Talk:Antonio Vivaldi

Infobox

Why do some composer don't have any infobox. 50.101.226.79 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Wikiproject Composers takes the view that infoboxes are seldom useful and the use of one should firstly establish consensus on the talk page. Should you wish to add one, start a discussion here. For more details and further links, see WikiProject page. Drumncars1996 (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this useful link to the project. Cheers! Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox consensus (or lack thereof)

@Nikkimaria:, I’ve searched both talk archives and it comes up exactly once, citing “This issue already has a considerable history on this talk page.” I don’t need to explain why that’s patently untrue. And I also am done dignifying an ancient decree made by a single WikiProject, unilaterally, that “their” articles shalt not have infoboxes unless you’re willing to cut through a Gordian Knot of red tape (also unilaterally installed). Dronebogus (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The quote you provide is specifically with regards to the issue of nationality. As to unilaterally, not sure how a unilateral action of your own would be more acceptable? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

That’s beside the point. An out of process, outdated, ownership-based, insider-based consensus to implement across an entire topic area a de facto policy requiring RFCs for every infobox has exactly as much weight as my personal opinion (next to none). Dronebogus (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my question: if somehow the consensus of the group has the exact same weight as your individual opinion, why should yours prevail? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You know, Nikkimaria, that Dronebogus is not alone with the criticism of the 2010 restriction. Dronebogus, how about asking project composers if there is still consensus to keep classical composers free from infoboxes? Nikkimaria and I should not do that, having been parties to the 2013 arbcase, but you look independent enough to begin a general RfC. I believe that composers are also persons, and feel that the majority of the community thinks the same, - just look at the Mozart discussion which was clear not only by number of comments but also quality of arguments (look for Voceditenore). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m strongly considering it Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK that Clara Schumann has an infobox since 2012? ... that a discussion for Stoepel ended in favour of an infobox in 2013? ... that Brian Boulton came up with a compromise idea (for Percy Grainger) right after the infoboxes case, almost 10 years ago? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits (November 2023)

Baptizedsaint, will you please stop edit warring some bizarre and terrible changes, including deleting relevant and sourced information, and DISCUSS on this page. You are on the precipice of being reported for disruptive behaviour, as I am sure your talk page would have warned you, so unless you want that, I suggest you stop and talk. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat that these edits are unhelpful, edit warring, and Baptizedsaint should engage talk and gain consensus for their edits (but SC, please change the section heading, as somewhere some guideline tells us to avoid personalizing in section headings ... I use something generic like "Recent edits"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite right - forgot about that one. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

They are clearly a troll. Assuming good faith can only go so far. Just have an admin block them and move on. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I also suggest that if Bs persists, and these edits have to be brought to ANI, then a CU may recognize a pattern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. 'Nuff of that. Agree that AGF only goes so far. Antandrus (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Should there be an infobox in the Antonio Vivaldi article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's been a longstanding controversy on this page on whether an infobox should be included. Some state it would improve the understanding of readers.

Others state that including an infobox for Antonio Vivaldi would simplify a complex, long life. KlayCax (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• KlayCax, Can I suggest you read wp:RFCOPEN (and WP:RFCBEFORE too). It states that there should be “a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue”: this clearly isn’t neutral. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm summarizing the main two perspectives on the page. I'm aware of WP: RFCOPEN. However, RFC are generally favored for infobox disputes, as there are prominent supporters/opponents of adding it on this page.

