Overhaul

I've overhauled the text, removing uncited material and adding new stuff, with citations. Comments on the revised text cordially invited here. Tim riley talk 22:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you do it Tim; your edits have certainly constituted a massive improvement! I do wonder a few things:
  • Is "who signed his name Erik Satie after 1884" even needed? I'm not sure I understand the need for clarification
  • I feel that his incipient exploration into minimalism should be included, the term itself I mean, as I know many look back at him as the founding father of the style
  • The minimalism note above and his Furniture music "invention" seem worth mentioning in a the lead
  • Of course, a small influence or legacy section could be included discussing such innovations as the above, and perhaps his impact on Cage and visual arts that the Grove article touches on.
Just some thoughts. Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the above, Aza24. I've added something to the Lead and the Works section about minimalism. Do beef the latter up if so inclined (or any other bit, too, of course). I'm not sure I think the furniture music belongs in the lead. It isn't really what he's known for, I feel, though I am open to conviction on the point. I inherited the line about his signing his name as Erik after 1884 but I thought it was worthwhile keeping to make it plain that the spelling "Eric" in the opening words of the lead is not an error. People can be very hard to convince sometimes: the trouble our predecessors had in getting one strenuously disbelieving editor to realise that Poulenc was not François! – Tim riley talk 10:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better source for quote about the Conservatoire

The sentence "un vaste bâtiment très inconfortable et assez vilain à voir – une sorte de local pénitencier sans aucun agrément extérieur – ni intérieur du reste" (in the section "Early years", note 2) is currently cited to Lajoinie. However, Lajoinie doesn't give a source for this, as far as I could tell. The sentence comes from Satie's Écrits : réunis, établis et présentés par Ornella Volta, Éditions Champ libre, 1981, p. 67, from a piece about Claude Debussy. I can't figure out how the ref template works, so I would appreciate it if someone else could change this. --92.72.2.121 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you – that's a tweak worth making, I think, and now duly done. Tim riley talk 13:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing infoboxes for composers

It bugs me SO MUCH that whenever I visit a composer's wikipedia page, and there's no infobox. It looks nice, it's standardized across wikipedia, but for some reason composers are the exception. Why? Because you nerds overthink things and remove it. I'm sorry for being rude, but it's 100% true. It does not matter how much "logic" there is behind removing the infobox, the average reader visits this page and immediately goes, "wow, I wonder why this page is so ugly, oh, it's because there's no infobox". I never write suggestions but this really peeved me. 2607:F598:B40A:E0:8C8D:8D65:C23B:DC6B (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's 100% true that you have your facts wrong. Info-boxes are not standardised across Wikipedia. Wikipedia's agreed policy is that they are useful for some articles and not others, and it is matter for consensus in each article. If you want to try to change Wikipedia's policy to make info-boxes compulsory, please feel free to propose it. Tim riley talk 07:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed strange. However, you won't have much luck, as most articles on classical music are written by a small group of editors who feel extremely strongly about not including info boxes. I believe you may have encountered some of them already. Because they know each other well and have been prolific contributors for years, each proposal will be immediately stonewalled and the subsequent "consensus" is easy to predict. Even though there is supposed to be no WP:OWNERSHIP over articles, it is near impossible to change this trend. Arguing is exhausting and pointless. Ppt91talk 04:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Ppt91talk 04:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not nerds, they're dweebs 2600:8800:218F:2D00:449F:B3E8:77A:2A2E (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How kind and civil! Info-boxes are not standardised across Wikipedia. Wikipedia's agreed policy is that they are useful for some articles and not others, and it is matter for consensus in each article. If you want to try to change Wikipedia's policy to make info-boxes compulsory, please feel free to propose it in the appropriate forum. Tim riley talk 08:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox 2

@Tim riley: I’m tired of asking your permission to add an infobox to articles you and your friends “stewardize” or whatever you want to call it. Other users are tired as well and it’s on this very page. This isn’t even Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, this is preemptively and systematically inventing a consensus not to have one and forcing other users to fight against it, knowing that you will always have backup by virtue of being in agreement and constantly monitoring as many articles in your collective topic area as possible and immediately rushing to each-others’ support. The only legitimacy you have is an outdated guideline from wp:composers that was formed 2007-2010(!) which you treat as a de facto policy that somehow extends to other completely random “liberal arts” biographies (like Noël Coward) that you and your friends happen to consider themselves the “stewards” of. I read through wp:infoboxes extensively and found no guideline that says anything about “liberal arts biographies” or whatever. Even Wikipedia:Law of infobox inclusion, which acquiesces to the “composers exception” , doesn’t mention anything about it. Nobody wants to make infoboxes compulsory, even in biographies, despite you and your colleagues’ repeated strawman assertions that everyone who disagrees with you et al is some kind of infobox fanatic that wants literally every article and its dog to have a 2-paragraph infobox that tells you a person’s shoe size and blood type. Even I think some biographies (like Homer Plessy and King Arthur) are better off without them by virtue of not having sufficient information on the subjects to fill out even the most basic information fields. But repeated RfCs on this subject have proven the community as a whole disagrees with your oddball fringe stance that “liberal arts biographies shouldn’t have infoboxes because reasons”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your views are duly noted. Please seek a consensus on this article talk page if you persist in demanding an info-box. Tim riley talk 13:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I have to be the one to seek consensus? Why didn’t you seek consensus not to have it instead of assuming you had it by default like you always do? Dronebogus (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you seek a consensus on this article talk page if you persist in demanding an info-box. As it happens, I have an article up for FAC which has a substantial info-box because an info-box is helpful to the reader there. If you can establish a consensus that the same obtains here, so be it. If persisting, please refrain from the personal abuse of the info-box absolutists seen above. Tim riley talk 15:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that it would have been a courtesy to invite you to participate in the FAC to which I refer, above. It is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mandell_Creighton/archive3 Tim riley talk 15:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t have the sole right to determine what is useful to readers. I, as a reader, find infoboxes helpful 99% of the time. You as a reader obviously don’t; that doesn’t mean you get to deprive everyone else of them. I ran into a similar issue with external links— I generally don’t find them useful or worthy of inclusion, but other people do, and I eventually acquiesced to their opinions. In the process I’ve come to understand better that omitting information is usually worse than including it— people who like it can have it; people who don’t can just ignore it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean no to helping at the FAC? Editors can often pool their views at FAC. Tim riley talk 20:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really see why I have to, I simply don’t edit there. I’m sure the article is lovely and you did a bang-up job contributing to it. Dronebogus (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you haven't got to. I thought it would be a nice thing to invite you, but that's fine. Tim riley talk 13:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also find it useful to feature an infobox on this page. Ragdoll4467 (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what would you put in it? Tim riley talk 11:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Birth date and location, death date and location, burial place as well as genre/style and instrument. All of this is quite clear for this article, but all of it is not in the introduction. I understand it might be ambiguous for others. There is definitely more information that you can add. Ragdoll4467 (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tim riley: I think there is an emergent consensus demonstrated on this talk page that the article would benefit from an infobox. I can request an RfC to confirm that suspicion, but RfCs are bureaucratic and time-consuming. Would you acquiesce to having the last infobox in the page history restored to the article? Dronebogus (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am old (septuagenarian) and too weary to resist any more onslaughts from i-box warriors. Do what you like. I think i-boxes for composers are a rotten idea, unhelpful to our readers, and imposed by editors who have had nothing to do with the article, but i-box absolutists will have their way. Impose an i-box if you insist but with no kind of blessing from me. Tim riley talk 21:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tim riley: I don’t enjoy fighting over this, but I object to your characterization as an “infobox absolutist/warrior”, and to your characterization of infoboxes as unhelpful. But I genuinely admire your willingness to at least reach some kind of detente here. Dronebogus (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 because the proposed box presents information stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about the subject. In addition, as the key information about the subject that could be included in the box is already discussed in the Lead and in the body of the article, the box would be a 3rd mention of these facts. In particular, the proposed infobox adds absolutely no key information to the article that an at-a-glance perusal of opening paragraph of the article does not provide in clearer context. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose IB for all the usual reasons I've mentioned before. The suggested one seems to be adding one purely for the sake of having one, or having one in order to wait a short spell to bloat out with idiotic rubbish. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personalisation hatted. Please focus on the subject, not other editors. SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages: “Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to any refactoring that was performed, those changes should be reverted.” Refactoring in the middle of a heated discussion and then edit warring to keep it in place is about as far from the letter and spirit of that guidance as it’s possible to be. Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox RFC

Should the article have an infobox? Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Support as proposer. As a reader I routinely use infoboxes to find out where a subject was born, and at what age they died. The lead does not necessarily provide that information at a glance. For reference this is the last infobox the article had, which I think is pretty good. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the very good reasons explained (again) to Dronebogus above by Ssilvers and SchroCat. The main aspect of a composer's article is his oeuvre, which cannot be summarised in an info-box, and an info-box that does not cover the main thing of importance about a subject is no use to our readers and makes Wikipedia look stupid. Tim riley talk 13:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The main content of a article about a person's life story is, unsurprisingly, the story of their life. And since in order to have the life story of someone in Wikipedia that someone must be notable, it follows that a significant amount of the text will be dedicated to their life's work. For some, it'll be Zorb football; for others, music. Therefore, the infobox in this biography would be as helpful as it is in every other biography. -The Gnome (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No strong view. There might be a case for having a small "musicians-type" infobox (a drop-down list of notable works might be really useful?) But I can also see the elegance of having just a good image with a caption. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Various readers, especially on mobile, find them useful, they have become essentially a standard feature of well-developed articles here, and none of the usual reasons to avoid one (e.g. very complicated or disputed nationality or other facts, or dearth of ones that summarize well) are present in this case. The resistance here seems to be habitual "WikiProject Composers hates infoboxes" tedium. I'm not at all swayed by the claim that his œuvre cannot be easily summarized. This is self-evidently not the case, because we are already summarizing it in an unusually concise two-subsection "Works" section, and it should be very easy (as these things go) to compress that into a few bullet-point highlights, as usual. Nor is the claim that an infobox must focus on the works to be useable; see, e.g., the one at Stephen King (which probably excludes them because his list of notable works is overwhelming). Infobox crafting is not rocket science. As long as one provides some basics that skimming readers are likely to be looking for, then it serves a purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stanton, is there any chance you could refrain from mischaracterising and smearing other people's opinions - particularly as no-one has actually made any !vote that comes even close to such characterisation? It does nothing but add fuel to the fire, rather than aid consensus building. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out that there's a decade-running "won't drop the stick" problem emanating from participants in a particular wikiproject, which persists after multiple ArbCom cases, is not "mischaracterizing or smearing ... opinions". It's observing a still-ongoing, faction-style disruptive behavior pattern, which needs to come to an end. Did you have any substantive input on my actual rationales? If not, then picking a fight with me in the name trying to stop me from what you think is fight-picking is a bit counterproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a different opinion isn't refusing to drop the stick: it's just having a different opinion. Either way, it was a polite request aimed at ensuring there's no extra heat being added to an area which is still classed as a contentious topic. But, if you want to stick with that wording, and misclassify my request as trying to pick a fight, that's up to you. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think by accusing other people of “smearing” your/your friends’ opinions you are turning up the heat way more than SMcCandlish here. Dronebogus (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, regardless of the unnecessary drama, my behavioral point is that whoever the closer of this will be needs to be aware of the many-year history of factional agitation against infoboxes in composer articles categorically (and that the community response to this has been negative).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    About the claim that an infobox must focus on the works...
