Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 32

Archives Table of Contents

Proposal re. Straw poll on infoboxes
In view of the mass canvassing of unrelated, uninvolved editors in other projects, I propose the Opera Project cancels and archives the 'Straw Poll' forthwith. Please agree or disagree as appropriate. -- Kleinzach 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Your continued attempts to stifle debate on this matter, where there is clearly no consensus, would be laughable, were they not so potentially damaging. Andy Mabbett 09:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, you could just let the poll run its course. If consensus is in your favor, I will kindly withdraw from this debate. I also resent the use of the phrase "mass canvassing." I contacted two WikiProjects now, each with a different audience, and left a notice on the village pump. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 09:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. If the poll is designed to find out what the consensus is amongst this project's participants, then it's meaningless if others are voting in it too. If it's supposed to find out what the consensus is throughout Wikipedia, isn't there a more appropriate page for it? Archiving the poll section on its own doesn't stifle discussion. People can discuss their heads off about infoboxes all over this page, and apparently do. ;-) Voceditenore 09:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Cielomobile, this has got nothing to do with what you said as “issue of feelings of ownership of all articles related to opera”. I just feel that the matter or the poll should be discussed / done within participants of the project. I seriously do not see why others should be invited. And since we have agreed not to put on the infobox, let the decision stays unless you have a very good reason why we should have it. Do you? Until now, I am still not convinced with your justification. I just don’t understand why you drag the matter, drop it man! Please.. - Jay 10:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "I just feel that the matter or the poll should be discussed / done within participants of the project" - please read WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett 10:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "If the poll is designed to find out what the consensus is amongst this project's participants, then it's meaningless if others are voting in it too" - please read WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett 10:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the document is WP:CANVAS. -- Kleinzach 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is one editor who shouldn't be taking part in any debate about opera-related topics it's Andy Mabbett, given his history of point violations in this area (e.g. ), which indicate he has little or no knowledge of the subject and is only here to cause disruption as part of his quest to impose microformats everywhere via infoboxes (apparently WP:OWN doesn't apply to WikiProject Microformats or its founder though). --Folantin 11:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "if there is one editor who shouldn't be taking part in any debate about opera-related topics it's Andy Mabbett" - That's a totally unacceptable statement. Shame on you. Andy Mabbett 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Moreschi Talk 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could we move away from the personal comments, please? If you would like to comment about Mr. Mabbett, there are other venues through which you may do so. Remember, there are no mastadons anymore! -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, Mabbett is a disruptive editor as his behaviour on opera topics and his extensive block log demonstrates . He was actually banned by ArbCom from editing infoboxes for a while (later, as far as I'm aware, changed to a ban on reverting more than once a week which is still in effect). If you want to re-open this debate, you should try to find out more about its history (which, IIRC, goes back to late April) and why some of us are less than enthusiastic about going over the same old ground again. Mabbett is the founder of WikiProject:Microformats and his campaign to introduce microformats via infoboxes is well-known (especially to anyone who's visited WP:ANI). All this is relevant to this debate. --Folantin 12:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested - There seems to be some confusion here. Cielomobile, since you added the poll, could you please clarify for us what you meant it to do? Did you intend it to find out if there was still consensus among participants of the Opera Project re infoboxes. Or did you intend it to find what the consensus was from all Wikipedia editors? Best, Voceditenore 11:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The poll was not meant for any particular audience. When I created it, I had already posted at the village pump, but I had not posted at the bio WikiProject, musician WikiProject, or classical music WikiProject, and I did not have the intention of doing so. So I suppose the original intention was to gauge consensus among participats within the WikiProject, in addition to anyone who might have found their way their through the village pump policy section (the purpose of which is just this sort of thing). I was certainly not planning some elaborate scheme of vote-stacking. Now that I have posted at those other WikiProjects, I believe that they have just as much right to express their opinions here as anyone within this project. If there truly is no cabal (and I don't think there is), then we should not stifle free speech and we should not exclude the wider community or prevent them from expressing their views here. I would like to get the opinion of the wider community, and I was hoping that we could do it here, rather than an RfC or something of the like, which would be unnecessary in my opinion. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words a classic case of Forum shopping by Cielomobile. -- Kleinzach 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, Cielomobile. Of course everyone has the right to express their views here. But from your previous comments in these discussions, I had the mistaken impression that you thought the consensus - solely amongst members of this project - might have changed, or could be changed, and that you initiated the poll to find out if that were the case. Since that was not your intention, and you had a much broader audience in mind, I'm not sure why this could not have simply continued as a discussion with all Wikipedia editors invited to join, rather than becoming a poll in which it was initially unclear exactly who was being polled and why. But nevermind.;-). Best, Voceditenore 12:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Forum shopping is a bit different than this.. this is what my grandma used to say as  the true “opera”, libretto written in English by Cielomobile. As the original casts, we all know the synopsis - the drag screen play with no ending.  Cielomobile, I am sure by  now you have come to the senses (unless you have not) that most editors in this project are against your idea. Why not you just rest your case and move on… continue with your editing or daily work. We have ours too. This is not going to go anywhere. BTW, you have not answered my question. Please justify why are you so eager to put the infobox in opera singer’s articles.  I am curious, what is in for you and for the articles? What good does it make to you and to the articles? And why you think the infobox is neccessary? - Jay 12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Why not you just rest your case and move on… continue with your editing or daily work. We have ours too." - that looks like a textbook case of ownership. Andy Mabbett 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, Kleinzach, I've asked you to stop making personal attacks about me. What ever happened to "assume good faith"? Your comments are causing me a great deal of stress. Why have you not responded to any of my attempts on your talk page to resolve this? I try to be transparent, I try to appeal to people of both audiences, and I try to reconcile by removing one of the notices; what more could you want? Again, I feel like you're making a public spectacle of me, and it really bothers me. This is is the last time that I will ask you to stop.


