This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jean Sibelius article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
Jean Sibelius has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 27, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that by composing music such as
Finlandia,
Jean Sibelius boosted Finnish patriotism in the face of
Russian oppression? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 8, 2021, and December 8, 2022. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The topic of an infobox for Sibelius has been discussed in the past. So Bach, Beethoven, Stanley Kubrick. For the latter three, things have changed since the first discussion. We could run an RfC, but do we really have to?
Checking the mood first. Who would support a simple infobox as proposed in 2015 when we celebrated him, and who'd oppose showing at a glance when and where he was born and died, and the list of his works. Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
It is hilarious that Gerda, who has repeatedly forced infoboxes into hundreds of articles against the spirit of the Arbcom cases in this area, accuses me of repeating myself. Since someone has archived my comment, I'll post it again here, as it is highly relevant, unlike Gerda's rote demand. Also, to use Brian Boulton's name, without Brian here to speak for himself is despicable.
While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "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 because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The boilerplate infobox templates create a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm personally very much for the inclusion of an infobox, and I'm genuinely surprised that there is this much controversy over doing so to multiple pages. I have read the arguments against doing so, and it mostly strikes me as pretentious and very impracticle. AnyGuy ( talk) 13:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I sent out some alerts as I did at the Kubrick discussion. @
Ssilvers: Please focus discussion on content rather than contributors.
Disclosure:
Gerda Arendt
asked me to monitor this discussion for civility. Regardless, I have no interest in the substantive outcome of this debate and don't consider myself
WP:INVOLVED.
At this point, I might suggest any interested party formulate an RFC. If there is no consensus for an infobox, then I would recommend a moratorium on further discussion of adding an infobox to this page. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 17:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, would there be any objection to me removing him labeled as a "violinist" in the first sentence? Considering that he gave it up before age 30 (and then proceeded to live 60 more years!) and is not known for his violin playing, the inclusion seems WP:UNDUE and non-defining. Aza24 ( talk) 07:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt and Aza24: I agree that a short description under the photo is appropriate. However, there's just no way that's Sibelius in 1890 (in comparison to other photos and paintings from that period that show him looking much younger)! Rather, this looks to be Sibelius in, I estimate 1901–1905, around the time of the Second Symphony and the Violin Concerto. I did a bit of digging and found a link to the U.S.'s Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/99403967/. Seems they give the date as about what I suspected: "Portrait photographs and engravings of musical personalities. Illus. from: Die Musik, 1902-1903, supplement." I don't know if this is conclusive evidence, but at a minimum we should probably change the description to be "The composer in the early 1900s." Silence of Järvenpää ( talk) 16:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jean Sibelius article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
Jean Sibelius has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 27, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that by composing music such as
Finlandia,
Jean Sibelius boosted Finnish patriotism in the face of
Russian oppression? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 8, 2021, and December 8, 2022. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The topic of an infobox for Sibelius has been discussed in the past. So Bach, Beethoven, Stanley Kubrick. For the latter three, things have changed since the first discussion. We could run an RfC, but do we really have to?
Checking the mood first. Who would support a simple infobox as proposed in 2015 when we celebrated him, and who'd oppose showing at a glance when and where he was born and died, and the list of his works. Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
It is hilarious that Gerda, who has repeatedly forced infoboxes into hundreds of articles against the spirit of the Arbcom cases in this area, accuses me of repeating myself. Since someone has archived my comment, I'll post it again here, as it is highly relevant, unlike Gerda's rote demand. Also, to use Brian Boulton's name, without Brian here to speak for himself is despicable.
While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "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 because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The boilerplate infobox templates create a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm personally very much for the inclusion of an infobox, and I'm genuinely surprised that there is this much controversy over doing so to multiple pages. I have read the arguments against doing so, and it mostly strikes me as pretentious and very impracticle. AnyGuy ( talk) 13:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I sent out some alerts as I did at the Kubrick discussion. @
Ssilvers: Please focus discussion on content rather than contributors.
Disclosure:
Gerda Arendt
asked me to monitor this discussion for civility. Regardless, I have no interest in the substantive outcome of this debate and don't consider myself
WP:INVOLVED.
At this point, I might suggest any interested party formulate an RFC. If there is no consensus for an infobox, then I would recommend a moratorium on further discussion of adding an infobox to this page. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 17:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, would there be any objection to me removing him labeled as a "violinist" in the first sentence? Considering that he gave it up before age 30 (and then proceeded to live 60 more years!) and is not known for his violin playing, the inclusion seems WP:UNDUE and non-defining. Aza24 ( talk) 07:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt and Aza24: I agree that a short description under the photo is appropriate. However, there's just no way that's Sibelius in 1890 (in comparison to other photos and paintings from that period that show him looking much younger)! Rather, this looks to be Sibelius in, I estimate 1901–1905, around the time of the Second Symphony and the Violin Concerto. I did a bit of digging and found a link to the U.S.'s Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/99403967/. Seems they give the date as about what I suspected: "Portrait photographs and engravings of musical personalities. Illus. from: Die Musik, 1902-1903, supplement." I don't know if this is conclusive evidence, but at a minimum we should probably change the description to be "The composer in the early 1900s." Silence of Järvenpää ( talk) 16:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)