    When the list of notable works is long, people usually just sub in a simple link to a list, which in this case would presumably be List of compositions by Erik Satie. This solves all sorts of problems, including "we can squeeze in just one more" and "Why isn't my favorite included?". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox helps summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. This is especially true on long articles like this one. A modest infobox—containing essential biographical details such as birth and death dates, occupation, and notable works—would enhance readability without overwhelming the article’s prose. Many readers, especially those unfamiliar with Satie, benefit from a quick-reference summary, making an infobox a useful addition that aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of accessibility. - Nemov (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as rather pointless and silly. This seems to be having an IB simply for the sake of having one, or as a springboard to fill it with trivia further down the line. The key elements about Satie are provided in the opening lines, with other basic information (such as some of his key works) in the brief lead, where they are put in context and their weight is more easily judged for the supporting text. As per normal, many of the 'standard' IB fields focus on the more trivial aspects without actually informing readers of the importance of the factoids. - SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one ever fills these things with trivia. If they did, it can be removed. If you want to convince people your position is correct at least use arguments based on things that are true. Dronebogus (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true and there are countless examples of such trivial factoids being added and edit warred back in when they are removed. There's no need to respond and no need to bludgeon every opposing comment. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Doesn't need a full list of every work, though including a couple notable ones can be nice, and there isn't an obvious reason not to. It's pretty standard in well-developed biographies at this point. Good for essential biographical details to have an easy reference, and doesn't take away from the detailed biography below for readers who want more. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 16:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The "obvious reason" is that this is an encyclopaedia, and my, or your, arbitary personal choice of "a couple notable ones" is a mile away from being encyclopaedic. Tim riley talk 16:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you and would not support a cherrypicking of arbitrary compositions, especially since I think Satie is more known for his general eccentricity than any particular piece(s) of music in the way Beethoven or Mozart are. I wouldn’t mind a link to a full list of compositions, however. Dronebogus (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See Burt Bacharach and other "works list"-less infoboxes in bios of arts people with either prodigious output, or even more constrained output from which it is difficult to neutrally highlight particular ones as "major" (often the case with non-mainstream artists, e.g. Client (band)). It simply is not necessary for an arts bio's i-box to include a list of works to be useful. It simply might be useful for one less summarizing purpose than it could have been, perhaps because attempting to summarize that particular aspect would be excessive, PoV-laden, or otherwise inappropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying here -- I agree that a works list is not required in order to have an infobox. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 22:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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". As the key information about the subject that could be included in the box is already discussed in the Lead and in the body of the article, the box would be a 3rd mention of these facts. The proposed infobox adds absolutely no key information to the article that an at-a-glance perusal of opening paragraph of the article does not provide in clearer context and presents only repetitive information stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Providing basic biographical details in the infobox (perhaps without a selected works list) would not be in any way misleading or oversimplifying; it would simply not be using the i-box for every possible purpose of an i-box (in this case perhaps because a works list might be difficult to arrive at for this person without non-neutrally cherrypicking).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "As a Signpost report notes" – assuming you want to take advice from someone who was banned by ArbCom not long after writing that; assuming you think the article endorsed that statement instead of repeating it as something some people sometimes say; assuming you think that an opinion posted in 2013 is generally shared today... WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I looked into this a little more, and that Signpost "report" was something of a "companion piece" following an editorial the author of which was usually against infoboxes across the composer/classical/opera meta-category (nearly always the source of inbox battlegrounding). [Edit: It's been pointed out to me that he actually proposed a compromise i'box in at least one case, so my earlier characterization of him as consistently anti-i'box was incorrect.] So, Singpost was engaging in a bunch of pointed advocacy op-ed material instead of neutral analysis of debates about infoboxes. Also, any proclamation by ArbCom that infoboxes are good for X but problematic for Y is actually void, because ArbCom is prohibited from weighing in on content disputes; at most, ArbCom is only in a position to note that editors have argued that infoboxes are good for X or problematic for Y (and, of course, behavioral issues arising among those editors, ArbCom's actual remit). It is necessarily up to the community, not ArbCom, to evaluate those arguments (in general and on a case-by-case basis). Not surprisingly, the anti-infobox agitation pushed in Signpost studiously ignored all the arguments against "infoboxes are problematic for Y" stance-taking. There are solid and essentially unrefuted arguments against that stance, because it is incorrectly assumptive that infoboxes must be written a certain way and must include certain bits of information or otherwise be useless, which is both demonstrably counterfactual as a practical matter, and not reflective of actual editorial-community practice with regard to infoboxes at all, or the ones I've used as examples in here at various points would never have existed and at least would now have to be deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC); corrected: 16:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per opposers above, and the wishes of the main editors. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:OWN, WP:FACTION, WP:VESTED. The wishes of prior more active editors on a topic are not magically more relevant. If they were, then we would simply eliminate RfC, RM, Village Pump, and other means that specifically exist to draw broader editorial input into matters heading in a walled-garden direction. Note also that wikiprojects or other topically-limited subsets of editors don't get to run their own "counter-AfD", "counter-RfD", "counter-CfD", etc., on a topical basis. All of this kind of decisionmaking is community-wide, for very good reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are "main editors"?? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OWNers Dronebogus (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it refers to the editors who have done the bulk of the research and writing on this long-dead composer, rather than the people who have no interest in the topic and usually are not content creators, but who go from article to article in Wikipedia trying to impose their aesthetic values on the editors who actually do the work of the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t care how much work you do, that doesn’t give you any kind of special authority or make your “aesthetic opinion” (as you put it) inherently more valid than mine. Literally no-one wants to invalidate the efforts of the people who researched and edited the article by putting in an infobox that takes up 1% of the page and is based entirely on preexisting content. SMcCandlish is absolutely right it’s ownership, tag-teaming, and “vested contribuors” being given privilege over everybody else. You can argue about how infoboxes are evil until your face is blue and I’ll defend your right to your opinion, but deferring to people based solely on their edit count on a page is an invalid argument that’s contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Content belongs to everyone, not just the people who write it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything you write is so disingenuous. Your first statement at the top of this section says that Lead sections do not tell a reader "where a subject was born, and at what age they died", but it gives birth and death dates in the very first sentence, so that is ridiculous. I don't go around Wikipedia starting RfCs to try to take out infoboxes from articles that I have never worked on. If you write an article, I will not question your judgment about whether to include and infobox, and I will not start an RfC to remove it, knowing that you are much more familiar with the subject than I am. 1% is another silly falsification. If you have a phone, look at any Wikipedia article that has an IB. It takes up most of the top of the article, forcing readers to scroll far down to get to the meat of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead sections almost never tell you what age someone died in a succinct manner. Scrolling for approximately 0.5 seconds longer is not a major disruption of anyone’s time. And why does saying Satire died in Arcueil, Paris, in 1925 require any kind of nuance? You’re the one being disingenuous. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see nothing offensive, disruptive, misleading, or unencyclopedic about having some basic information about Erik Satie contained in an infobox. The argument that an infobox would become bulked up with inappropriate information seems like a dodge. Any article can become bogged down in trivia, anywhere. It seems some are opposed because they worry about information taken out of context? That's what infoboxes are for, the fast facts. For context, read the rest of the article. TheSavageNorwegian 21:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - (Brought here from RFC/A) I do not see any issue with adding an infobox, it only helps, it doesn't take anything away from the article. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The infobox that was added seems inoffensive, and a great starting point for expansion. Agreed with SMcCandlish that a works section seems doable. Parabolist (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The infobox recently added and removed gives readers a quick summary of biographical information, in a place where they expect to see it. If on a mobile, it is hidden until they click to expand it, rather than overwhelming as someone suggested above (at least as I see it on my mobile). If it is difficult to identify just one or a few "known for" works, then this can just be omitted, as for many other creatives - Greta Garbo, Barbara Cartland, or treated like William Shakespeare where the "Works" heading in the infobox shows "Shakespeare bibliography", which is piped to List of works by William Shakespeare. PamD 07:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infoboxes are helpful. Reading and finding required information from the paragraphs of an article is a time consuming process, while an infobox gives a quick information about significant aspects of the subject. Riteze (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One small thing I've remembered: Erik Satie's signature is available on commons, and I don't see any way to add it to this page comfortably without an infobox. TheSavageNorwegian 22:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, this. An infobox here is the perfect place to obtain the signature, retaining the page's structural integrity. -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would oppose an infobox as it appeared in this edit[1], as it adds nothing that isn't in the first sentence. Infoboxes are great, but if they contain nothing not in the first couple of sentences they're pointless. Having an infobox just to have an infobox isn't a compelling argument. However there's discussion above about other things that could appear in the infobox, and I would support a more fleshed out infobox if there is valid information it could be used to show. Maybe someone could mock up an example so that editors aren't just stating a preference for or against infoboxes in general. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, we must be looking at different first sentences. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The infobox (in that edit) includes that he was a French composer/pianist plus his birth and death dates (as well as an image that is already at the top of the article). The first sentence is Eric Alfred Leslie Satie (17 May 1866 – 1 July 1925), who signed his name Erik Satie after 1884, was a French composer and pianist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it also gives his place of birth and place of death, and his age at death (for those who don't have the time or inclination to do the sums). It also gives internal links for composer and pianist, although the first sentence chooses not to. Of course it also provides an image, with an informative caption, but you don't need an infobox for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the diff I linked the image didn't a caption, and the caption in the infobox as currently displayed below is a copy of the one in the image in the current article. Wikilinking common terms isn't a strong argument either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it had no caption and a caption is a usual, but not mandatory, element. You certainly can't deduce an image or a caption from the first sentence. But I'm not saying any of the additional content is a "strong argument" either way. In fact, those who don't want an infobox might argue it's "unwanted clutter". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't use the image or the caption as a benefit of the infobox, it's already there in the article. I'm not interested in the taking sides of this argument. As I said if the infobox adds value I'm definitely for it use -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree, you can't use the image or the caption as a benefit of the infobox. That's why I said "but you don't need an infobox for that." If you're not taking sides, that makes two of us. I can see arguments both ways. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a sample box below as a starting point. Editors feel free to add/subject. If a signature can be found that can certainly be added. Nemov (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing that. I'm still of the opinion that it's not enough, but it's useful to show what is being discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference I made some minor changes/improvements to the example box. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I want to add his full name but I can’t figure out how Dronebogus (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to add an "_" in "birth_name", so I've just added that. Note that the template advice says: "Name at birth; only use if different from name." One could argue his birth name is not really different, it's just longer. But most infoboxes seem to assume more names = different. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll check back and change my comment if the infox gives me reasons to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Found signature on Commons from fr:Erik Satie, which has an infobox which includes a "Major works" list of 6 items, as well as his places of education, "years active", his style being identified as "Modernism (music)" (assuming that Wikidata is correct in making that the equivalent of fr:Musique moderne), and a link to his teacher Vincent d'Indy. I'm not suggesting we need those, just pointing out how fr.wiki has handled the infobox. PamD 17:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These would all make the infobox more informative and worthwhile. His tutelage appears to be references in the frwiki article, but I can't find anything for the musical style. If they can both be sourced I would support an infobox that would include them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now of course we need to add an infobox to that article for the sake of consistency. It’s almost like most biographies have these or something and going over them case-by-case makes no sense! Dronebogus (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (Note: I found this discussion via WP:VPM.) There are a few concrete improvements that I feel an infobox could bring to this article. First, it allows us to have a link to List of compositions by Erik Satie near the top of the article; this list isn't currently linked in the lead, and would be difficult to insert without doing something awkward and WP:EASTEREGGy. It also provides a familiarly formatted, readily discoverable way to present other brief, factual information that may be awkward to incorporate into the lead (such as age at death, location of birth or death, or signature—which according to TheSavageNorwegian is available). I also echo SMcCandlish's opinions about infoboxes' utility to the reader base in general. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rectify the 'Works' entry. This is an infobox but not a link-o-box. So, It should mention (may be major few or all) works (optionally with underlying link to his list of works), but not a direct link to his list of works. Riteze (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry to disagree with you but the emergent consensus seems to be strongly against any arbitrary selection of “major” works. Dronebogus (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, all of his works may be listed (maybe by using a single liner {{Wdib}} code) but not a link to another page containing a list of his works. Riteze (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see why or how that’s better. You seem to be inventing a problem and then coming up with a poor solution to it. Dronebogus (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone prints this page, he'll not be able to know what are his works. Riteze (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Riteze As is the case for Featured Article William Shakespeare. PamD 06:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sample infobox

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erik_Satie
No tags for this post.