 * Anyway, I'm going to drop it all. This is not important enough to make such a fuss about it or to be the subject of personal attacks. I'd rather just go back to my beloved Bartok. I'd like to archive everything concerning infoboxes to an "Infoboxes discussion" section, if that is alright with other editors. It is now apparent to me that there is vast consensus among the WikiProject not to use them. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read all my comments on this page and I can't find any instance of a personal attack. I see you, Cielomobile, signed onto the Opera Project a day before you annotated the section about infoboxes on the project page. Do you intend to contribute to articles on opera? This has been an unnecessary disruption. I hope it's at an end.

Regarding archiving, please leave the discussions alone. They will be archived exactly as they are now with no retrospective editing, re-arranging, new headings or whatever. Basta! -- Kleinzach 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do intend on contributing to articles related to opera, though I am not sure how much I will work with this project in the future, because of the general hostility and accusations of bad faith with which I have been met. I created the stub A Flowering Tree long before joining the project, and I have been editing articles related to classical music for quite some time now (see homophony for instance, which is also related to opera—I detailed all this earlier in response to a comment made by Jay). Regarding personal attacks, I was probably taking this too harshly (tone can be lost in text), but the repeated accusations of forum shopping (which is bad faith editing) felt like personal attacks to me, even if you did not intend them as such (I doubt that people very often intend on making personal attacks when they do). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there has been general hostility towards you personally. Some (not all) of the responses may have been brusque and reflected annoyance at the disruption caused by all this, for which I think you have to take some responsibility. Normally, when joining a project, it's a good idea to 'hang around' on the talk page for a couple of weeks to get a feeling for the dynamics of the group, and to read the archives carefully to see what the background is to many of the discussions. Had you done so, you would have seen that amendments are only made to the front page after first proposing them on the talk page. You would also have seen that the issue of infoboxes has been discussed a lot, and that there was not only a consensus about it here, but that several other Projects (unrelated to Opera) were also against them, and there was a feeling here that this subject could definitely use a rest after the previous marathon - archived only a couple of weeks ago.


 * As for the accusations of bad faith, 'accusation' is a two way street that's best to avoid. If you wanted to open the issue again, it would have been better to write a reasoned rationale for infoboxes being positively beneficial to opera articles rather than detrimental instead of simply stating that we should use them because the Biography Project wants them. When you start off stating on the talk page that this project's (and by clear implication its members) opposition to infoboxes is "arrogant" and involves issues of "ownership", it's not surprising that people react (and sometimes over-react) to that.


