This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Robert le diable article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Dance and
Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles
User:Gerda Arendt unilaterally added an infobox to this GA article. I have removed it. She has
claimed as recently as 1 February that "I admit that I added an infobox to Georg Solti, because I failed to look up who the principal editors were. I normally do, and leave the articles in peace, respecting their editors' wishes." I trust that she will keep to her word as regards this article.
Smerus (
talk) 19:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Please consult
Project Opera. For operas, an infobox is simply the normal thing to have, designed for the project in 2013. The 2019 edit quoted there only concerned biographies (such as Solti and Lind). If you like we can discuss it here, per
WP:BRD. The time that I had to first suggest ended in 2015, btw.. Compare
L'Africaine, please, where we had a discussion. I was just trying to achieve consistency with that masterwork of the same composer, on the day when Robert le diable was linked from the Main page, and with featured articles such as
Carmen. Do you really think the few extra lines, aimed at helping readers to find information at a predictable place, are worthy of so much rhetoric? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 20:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)reply
An infobox is clearly merited here, it conveys useful information at a glance, to the readers, which is ultimately whom we're here to serve. As far as I can tell there aren't regular editors here, and myself and Gerda have done the most recent updates. And in any case,
WP:OWN tells us that nobody has special status when it comes to deciding what goes in the article. I support inclusion of the infobox. —
Amakuru (
talk) 14:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
This thread, @
Smerus' reversion of justified and useful edits, and the personal attack here (calling Gerda's contribution "bad manners"), are examples of
ownership behavior. Discussing minutia with principal editors is a waste of time. I am the "principal contributor" to 5 FAs and 14 GAs, and I never made a fuss over addition of good contributions. Being a "principal contributor" does not give you the privilege to bite and discourage others from editing "your" article. I am totally for the addition of infoboxes, to any article, whenever possible, this article included. I support returning the infobox.
el.ziade (
talkallam) 18:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I support the use of an infobox here for the above reasons. However, while I am not a contrarian, I am also sympathetic to divergent and minority views. I believe it would be ideal if we could accommodate users like Smerus who might want to choose whether to view infoboxes on their end. There are instructions over at
Help:Infobox/user style that explain how to do this, but I’m unsure if it is still current. I will ping
User:SMcCandlish for guidance on this matter, as they are the author of the documentation. Smerus, if this works for you, would it solve the problem to your satisfaction, or do you wish to ban infoboxes for everyone?
Viriditas (
talk) 22:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Update: I tested this out and it works great at hiding the infobox; the only problem is that it also hides the lead image within the infobox. I’m sure there’s a fix for this. Perhaps SMcCandlish or someone else could comment.
Viriditas (
talk) 23:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
There wouldn't be a fix for that, because it hides the div container of the infobox, and the image is within that container. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
So no way to update the code snippet to say "display the image inside the infobox without the infobox"? What about after removing the infobox as is done in the above linked code, then replacing it with a template pointing to a Wikidata item for an image-only, no-infobox entry?
Viriditas (
talk) 00:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I want the box. Infoboxes should be on every article in my opinion. They are great to find the most basic information quickly, which is often all I need. (In fact, if there is no infobox, I assume the article was written before infoboxes were used and that it may be outdated). As for "bad manners", I feel like the right thing to do would have been to keep the box, and discuss whether it should be removed.
OrestesLebt (
talk) 08:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Robert le diable article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Dance and
Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles
User:Gerda Arendt unilaterally added an infobox to this GA article. I have removed it. She has
claimed as recently as 1 February that "I admit that I added an infobox to Georg Solti, because I failed to look up who the principal editors were. I normally do, and leave the articles in peace, respecting their editors' wishes." I trust that she will keep to her word as regards this article.
Smerus (
talk) 19:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Please consult
Project Opera. For operas, an infobox is simply the normal thing to have, designed for the project in 2013. The 2019 edit quoted there only concerned biographies (such as Solti and Lind). If you like we can discuss it here, per
WP:BRD. The time that I had to first suggest ended in 2015, btw.. Compare
L'Africaine, please, where we had a discussion. I was just trying to achieve consistency with that masterwork of the same composer, on the day when Robert le diable was linked from the Main page, and with featured articles such as
Carmen. Do you really think the few extra lines, aimed at helping readers to find information at a predictable place, are worthy of so much rhetoric? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 20:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)reply
An infobox is clearly merited here, it conveys useful information at a glance, to the readers, which is ultimately whom we're here to serve. As far as I can tell there aren't regular editors here, and myself and Gerda have done the most recent updates. And in any case,
WP:OWN tells us that nobody has special status when it comes to deciding what goes in the article. I support inclusion of the infobox. —
Amakuru (
talk) 14:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
This thread, @
Smerus' reversion of justified and useful edits, and the personal attack here (calling Gerda's contribution "bad manners"), are examples of
ownership behavior. Discussing minutia with principal editors is a waste of time. I am the "principal contributor" to 5 FAs and 14 GAs, and I never made a fuss over addition of good contributions. Being a "principal contributor" does not give you the privilege to bite and discourage others from editing "your" article. I am totally for the addition of infoboxes, to any article, whenever possible, this article included. I support returning the infobox.
el.ziade (
talkallam) 18:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I support the use of an infobox here for the above reasons. However, while I am not a contrarian, I am also sympathetic to divergent and minority views. I believe it would be ideal if we could accommodate users like Smerus who might want to choose whether to view infoboxes on their end. There are instructions over at
Help:Infobox/user style that explain how to do this, but I’m unsure if it is still current. I will ping
User:SMcCandlish for guidance on this matter, as they are the author of the documentation. Smerus, if this works for you, would it solve the problem to your satisfaction, or do you wish to ban infoboxes for everyone?
Viriditas (
talk) 22:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Update: I tested this out and it works great at hiding the infobox; the only problem is that it also hides the lead image within the infobox. I’m sure there’s a fix for this. Perhaps SMcCandlish or someone else could comment.
Viriditas (
talk) 23:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
There wouldn't be a fix for that, because it hides the div container of the infobox, and the image is within that container. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
So no way to update the code snippet to say "display the image inside the infobox without the infobox"? What about after removing the infobox as is done in the above linked code, then replacing it with a template pointing to a Wikidata item for an image-only, no-infobox entry?
Viriditas (
talk) 00:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I want the box. Infoboxes should be on every article in my opinion. They are great to find the most basic information quickly, which is often all I need. (In fact, if there is no infobox, I assume the article was written before infoboxes were used and that it may be outdated). As for "bad manners", I feel like the right thing to do would have been to keep the box, and discuss whether it should be removed.
OrestesLebt (
talk) 08:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply