Talk:Georg Solti

György Stern or György Solti??

We say his original surname was both Stern and Solti. Which is it?? JackofOz 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Question has been answered. He was born Stern, and his father changed the family name to Solti. Fixed. JackofOz 02:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Awards' important omission

What is that sole mention of "one" Grammy in "Awards and Recognitions". It is a very well known fact that he is the most awarded person in Grammy's history (38). So, that has to stand out in that section. Nazroon 12:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Symphony

The paragraph under "Chicago Symphony", discussing the rise of the ensemble on the world stage is wildly subjective and, I think, an inaccurate portrayal of Solti's contributions. Reiner was brilliant and talented but – in terms of making the orchestra a household name – he was mostly the primer for Solti to step in and push the group to the fame it achieved. The paragraph should be rewritten or deleted.
Mad Bunny 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wannabee poets

Who on earth wrote this line: "According to his last wish, Solti rests in Hungarian soil."? Rests?! I have edited out this ridiculous faux-poetic line. 193.1.104.2 (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see this page is protected. The faux-poetry is here to stay! I think I'll get sick on my keyboard. 193.1.104.2 (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Eight years the elder of the children?

What means the phrase "eight years the elder of the children"?

Teréz Stern was from a musical family, and encouraged her daughter Lilly, eight years the elder of the children, to sing, and György to accompany her at the piano.

Which children? Isn't the daughter one of the children?

Rammer (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox which I added earlier today was just removed, with the edit summary "restore based on pre-existing instructions. Today is not the day to start an edit war". Both the supposed instruction (since when did Wikipedia operate by instructions?) and the reference to an edit war are bogus. The infobox should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are several sections discussing infoboxes at the WP:CM talk page and the edit wars involving them on several articles in which you were involved. I understand your viewpoint is to take a hard line on this but can you just wait until tomorrow to do start this dispute again? The page passed all of the FA reviews without the infobox. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in those discussions or elsewhere warrants or supports your supposed instruction. From the box at the top of this page (my emboldening): "Georg Solti is a featured article; it... has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"instructions": I suspect that DavidRF was struggling to find the right phrase in the flutter of required edits to combat vandalism.

ad procedere: I am under the impression that it is good form to suggest substantial changes to featured articles in the talk pages first and seek other editors' opinions; a trouting might be in order.

ad rem: the article reached featured status without an infobox. I'm sure the various editors considered it and decided not to have one. It doesn't improve the article and confuses the reader: was he really born "György Stern" or rather "Stern György"? Stating his place of birth as Buda, Budapest, Hungary is a) WP:OVERLINK; b) somewhat misleading (Hungary in 1912?). The infobox states his nationality as Hungarian; doesn't that oversimplify things? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And once agai I ask, why is it only classical musicians who seem to have such problems, yet the majority of other bibliographies don't? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your ad procedere impression is fallacious; there is no such requirement in any Wikipedia policy; indeed, polices state the contrary. You or anyone else are of course at liberty to edit the infobox. The points you mention do not require its removal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a comment at the top of the file which said "please do not add an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes" and you chose to add an infobox and remove the comment without discussion. That was what I meant. But come on, you know very well this infobox issue has been a contentious one. You yourself have actively participated in those discussions.DavidRF (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I know very well, as should you, that no such instruction is applicable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the opening sentence of the guideline to which that link refers is (my emboldening) "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That's the impasse. A discussion was had and a consensus was reached and you don't think it applies because it either outstepped its bounds or it was the wrong group of editors having the discussion to begin with. So you proceed pretending to be ignorant that the discussion ever took place. Whatever. I understand there are tactics involved in these disputes sometimes. Its off the main page now... so go ahead and re-open the dispute again if you'd like.DavidRF (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have a memory that is defective, or perhaps selective. The discussion that was had, with which I am very familiar, was the RfC initiated by your project, which concluded with the findings including: "WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article" and "Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive". There was nothing in that RfC which allows the instruction to which you earlier referred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I support infoboxes in articles; over the last few days on Ian Flemming: "... the function of an infobox; it serves as a précis of the article. The vast majority of visitors to any article do not read the article. People are looking for a fact and the obvious ones are what belong in the box. This is also why articles have a TOC; so people can skip right to "Works", for example. I know, you want them to all read the page. But that's not realistic. People browse the web, they skim, and when something catches their interest, then they might buckle down and read teh brilliant prose." Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