  That's why I immediately went to RFC. KlayCax (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Summaries of issues like these are not usually neutral, since you are picking and choosing which arguments to present. Anything other than "Should there be an infobox in this article? It has been a contentious issue in the past (see threads above), so I've begun this RFC" is superfluous. – Aza24 (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  KlayCax you haven't explained what you want in the infobox and how adding that info in a box would improve reader understanding of the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose, as of yet, no reason or need for an infobox for this article has been provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm new here. Although I haven't edited any composer pages, I do have some background in musicology. Anyway, as I understand the matter, you are asking whether or not an infobox should be added to the article - I don't see one at present...so to me the real question is whether the infobox wold make the article better and more helpful to the reader. And it sounds like there was a consensus many years ago that this is generally not the case for composer pages. So what's different about this particular case? Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose. Mostly due to crickets but especially since I see no rationale here other than "I like infoboxes" or "I don't like them." That doesn't seem like enough to override a project's consensus. In my opinion the debate should take place at the project first. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  While I don't actually disagree with you...welcome to every Talk Page RfC regarding infoboxes. Now, don't mind me while I go explain that I like infoboxes. Pistongrinder (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that an infobox should summarize, not replace, key facts in an article. This article is of sufficient length to include an infobox. Infoboxes are valuable for quick information retrieval, aligning with Wikipedia's goal of providing accessible knowledge. Including an infobox would benefit a considerable number of users, justifying its inclusion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article about Vivaldi because, among other things: (1) the box would misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about Vivaldi; and (2) as the information that would be in the box is already discussed in the article and is also seen in the Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (or in some cases 4th) mention of these facts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think anytime claims of supposed redundancy in an infobox should be automatically stricken from any count in the matter. Yes info is repeated but there's zero reason why that's a probably since the Infobox is designed to repeat info,. It's like complaining about a seatbelt when a windshield exists. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly Support- (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) Staunch supporter of infoboxes. Also would like to echo the same infobox manual of style guidelines highlighting that the infobox does not replace the key facts in an article. Repeating key information in no way reduces the quality of the information in the lead, I also can't imagine that a majority of readers only read the infobox and not the lead paragraph. MaximusEditor (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. I support it for basically the same reason MaximusEditor does, however I'd like to note that Ssilver's second point doesn't make sense. Not all readers get here through the Google Knowledge Graph, and presuming they do is inaccurate. Two, and also importantly, yes, it might be redundant. Wikipedia is redundant. All the information you find on Wikipedia is findable somewhere else. So why does it exist? Because it gathers information. The infobox would coalesce important information into something easily notable at the start of the article. (Sorry if this isn't properly formatted or anything, this is my first RFC.) 71.112.180.130 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose While a couple of basic points could be captured in an IB, they are already present in the opening sentence, which makes the repetition more pointless than usual. The opening paragraph does a better job at explaining why he was important and a key figure in music, while an IB—in Vivaldi's case—will not provide readers with much in the way of clarity outside the opening sentence.
  And to the closing admin, a reminder of the ArbCom restrictions on decisions in IB matters WP:ARBINFOBOX2 states that

  All editors are reminded to ... not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.

  I will also note Ritchie333's of a different RFC opened by the same editor three minutes before this RFC was opened. For Pound, RFCBEFORE was not followed, and as the OP has made no attempt to discuss the matter on this page before opening this RFC, neither RFCBEFORE nor RFCOPEN has been followed. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Apart from your opening paragraph, your arguments is built of red herrings to get us caught up in semantics instead of the root of the issue here, which is deciding whether or not an IB improves the article.

  As for your opening paragraph, of course the IB would be repetitive to the lead text. That's the policy IBs are built on. See Nemov's quotation of the policy above. Pistongrinder (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  There’s no red herrings or semantics to get caught up in, so please don’t try to misrepresent my comment. As to your comment on my first paragraph point, you have misunderstood my meaning, for which I’m sorry, but if you re-read, you’ll see I refer to repeating info from the opening sentence, which is the part that makes it superfluous and unhelpful. If the identical pertinent information in the horizontal is repeated in the vertical, there is no help for the reader: it helps them not one iota. Again, no-one has shown how or why repeating factoids will improve this article, which is what the discussion is supposed to achieve. If you want to overturn the long-standing consensus on this article, you have to show how and why, not just vote on an IDONTLIKEIT basis. Please feel free to add some rationale about this article to your vote. Given the OP has declined to suggest any fields to include, it’s not clear what people are actually voting for here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Then how do infoboxes help at all, across the whole encyclopedia? Why is this such an issue for composers and almost nothing else? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is tangential to the RFC, which is solely about this article. I’ll point out that it’s not just an issue with composers: it’s true of many in the liberal arts, which is why several actors also don’t have them. I’d rather not get into the rest in this thread, but IBs work brilliantly for some types of individuals, but not others. If all they do is parrot the key points in the opening sentence and are padded with trivial factoids (which may be the case here, but the OP hasn’t bothered to suggest what fields and why), then the use for readers is zero. - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support: infoboxes summarize the article and provide key links and points for the reader. Why would we not want to include one? Cremastra (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Yes, an Infobox would help readers quickly find key information about this famous composer. After considering the arguments on both sides of the issue, I simply don't see the negative side of adding one on this article. I believe it would improve the article. Some of everything (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support for reasons stated above. IBs are designed to support, not supplant the accompanying article text. This article specifically would benefit from the clarity infoboxes offer, and I don't see a valuable argument to the contrary. Pistongrinder (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned from YapperBot) I am personally a proponent of infoboxes. If Wikipedia is to be written for the widest audience possible conveying information, there should be no issue with repeating information in a graphical form which our readers are quite frankly used to (based on the numerous amount of infoboxes). My opinion is that all articles should have some form of graphical assistance; if we're discouraging Walls of Text from appearing on ANI, why encourage them here? If you don't want to read on , SUPPORT infobox.

