discussion below doesn't seem to to relate to any contributions either. Please note my view about the content of this particular box. Also please clarify who is in favour of the box: Gerda obviously, and you, anybody else?  Klein zach  15:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I misread Melodia's reversion. Although he's not for them, in the discussion above, Voceditenor goes along with it for this article. -- kosboot (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about Voceditenore? She has sat on the fence for so long on this issue, there is a metaphorical hole in her pants.  Klein zach  01:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Kleinzach, I find that remark rather rude considering what pants means in British English, but be that as it may. My position is consistent with that of the opera project and the MoS. Infoboxes are neither prohibited nor required and should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. I also give a fair amount of weight to the views of the article's principal author(s)—in this case Kosboot—unless it is actively detrimental to the article. I find simple biographical infoboxes acceptable, where they do not interfere with the layout or visual presentation and are restricted to only a few verifiable fields that do not mislead the reader or oversimplify the subject, i.e. birth and death dates and places and principal "occupation". ("Occupation" is not an ideal word for pre-20th century biographies and not appropriate for people of any era who are artists in the broad sense of the word. It should be changed to something like "Field" as in the infobox for a visual artist.) That's my position here, and why, as you can see above and elsewhere, I have pointed out to Gerda that her unrelenting determination to cram half the article into a vertical box is both counterproductive and unencyclopedic. The one that is currently in the article is reasonably OK and I'd support Kosboot's wish to have it there. Voceditenore (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I respect editors who take up a clear position on this issue. On Wikipedia pants link to trousers not undergarments. Using piping to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. The point about the 'occupation' field — the main problem with this box here — is important. If we can get rid of that field the thing would certainly be less unacceptable.  Klein zach  08:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I respect editors who are willing to compromise where appropriate. I have now re-piped the link to "what pants means in British English". Does that make it clearer to you? Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you’re suggesting that I can’t compromise on this issue, see the infobox I’ve just created for orchestras . (Incidentally input on fields for that box at Template talk:Infobox orchestra would be appreciated.)


 * Regarding this particular box ‘‘here’‘, the following (involved) editors are pro: Kosboot, Gerda Arendt, Milowent, (presumably) Moxy, and Voceditenore, while Jerome Kohl, Toccata quarta, (presumably) Nikkimaria, and myself, are against. 5:4 — hardly a consensus in favour.