To reduce the life of an individual to a handful of bullet points is not distilling, it is dumbing down. Nothing more. There is no requirement to have an infobox on any page, but they do serve a very good purpose from time to time: summarising eighty-four years of a full and interesting life is not one of those times. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Then please raise an RFC to prohibit infoboxes on Wikipedia biographies. Good luck with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? You've already quoted MOS:INFOBOX already, but perhaps I could swap the emphasis just for a second: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". It's not required. An entire article does not have to be read to find out the key information - flick the eyes a few inches to the left and it's all in the lead. There are two sides to this and I know it's entirely a matter of opinion. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I was suggesting that you put your assertion that "To reduce the life of an individual to a handful of bullet points is not distilling, it is dumbing down. Nothing more." to the test. And no, not all the information that was in the infobox I added was in the lede. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I support the use of an Infobox for this one and I don not understand where the problem is. dozes of thousands of biographies have infoboxes to jhelp readers to have a quick look on the person's birth/death data and profession. we should treat Wikipedia as a single book where similar rules apply for all pages. In my opinion biographies need infoboxes. Not everyone wants to read the entire article to get some basic information about the person discussed on the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not in favour of an infobox and Oppose its insertion within the article. It offers nothing other than repetitive, misleading, and redundant information. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, both SchroCat and Cassianto followed me to this discussion from a similar one on Talk:Ian Fleming where they are zealously seeking the removal of the infobox there. It is not appropriate for this war to be fought article by article, which is disruptive. Infoboxes appear on the vast majority of well developed articles and are a de facto standard. Those seeking their removal should attempt to get a site wide consensus on the issue before disrupting individual or classes of articles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're completely right, but to be fair, in this case the infobox wasn't there in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was, until it was removed per an essay. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there was consensus that the infobox {{Infobox musical artist}} was inappropriate for classical musicians ("Associated acts"?); see Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus where? The |associated_acts= parameter was not used in this instance. Your edit summary for that comment was "Template:Infobox musical artist is not recommended, that's why it was removed." i) Not recommended by whom; and with what authority? ii) That was not the reason given for the removal of the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Infobox. "associated acts" was used: here, just before the template's removal. I thought my edit summary was an adequate condensation of what I wrote; as for the use of the term "recommendation": see Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an edit from November 2007. As has been established, project recommendations such as the one you cite carry no special weight; it certainly does not validate an instruction in this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Those seeking their removal should attempt to get a site wide consensus on the issue before disrupting individual or classes of articles." – which invites the, in this case, more applicable contredit: "Those seeking their addition should attempt to get a site wide consensus on the issue before disrupting individual or classes of articles." I can't understand how it is argued here that "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article" is supposed to support only the addition of infoboxes; surely, it also supports that articles remain without them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes enjoy site wide support as demonstrated by their millions. The onus is always on those who would deviated from site norms. nb: I've seen the essay this wikiproject wrote after forming their WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It's not determinative. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes are opposed by several projects and many editors. I find it a jaw-dropping leap of logic to twist MOS:INFOBOX ("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.") to mean that adding infoboxes would not require consensus, only their removal would. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject's essays are quite ignorable when they're at odds with wider consensus. And actual guidelines are descriptive so when they are at odds with ambient practise they're simply out-of-date guidelines. There are millions of infoboxes and easily hundreds added to articles each day. Too many participants seek to retard progress :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Imposing this rationale on the day an article is on the main page displays, imo, scarce human regard for the hard work and morale of contributors have got it to stable FA status. I seem to have seen this sort of untimely and demoralizing intervention somewhere before. —MistyMorn (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, as the most frequent toiler in this particular vineyard, to come late to the table (being away from internet access for most of July). I can't deny that MistyMorn's point about grinding down willing contributors struck a chord. I am moreover not clear what the gravamen of the complaint is: there has long been a consensus among those who work on articles in this category that they ought not to have info-boxes, a consensus that was revisited at a Request for Discussion about the Richard D'Oyly Carte article not long ago. If the suggestion this time is that the consensus is wrong, it still remains a consensus. And, as can be seen, a dozen or so editors reviewed this article at PR and FAC stage and the absence of an info-box was simply not an issue, any more than it was for the ten or so other musical FAs with which I have had the honour to be associated in the past few years. – Tim riley (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Tim, I note your edit summary for the above was one size fits all? To me, that's a reference to the ambient norm on millions of articles: Wikipedia has infoboxes. Full stop. It is inappropriate for a specific group to dig in their heels over anomalous views. Those views are simply expressions of a LOCALCONSENSUS. I see this all the time on many issues. People get wilful about all manner of things. Much of it stems from taking a wiki-view that is somehow "local", such as a focus on a specific topic area. I take a site wide view of things and edit a wide range of topics. The last half dozen articles I've edited are: Aries (constellation), Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography, Iapetus (moon), 1966 Daytona 500, Fridtjof Nansen, and Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre. (TechTip: the seventh prior was this edit to Maya Angelou which shows how to nest {{quote box}} for multiple quotes in the same box.)