What I think is often overlooked is the value of information often regarded as trivial when used in our daily society. All information which complies with policy is at least valuable to varying levels, and whether our society should place so much value on these pieces of information is not for WP to decide (see WP:Righting great wrongs). The truth of the matter is that we as a society actively do put emphasis on the information IBs tend to inform us on. Ssilvers, who I previously debated on infoboxes with regard to the Maddie and Mackenzie Ziegler articles, often states that they "misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance" – this seems like near-textbook RGW, something that while I would more than welcome a cultural shifting movement on, is not for WP to do itself. WP:WWIN seems to back me up on this – per WP:NOTADVOCACY and further in WP:POINT, we shouldn't be using Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially for a neutrally-worded project reflective on human sentiment. IB's tend to reflect humanity's intention a preferred method of graphical summary – if Google's knowledge panels are ubiquitous, it's not too far of an assumption that Wikipedia readers would benefit.

Specific to this article, Vivaldi's inclusion of an infobox would enable quicker and more efficient access to birthday, birthplace, notable works, death place, death day, resting place, relatives, and other points which we may think are useful. They shouldn't have to read through the entire article just to find out where his grave is (again – WP:POINT). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support: An Infobox would help Wikipedia readers. — Sadko (words are wind) 14:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, I am leaning oppose. In most articles there are infoboxes and they are helpful but in this article I do not think it is necessary. Everything is clear and it is looking good. There is no rule saying there must a infobox. Braxmate (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Infoboxes are useful. They quickly sum up an article's key points and can entice an interested person to read the whole article. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support I find infoboxes very useful to summarise key information such as date of birth, location of birth, death date, signature, et cetera - obviously this is in the lede but the infobox is more categorical. Not sure why Vivaldi would be different than other people. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of works in the infobox

The list of works in the infobox was reverted, twice, with no other explanation than MOS:FORCELINK. However, per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#MOS:FORCELINK, that guideline does not apply to infoboxes (and navboxes, and "see also" sections). Please restore the standard link from a composer's biography to the same person's works, which is a convenience for readers. These works are part of the biography in case of less prolific creators, - a prominent link helps when they need to be split. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not a valid consensus - it's two people with an interest in IBs deciding it's OK. Does the guideline give exemptions for IBs to allow it to breach FORCELINK? No. Does the use here breach part of the reason given in FORCELINK? Yes. Trying to ignore the guidelines for no reason is not constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The user who explained, User:BilledMammal, has not shown up in any discussion about infoboxes, afaik. What in their explanation did you not understand? - I read "do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence", and I understand that it applies only to sentences, which means for prose.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Read the rest. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

A few days ago, I approached another expert on MOS issues who directed me to WT:MOSINFOBOX if I needed further clarification. I can create a RFC there if necessary, but there doesn't appear to be much independant support for this interpretation. Nemov (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone who is a big supporter of IBs asks another big supporter of IBs? Yeah ... that's a neutral point of view, sure.

We have FORCELINK for more than just the link for human readers, but it fails for other reasons - the guideline specifically refers to those who "may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links". You can't just ignore the inconvenient bit you don't want to deal with. It fails FORCELINK, no matter how many IB supporters you ask to justify it. You want to use these? Go find a way that supports both machine readers and the printed versions, and then re-write the guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's essential to differentiate between the context of links in the body of an article and their use in infoboxes, navboxes, “See also” sections, etc. These, by design, serve as a quick reference guide for readers summarizing key facts or provide ways to explore related content more deeply.