 * So we could simply declare ‘no consensus’ and label the box as a failed proposal, or AGF and try to reach a compromise. If the later, it’s essential that the ‘occupation field’ — which you say you are against — is removed. Collapsing the box would also be a step in the right direction.  Klein zach  12:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it doesn't help when you bring people over who almost certainly are going to vote your way. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A failed "proposal"?  What are you smoking?  The article should have an infobox, regardless of whether some content needs discussion.  I have written many bios, and edited 1000s more, and never seen a fight over a legitimate infobox.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. What's a 'legitimate' infobox? Or an 'illegitimate' infobox, for that matter. Any examples?  Klein zach  02:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kleinzach on this ‘no consensus’ has been reached by this talk. However see a much different outcome, despite not being in-favor of a box myself because the article is still small. So what is the outcome in my eyes - this is clear to me - the default would go to the main contributors wishes (style choice) - the primary and secondary contributors added the box after they talked about it. No consensus has been reached to invalidate the primary and secondary contributors choice of format. Just as if the choice was to  have list-defined references or d-m-y vs Y-M-D  - no consensus to change the main original contributors format.Moxy (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made 19 edits to the article (including some significant corrections). How do I rate under the 'Moxy System'?  Klein zach  04:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should be more clear - the content editors. The first ones that created and added the content and a box they talked about weeks ago. As for your edits - they are more then welcome - however you may want to accomplish  more with ever edit making things faster for you. How much time do you think you spend on debating this problem? I am aware of 4 ongoing debates on boxes  right now - even were one editors has retired - is there many more ongoing?Moxy (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. After 19 edits, I'm not a 'content editor'! Is that right? I edited the content but for some obscure reason I don't count as a 'content editor'! Well, well . . .  Klein zach  15:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of any rules allowing main editors to determine anything other than the variety of English, citation style, etc. Can you show me such a rule? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at whats going on, thus understanding the context of the statement your referring to. At an impasse (an almost even split)  that is not about a policy breach we should not listen to those that shout the loudest over those that actually started and contributed the majority of the articles content - this would be common sense in my opinion. We are at an impasse that does not involve any policy or guideline breach, thus should move forward - so yes  less weight should be given to those that just stooped by after the fact WP:NOTUNANIMITY. But your right like the "Hot" warning on coffee we may need a rule so all understand the principles of editorial discretion in a case like this.Moxy (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So there's none. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats your rebuttal - need to up the skills level. Never said it was a policy I said it was common sense when you asked. Do you have an opinion on the matter as I have put forth above. What approach do you think is best - ignoring the conversation on the articles  talk page a simply removing the box yourself? O wait that did not work now did it? Moxy (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) Well, Moxy is making this all up. The Classical Music guideline says "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." That's inline with WP-wide policies. -- Klein zach  08:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No clue what your talking about - so cant reply properly. Never said anything about any project advice page. I think your under the impression that when Gerda Arendt posted "Infobox proposal" that it was asking your projects opinion on the matter. Your projects disputed hidden note was not here - is he to guess at what to do? The box was done to resolve an on going problem. They solve it and moved on  - then weeks later a few show up all upset after being told there's a page with a box. This arguments all over is getting more and more concerning. Look at the big picture -  we are trying to build a nice collaborative community and retain and gain new  editors - this is the opposite of whats going on lately. I see no need for a box - but can also see there is no consensus on the matter, thus  there is no need to kick the main contributors of the page in the nuts. They have done nothing wrong.Moxy (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you believe that primary editors have the final word on the matter of infoboxes, then you must have no objection in that regard to the article Richard Wagner, since at least two of its top three editors do not want it to have an infobox, nor the article Karlheinz Stockhausen, the dominant editor of which is also against an infobox. Are you OK with that? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup you got it - in an even debate - default to the main people. Dont drive the content editors away. Listen to the main editors of pages ... NOT projects or random people that show up just for a vote. We need to avoid conflict especially when no policy is being broken.Moxy (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Denying people the right to vote sounds like a breach of policy to me. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Use your head and start to see the context of things. I have no wish to hold your hand and explain the basic of how a collaborative community works. Moxy (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Collaborative editing" is not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about whether primary editors have a right to determine whether an infobox does or does not belong into an article. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your asking - should the main editors be obstructed in the creation and development of the article when no policy is broken - that would be a clear no to me (let them work in peace). Why is this happening did they do something wrong? Did they violate policy? We are at an impasse with no policy or guide or MOS problems - so the main contributors have more of a say is logical to me. Finding an appropriate balance is not always an easy task, and should be done in the context of the principles supporting them and the improvement of the encyclopedia. Moxy (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What Moxy is basically saying is at this point is looks like there's a bunch of bullys going around and shouting RAWR! KILL! CRUSH! DESTROY! every time they get an inkiling that there's an infobox on one of 'their' articles. Usually it's with the same old same old "I don't think there should be an infobox because I don't think there should be one, and oh composers Wikiprooject recommends one because I don't think there should be one!". It's really gotten silly and every time someone "outside" comes in and expresses about the fact that most other bio articles have them, they get ganged up on. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's your problem if you're unwilling to address the arguments that members of the project have raised in the past. The reason why we have a guideline on this is to avoid having the same discussion on 4,000 or so talk pages. Sounds practical. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I must confess ignorance to the fights over infoboxes on biographies. Of course, any content editor can be mostly unaware of feuds that may arise in areas they don't regularly edit. Wikipedia is a big place. I have not edited any composer articles that I can recall. Here, since I wrote Matilda Heron, I became aware of this article's creation. I've written articles on politicians, actors, scientists, etc., and never seen a battle over infoboxes before. Here I see was ignorant of the existence of WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines. My opinion in favor of an infobox was based on a general belief that they are useful and that our readership has come to expect them. (I also work on wikipedia article traffic issues, see, e.g., Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-04/Special report). So my opinion should be considered in that light, not intended to automatically override any consensus developed in this niche. cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Be aware that WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines represents the consensus only of those who wrote it. It is not binding on any editor, nor any article, having only the status of an essay. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over box
So we have a small edit war over the info-box I see. Could all parties involved pls discuses the merits and negative aspects of the box here as they relate to this specific page (as set forth at the MOS on infoboxs. Personally think the article is small and has no need for one.Moxy (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the history? Isn't that over? I suggested an infobox, the author is for it, if there are no strong objections within a week I will add it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry meant to say "So we have a small edit war over the info-box coming soon". The box is not a big deal to me as long as "Persondata" data is there.Moxy (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that "we have a small edit war over the info-box coming soon", nor that there is one in progress. In fact, there is a calm and reasoned discussion in progress. What is the point of making an assertion like that, and using such an overstated heading instead of simply contributing to the discussion under the existing heading? Voceditenore (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There should be an infobox. A nyone arguing otherwise is starting "a war" against longstanding precedent, which would be very silly.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS clearly states that the decision whether or not to add an infobox to an article should be decided through discussion on the talk page if there is a disagreement. It also states that infoboxes are neither prohibited nor required. How on earth could anyone arguing not to add one to a particular article in a particular discussion be construed as starting a "war" is beyond me. Not that anyone here has argued against it, so what's the point of using gratuitously adversarial language? Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The behavior surrounding the removal was extremely uncivil, in my opinion. Looks like all is over now, however, so I'll put down my pitchforks. :-) --Milowent • hasspoken  13:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It'll probably start again given the posting on the Composers Wikiproject... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -- kosboot (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

'Pre-modern' composer
Many of us are against boxes, especially for pre-modern composers, but it would be better to give our opinions here, rather than join in an edit war on the article page. Once a consensus is established, a decision can be made. This issue is exasperating, but we have to be patient and deal with the problem of inappropriate and inaccurate information in a calm and reasonable way. That's the Wikipedia way! Thank you.  Klein zach  01:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is interesting, isn't it, that anyone arguing against an infobox is "starting a war against longstanding precedent". Sounds to me like what, in warfare, is called a "preemptive strike". I am inclined to ignore this snipe, and agree with Kleinzach that giving opinions and arriving at consensus may in fact conform with Wikipedia procedures. I would however prefer not to be thought of as aligned with those editors who oppose infoboxes only for pre-modern composers. I am just as opposed to infoboxes for composers like Monteverdi, Bach, and Beethoven as I am to medieval and earlier figures.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. By pre-modern composers I really meant all individuals who didn't have passports, birth, marriage and death certificates, IRS/social security numbers etc.  Klein zach  05:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What, you mean Monteverdi didn't have a passport, birth, marriage, or death certificate?! Do you have a reliable source to confirm this outrageous claim?!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What bothers me is whether this guy Stoepel had a visa.  Klein zach  14:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean! If our research uncovers the fact that he was an illegal immigrant, are we obliged as Wikipedia editors to report him to the US Immigration Department so they can have him deported, posthumously?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you change your name if you had a legitimate infobox?  Klein zach  04:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The evidence is mounting!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)