Infoboxes are part of the site's design. They are to serve readers who are looking for a précis, who are surfing. Seeking to exclude the infobox is akin to wanting some other part of the MediaWiki interface gone, such as the wiki-globe. It would be better to view the infobox as a sibling to the column of stuff to the left of the article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a perfectly honourable view, but as for present purposes we have a continuing consensus I am happy to go along with it. I am at present working on a series of articles where info-boxes are the norm, and I shall naturally respect that. Respect all round should be the watchword! Tim riley (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. This sort of attitude probably runs second only to Stupid Nationalist/Political Quarrels for generating unnecessary grievances in Wikipedia over the past few years. Clever, well-intentioned people (with, perhaps, a little too much time on their hands) get together at some obscure MOS page, or the RSN, or some other low-traffic process page inhabited by a small, somewhat cliqueish group of regulars, and in good faith, devise what seem to be an excellent set of universal principles for hyphenation, or template name capitalization, or whatever. Alas, efforts to implement this new rule, after humming along for a bit, suddenly run into a set of recalcitrant editors; perhaps even more than were involved in the original construction of the new rule. How can they get in the way of such an obvious and useful principle?

Fortunately, there's a playbook for this. Start small, with a few articles. Be scrupulously polite, but unyielding: the consensus has already been established. It's too late to argue against it. Project the image of yourself as a cosmopolitan, omnicompetent fox; your opponents, poor chaps, are narrow-minded provincials who were goobering around writing actual article content when they could have spent three weeks debating the Harvard comma off in Wikipedia-space like real sophisticates. Better they just give in; what's done is done, and militating against consensus could be disruptive, which is an unhealthy thing to be here. They don't want to be disruptive, do they? Of course not.

Usually, someone eventually cracks under these tactics. Persistence is your friend, here. You really, really want those silly people to see the light and acknowledge how wise, clever and useful your new rule is, while your opponents are distracted by thoughts of writing an article, probably on some boring subject that no one cares about. When they finally do cave, rush in and apply your rule to the article. It will serve as a useful precedent when the Committee for the Suppression of Heterodoxy moves on to its next victim job. Look! These people saw reason! Be like them.

TL;DR: Wikipedia is big. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to Wikipedia. The set of all principles that are really universally applicable to Wikipedia is correspondingly small, so good luck getting explicit, rather than implicit consensus for your new universal rule. There are ways to generate the illusion of consensus and foist bold changes on others, but use them sparingly, if at all; they're corrosive. Choess (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"consensus among those who work on articles in this category". We have a policy for this. Please see WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. If people agree with Pigsonthewing it's consensus; if he is outvoted it's WP:OWN. A novel way of construing WP policy, unique to that editor, I fancy. Tim riley (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think that's what I said... Oh, and we also have a policy on voting: We don't do it. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

At all events it was kind of you to remove the ad hominem dig at me that you originally had in your earlier message, so I am grateful for small mercies. Tim riley (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no "ad hominem dig ". Nice try. Better than addressing real issues, eh? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Curious. I wonder why you silently removed it? Tim riley (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, Better than addressing real issues, eh? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very real issues like retention of editors capable of achieving FA? Please address [1] —MistyMorn (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already addressed the key point of each of the two edits in that diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

My edit summary specified the post was about "good editor retention" [2]; then Tim riley spoke of "grinding down willing contributors". And this relevant concern is clearly reiterated above [3]. Please address. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are unsubstantiated and vague opinions. There is nothing of substance to address, beyond what I have already said on the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