It's reasonable to say that the guideline’s (MOS:FORCELINK) emphasis on the accessibility of content for those reading offline or in print does not directly apply to infobox or "See also" usage in the same way as in the body of the article. Those links do not force readers to click to understand the context but offer an additional resource.

If a link violates MOS:FORCELINK in an article's body, the obvious solution is to provide more context and explanation within the text. But what's the remedy for a link in an infobox?

This seems like a case of excessively rigid interpretation of guidelines. As the MOS states, these are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." And this has been done in many occasions, such as Witold Lutosławski, which is a FA and includes *two* links in the infobox. Gor1995 𝄞 20:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Just because bad practice is followed in other places, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to repeat it on other articles. Ignoring the inconvenient bits of the guideline does people a disservice: best to sort out the issues and change the guideline, rather than provide a poor facility for some sections of readers. - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my argument as "it's been done in other articles, so it's fine to do it again" and address the main points. In which way can MOS:FORCELINK apply to infoboxes, navigational templates and "See also" sections?

And again: "If a link violates MOS:FORCELINK in an article's body, the obvious solution is to provide more context and explanation within the text. But what's the remedy for a link in an infobox?" Regards -- Gor1995 𝄞 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t misrepresented anything thanks. The IB isn’t comparable to the other sections you list. See Also is ephemeral material, buried at the bottom of the page. Navboxes are either similar to that, or are duplicating links that appear within the article and in context. An IB appears at the top of the page, in an overly prominent position and - by virtue of its position - carries more weight. Being in an IB highlights the fields used, and this is one that breaks out guidelines. The IB’s purpose is to summarise the key facts of the article. If it breaches FORCELINK, it also fails in its main purpose. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I still believe that breaching FORCELINK depends not on the section's weight or importance but on its nature and whether context can be expanded to remedy it. This is feasible in the article body but not in infoboxes or similar sections.

Looking forward to more input from others on this. Gor1995 𝄞 21:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The "main purpose" point is one that is overlooked in the argument about whether or not FORCELINK applies. Even if you conclude it does not, MOS:INFOBOX explicitly indicates that this is meant to provide information "at a glance" - not "at some other article". These aren't navboxes; editors including the OP advocated for the deletion of sidebar navboxes for composers, so that option is no longer available. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Using this interpretation, an infobox can't link to birth or death cities since they're separate articles. A consensus would also have to be found to back your opinion about MOS:INFOBOX. Nemov (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. Displaying birth or death cities provides that information at a glance, with the link being supplementary. The proposed link is not supplementary at all - someone could get information only by clicking through. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I am absolutely boggled how this FORCELINK business applies here. Does does "List of Compositions" not tell you exactly what it is? How in the world does it "force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence."? Hell, what SENTENCE is even being considered here? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

”Does "List of Compositions" not tell you exactly what it is?” isn’t the right question to ask. “What does "List of Compositions" tell you exactly?” is one that needs to be answered first. All the other fields in an IB provide a factoid. The date of birth field tells you the date the person was born; the place of birth field tells you where they were born. “List of compositions” does not tell you any information about Vivaldi. Per the guideline, when this is printed off, or when repeated by computer reader (hell, even by general IB guidelines) it gives zero information about Vivaldi. You can’t ignore the part of the guideline you don’t want to deal with. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Since there is an on going discussion to resolve this question this article should be returned to the status quo. The infobox was added with the link to the works on January 8th and that was the status quo version until the removal on February 24th. Can someone please restore it? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • It can wait until the discussion is resolved. If this was purely a ‘I like it’ /‘I don’t like it’ matter, then STATUS QUO may have applied (although it’s not really been there long enough), but given it breaches the IB guidelines and FORCELINK, and given it hasn’t been around for long, there is no harm in waiting for a resolution. - SchroCat (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Just to circle back to this for future generations. The discussion at MOS about FORCELINK/INFOBOXPURPOSE yielded very little support for the argument that FORCDLINK or INFOBOXPURPOSE prohibit the links that were discussed on this article. In fact, the support for the links was was strong enough that there's going to be a future discussion about creating some guidelines on how related links to works/awards should be used. Regardless of how that turns out, the argument that links to works/awards are prohibited is tenuous at best and currently lacks support. Setting the policy argument aside, as far as this article is concerned this is basically another WP:ILI/WP:IDL argument. The editors here can decide the best way forward, but having a RFC about this would be a huge waste of everyone time. Nemov (talk)