 * While "mass canvassing" is perhaps too strong a term (and one which I never used), it is nevertheless the case that you started a poll and then contacted groups with a combined total of over 300 members who are on the whole known to favour your point of view, and far fewer ones which did not. I think you can see how many people here might have considered it 'forum shopping', which is not so much bad faith as an issue of etiquette. True, you retracted the messages to those groups and tried to even things out once the imbalance was pointed out to you, but, I think it would have been courteous to the project as a whole, to discuss your plan for a straw poll (and your intentions to announce it on several other projects) here on this talk page before you embarked on it. An after-the-fact message on the talk page of one member of the project, isn't really adequate.


 * Anyhow, chalk it up to experience in group dynamics. No one here is going to hold it against you, and it least it's in black and white what the Opera Project's current consensus is about infoboxes, and our reasons for it. So the whole thing did shed some light in addition to heat. ;-) Best, Voceditenore 09:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no current consensus . Andy Mabbett 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If Andy Mabbett does not agree, there must, of course, be no consensus. On anything. Moreschi Talk 16:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment is disengenious, if not downright dishonest. I have previously listed around a dozen people who have spoken out against the claimed consensus. Andy Mabbett 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If I've been unclear, my apologies, Mr. Mabbett. I was referring to the Opera Project's current consensus, not to a Wikipedia-wide consensus. I would have thought that was pretty obvious, but nevermind, I have amended my comment above to avoid confusion. Voceditenore 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Up to this point I have not ventured an opinion on info-boxes at all but I have been watching the argument closely. Mr. Mabbett at this point I think you should recognize that the Opera Wikipedia project has pretty much decided against your proposal and I hope you will graciously accept their rejection of your ideas. We thank you for bringing this issue to our attention but I believe I speak for this particular group within wikipedia by saying we do not choose to adopt your suggestions. In other words, please be respectful enough of our viewpoint to no longer raise the issue again. We have decided as a group that we are not going to adopt info boxes in general. In the future, Mr. Mabbett, I think you would do better to win people over to your way of thinking by providing solutions to the problems they see in your proposal, instead of being condescending to their criticisms. Wikipedia is a community of people that make decisions together. In this case the community is not with you. As to my own opinions on info-boxes, I think for the most part they are not necessary for the same reasons listed by group members earlier. I am also very concerned about misinformation presented in the info-boxes. However, I do think all of the problems mentioned are fixable. Misinformation can always be edited to good information and redundant information can be deleted from the article. If an infobox within an article is done well I see no reason to delete it. I do think that info boxes could be helpful in some of the larger articles, especially ones dealing with more well known singers like Pavarotti. But ultimately, info boxes are not a necessity simply because the articles themselves can contain any of the information held within an info box. I do think the group should allow info boxes on pages shared with the Wiki Biography Project and other projects that like info-boxes simply in the spirit of cooperation and friendship. In those cases, however, I think we should adopt Kyoko’s suggestion of using an opera specific info box in order to avoid misinformation. Also if someone, in the group wants to create an info box and does it with integrity, I see no reason to delete it either. i just don't think we should make them a requirement. In this way, we avoid the hassle of info boxes on most of our pages while maintaining good relations with other projects.Nrswanson 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that where the main contributors to an article on an opera singer want the box, the box should be fixed (if necessary) not removed (unless there's something hideously broken): WP:WPBIO is more of a meta-project than anything else; really not a hands-on write-the-articles WikiProject, so I'm not sure how that project is relevant (I still can't work out why it exists, but that's a different discussion); with other overlapping projects that like boxes, I agree there should be reasoned discussion. Moreschi Talk 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote earlier that I wanted to drop this, so I'm not going to argue it anymore (and I did give my rationale for infoboxes at some point; it has to do with infoboxes being easier to read than prose, but I will not go into detail again). However, if I create an opera-specific infobox that does not have to be used unless an article's contributors want it used, would one of you propose its deletion (I would just move the infobox in my userspace to the template space)? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough!
This infobox war is starting to get out of hand. This is probably one of the lamest edit wars I've seen and should really be listed in WP:LAME. Whilst we are all hurling insults, accusations and 100 WP:DOCTRINE links, has anyone noticed that nothing is being accomplished. This argument isn't about content. No matter whether infoboxes are included or not, the article is NOT improved because nobody is adding any new content. My view is that no one has the right to dictate whether infoboxes stay or are removed if they're not willing to actually add something meaningful to an article.