But according to the person mainly responsible for bringing this article to FA, those opinions "struck a chord". That doesn't worry you? No alarm bells? Human respect deserved and required imo. A straightforward opinion, but a relevant one. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll rebut that. Your thesis is that if an infobox is used here people will throw their toys out of the pram and stomp off in a huff. Now I know Tim, a bit, and don't think that's an issue with him. I know others who do have that view and they should avoid the door smacking them in the butt as they go. Your plea is feeding that 'diva' attitude and smacks of think of the children. That's what Andy is getting at with his reference to WP:OWN.

Have a look at Andy's signature:

• <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>) ... </span>

Those classes are about generating microformats; metadata. That's what infoboxes do (besides, of course, offering a précis of the topic). Those who argue for infoboxes do so for solid reasons. Most of the arguments against infoboxes are mere subjective personal preferences, and are about wanting to drive eyeballs to teh brilliant prose.

tl;dr? Your emotional appeal is a cheat. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What Br'er Rabbit said; to which I will only add that I have shown Tim plenty of respect; unlike he, me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what Br'er Rabbit is supposedly rebutting here with the WP:DIVA red herring. The point I raised had nothing to do with the character of any individual contributor. Rather, with a culture of respect towards all Wikipedia contributors, including those few who are capable of bringing pages to FA. People who accomplish that hard task are being discouraged on the day the FA goes to the main page [4]. I don't think that sort of perception can be dismissed as an unsubstantiated or vague opinion. It is a substantial perception – and perceptions can be important – which deserves more consideration. In more senses than one! —MistyMorn (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I like infoboxes, they are pretty, summarize info, and format info. Besides in this case, it'd fill in an empty space, at least on my screen.PumpkinSky talk 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I support the use of infoboxes as a quick and easy synopsis of facts to an article. Search engines have developed into the quick blurbs of "here's the skinny", I think in today's world it's a plus to have them. (the infoboxes). — Ched :  ?  02:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Personalities are neither here nor there. (As it happens I spent a whole day recently in the company of PigsontheWing, and have had stimulating email exchanges with two other contributors to the above.) When editing articles on which a consensus exists for an info-box I naturally respect that consensus and don't agitate for the removal of the box. When a consensus exists, as it does for classical musician biographies, that an info-box is unhelpful I of course respect that too, and look to others to do so also. If memory serves, the most recent article I steered through FAC was Alec Douglas-Home, which has a whopper of an info-box, packed with useful facts, though I can't claim credit for it. I shouldn't have dreamt of demanding its removal, still less of arbitrarily blitzing it. The consensus about classical musician biographies pre-dates my involvement, I believe, though it has been confirmed quite recently after a Request for Comment. – Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Personalities are neither here nor there" - which makes your "unique to that editor" post - which is both ad hominem and false - all the more ridiculous.
"When a consensus exists, as it does for classical musician biographies" - there is no such consensus. The RfC on the matter, to which you refer (and which I quoted above), was quite clear on that fact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a long established consensus about this, Andy. I know consensus can change but I expect that to involve new editors, not the same person who got blocked for a year for trying to push this issue when I first started editing on the project several years back.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. The RfC on the matter, which I quoted above, was quite clear on that fact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that driving away good editors will help the encyclopedia? Is your personal opinion on the value of infoboxes so important that content builders can be hounded to get your way? If you really cared about the encyclopedia, and you felt that infoboxes simply must be on every page, the way to achieve that would be to go away and leave the matter for other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you do something worthwhile Andy like actually write an article? You come accross as being the sort of person who offers nothing to WP other than to vilify the excellent writers of articles you yourself can only ever dream of writing. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy's done a huge amount of worthwhile work here; certainly more than you have. You bad faith and attacks are inappropriate. You should focus on the infobox issue and not attack those arguing for improvements to this project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding a bloody infobox is not an improvement. If it was it would have got mentioned at FAC and would never have got through the process in its current form. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

in your opinion ;) nad teh FAC process is *flawed* Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Driving away good editors is not improving this project. If there is a need for infoboxes, there will be other editors who will use collaborative discussion to make the case—editors known for spreading conflict do not help. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

but driving away "bad" editors is... "bad editors" in your opinion, of course. I'm not seeing anyone driven away over this and anyone driven away over the addition of a userbox is likely best gone. The whole argument re morale and the 'good' editors being driven away is a cheat. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Now will you also have the goodness and intellectual honesty to strike that (repeated) "cheat" comment? —MistyMORN 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling me. Tim was never who I was thinking. You're only inflaming things. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm pro-infobox. I helped forge Infobox classical composer, and tried to make it a pleasant experience, that could result in a solution that worked on a practical level. I've done (or tried to do) the same thing in other situations, unrelated to music topics. (Eg I messed up the attempt to help a compromise in 2008 at Ponte Vecchio, but I was able to assist Lar and some chap named Jack Merridew during the second discussion and attempt at compromise in 2009.)
2. This is not the time or place. The contentious issue of infoboxes was forced upon the article and then argued about in a confrontational manner - by someone who knows from precedent that this usually causes great unhappiness on classicalmusic articles - On the day that it was TFA on the Main Page, when the main editors were full of pride and being widely recognized for that goal; when they were continuing to work hard to address other tweaks and changes, and to revert the standard TFA-related vandalism. This is not a good way to convince anyone of anything! It's amazingly wp:pointy. And he did the exact same thing at Manchester Ship Canal two weeks before. Gah!! Andy, "I support your goal, but not your tactics."
3. This was a haiku. (but not a good one). There is a problem here (metadata not being included in the article(s)), but this is not the best talkpage to resolve it, and these are shooting-yourself-in-the-foot rhetorical and practical-tactics towards resolving it. It can be done amicably, but will need a different method and/or solution. (we need to get better at turning arguments back into discussions, which your (often truly-(darkly)-funny) sarcasm really doesn't assist with, Mr Rabbit! It makes our inner trickstergod smile, but completely craps up atmosphere.*). So for the love of doG, find a better place for a discussion. (Get a [more relevant] room!)

* Note: My many month long wikibreak was partially so long, because I didn't miss all the sniping and sarcasm and really bloody depressing arguments (not debates, just bloodyminded angry arguments, with occasional flame-encouragers) that this place devolves into sometimes. I [c/sh/w]ouldn't demand friendliness, but I bloody well do appreciate it when it occurs. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Street-Legal Sockpuppet
 Br'erRabbit this user is a sock puppet
06:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm obviously pro-infobox, too. And I recall the Ponte Vecchio discussion. That hidden infobox was very weird; hope none of that's still about. nb: I am taht chap Jack Merridew. The main page day aspect is common. I edit many of the articles appearing there. It's astonishing how many are in need of work when they get there. As I just said above, the FAC process is *flawed*. It's a failure of leadership. There has been progress in this area of late, but resistance still occurs. There is incredible hostility and bad faith on offer from the staunchest opponents of infoboxes. I see it as quite wilful and dismissive of the very valid reasons that have long been presented in favour of infoboxes. It's not just the metadata issue. It's also simply about reader courtesy and site consistency. The very notion that arbitrary segments of the project should be allowed to opt-out of such as site wide concept is absurd. Too many take a local perspective and this leads to ownership issues and viewing others as outsiders. I've seen this with WikiProjects many times. It is a flaw in the whole concept and a key reason I'm not a member of any.

I knew who you were, that's how I felt able to poke fun at your name! If even you (a smart clued-in outofthebox (pun!) thinker) can miss my jokes ("and some chap named jack ...", c'mon, it was blinding! silly trickster rabbit!) then that's a great demonstration of just how fracking hard it is to be understood when someone else reads your words in their own intonation, not knowing how much sass, and how much grin, is intended. Which is why people like me (wanna-be-situation-calmers) plead with everyone to stop shooting the shotguns, the pellets are going wide and hitting bystanders and buildings. There are a lot of articles in the same boat, and sniping at each one separately is completely harshing my trip, and a lot of other people's days.

Anyway, I'm off for the night, and hope to not trouble this article's talkpage any further, so I know for sure we'll talk elsewhere! -- Quiddity (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your points are spot on. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'll add here that infoboxes are supposed to be redundant. They are supposed to give a reader information on the subject without having to read it. I couldn't count the number of times, before and after editing, that I went to an article and never viewed anything other than the infobox. Ryan Vesey 16:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)