If anyone is accusing me of ownership - well, I'm afraid this is where I totally disagree with WP's policy. Any major contributor to an article should have more rights to the format and layout of the article than some fly by editor who's only intention is to do a half minute rating and then tag an article Start or an obsessive microformatter who has no interest in the content of an article, merely that it has all the latest template transclusions.

My suggestion is that all these people who want people to agree with their views should first prove that they are actually interested in more than just a small coloured box in the top right of an article and actually the content of the article itself. Do some copyeditting, find some references. Anything...just stop engaging in a pointless exercise over an infobox.  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Let's just archive this whole debate and get on with editing. --Folantin 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more! Although I would like your opinions on my suggestion given above. Nrswanson 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, enough. No new arguments are being brought to the table here. All the previous ones are available on this page, at WikiProject:Composers, the various article talk pages and WP:ANI. Please read them first and after that marathon perhaps you'll understand why most editors are thoroughly sick of the issue. Best. --Folantin 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: as a general rule, kill the boxes; where they are particularly wanted by the main contributor(s) to an article, make sure the box contains nothing confusing. Moreschi Talk 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: as per Moreschi - Voceditenore 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shall we archive these discussions sometime soon so we go can draw a line and move on?  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 18:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The sooner the better. (Apologies to any newcomers who've joined the debate, but what you are detecting is immense weariness rather than hostility). --Folantin 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you wish to turn current Wikipedia policy on its head, as proposed by 'CenturionZ 1', then WP:VP would be a good place to start; until you achieve that, policy remains as it is and ownership is not allowed. Andy Mabbett 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This has got nothing to do with ownership. There is no rule against individual projects coming up with style guidelines for articles that (roughly) fall within their scope: indeed, this is common practice. For the last couple weeks, this has been all about your ridiculous trolling. Moreschi Talk 22:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I advise that you just drop the issue, Andy, as I have. It's not important. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, do. You've trolled us non-stop for weeks and we're heartily sick of it. Once, it had amusement value. Now, it's just plain boring, and you're wasting time. Moreschi Talk 22:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As suggested, I have now archived this discussion except for this final section which I will also be archiving afterwards. -- Kleinzach 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Andy Mabbett has just deleted Moreschi's last comment. I have just restored it. -- Kleinzach 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal:Moratorium on infobox discussions for 6 months
I propose we have a formal moratorium on all discussions about infoboxes at this project, for a period of at least six months from today's date (21 June 2007) to be noted on the project page (section 15). Please agree or disagree. -- Kleinzach 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC) / Revised --Kleinzach 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not work by running votes to silence others and deny the opinions of those who don't agree with the loudest voices. Andy Mabbett 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironic you should be talking about "loudest voices", Mabbett. As far as I can see, the "loudest voice" trying to impose his dogma here is you. "Deny the opinions of others" is perfect description of what you have done over the last few weeks. Moreschi Talk 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Andy, in case you are wondering where I was referring to where I say I get irritated by your contrinutions, this is the main place. --Peter cohen 11:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the proposal and also, I would like to "propose" for Andy Mabbett to quit with his useless debate in here unless he has something beneficial for Opera Project. What, you want to call this "ownership"? I don’t see any constructive opinion from you other than criticizing people. - Jay 01:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not bring it up again and will advise others not to do so, but you can't really stop someone from bringing it up if he or she wants to. I would agree with an informal moratorium on the subject, but a "formal" one seems a little odd and unenforceable to me. What if someone brings it up again? Will you just tell them "NOT ALLOWED FOR DISCUSSION"? I would just point to the past discussion. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cielomobile, the use of 'formal is odd and unenforceable. It also 'looks' bad. I'd heartily agree to an informal one, though. If someone brings it up, we can just say we're taking a rest on that issue for a while and point them to the appropriate archive. Best, Voceditenore 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * An informal moratorium is fine. In the same way it's generally considered a bad idea to keep nominating an article you dislike for deletion, I think those who want infoboxes should give it a rest for several months. We've established there really is a general feeling against the use of infoboxes on opera articles at the moment. We've discussed this issue to death over the past two months or so and no new arguments have been brought forward. Any newcomers who inadvertently raise this subject again can be referred to the previous debates and told we're not really interested in discussing the matter in the immediate future. --Folantin 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added the word 'formal' above to the proposal above to mean that the moratorium if agreed would be noted on the project page under Infoboxes (Section 15). An informal moratorium - if that means saying Hey we discussed it last month, it's in Archive 26, sorry no Archive 28! - is not going to work. Each editor who has tried to re-ignite the issue in the past has simply brushed that aside. -- Kleinzach 08:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: As long as it's phrased in a 'friendly' (for want of a better word) way, I think it's reasonable to note it on the project page. But I would avoid the use of 'formal' in the actual note. Frankly, a determined infoboxer would still brush aside the project page notice, and in addition could then come in firing with both barrels concerning censorship, debate stifling etc. Why provide the ammo? Best, Voceditenore 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Voce. A friendly notice to avoid further edit warring would be fine. We can refer interested newcomers to that and to the archives. Otherwise, as I've said above, it's generally regarded as disruptive to reignite debates again and again until you get your way. In such cases, we would have the "moral highground". --Folantin 09:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, we are in agreement. I didn't intend anything different. (Not as if we have to wear suits or anything. . . .) I have amended the proposal above to make it clearer. Please confirm it's OK now. -- Kleinzach 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, and I like Moreschi's wording maybe slightly rephrased to: We're all a bit tired of discussing this issue right now, so before you bring it up, you really might like to check the archives here. And here. And here. Best, Voceditenore 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just stick a "Thank you" on the end to make it extra-friendly. --Folantin 10:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just put a brief note saying, "We're all a bit tired of this right now, so you really might like, before you bring this up, to check the archives here. And here. And here. And here." Informal, formal can't really work. Moreschi Talk 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all fine by me. --GuillaumeTell 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've added the proposed note to the project page with all the relevant archived discussion I could find. I didn't add the debates from the individual article pages, but anybody who hasn't had their fill of reading about this discussion after ploughing through the links provided is clearly insane. --Folantin 11:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO the note needs a time reference, without that I'm afraid it will be ineffective. -- Kleinzach 11:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't enforce a specific date, but it might be OK if we added "Ideally, it would be best not to raise the topic again for at least another six months (date of writing: late June, 2007)". --Folantin 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes that's the point. Date the note. Date the moratorium. -- Kleinzach 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best to date it as "June" rather than "June 21". Otherwise, by my calculation, we look like we're offering an invitation to restart the debate on December 21, right before Christmas. I don't think I could take it at that time of the year! Cheers. --Folantin 11:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose we tell any new editors who want to discuss infoboxes to drop the issue as we have reached a consensus to stop all discussions (in a friendly manner of course). (Andy: Your lone voice of I want the issue to continue does not constitute no consensus). If Andy does come back and try to force his views down our throats then we'll just ignore him. The guy's so deep in his own little microformat world that I've decided he's a lost cause to argue with. Not only that he doesn't realise he's pretty much argued our case for us. (Censorship, ownership - more applicable to his attitude to this matter then ours.)  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 13:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) "Each editor who has tried to re-ignite the issue in the past "... adds further evidence that there is no consensus (and disproves the dishonest claim that I'm a "lone voice" in this regard). Please feel free, if you can, to also post evidence to back up your further dishonest claim that I have tried to censor anyone's view on Infoboxes. Andy Mabbett 13:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * People, ignore. Moreschi Talk 13:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dismissing an editor, with whom you disagree, as a troll is not accepatabe. I'd be surprised you don't know that already. Andy Mabbett 13:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dismissing an editor with your singularly infamous history of disruption as a troll, on the other hand...Moreschi Talk 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your resort to ad hominem suggests that you have no stronger argument to propound; you know there is no consensus and are trying to create a smoke-screen. Andy Mabbett 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Moreschi, although I'd just note as a point of comparison, for those unfamiliar with Andy Mabbett's unique debating style, it's worth checking out this discussion where he himself actually wants a box removed from a page. --Folantin 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A box which contains a palpable lie. Andy Mabbett 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)