# Talk:Robert le diable

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
tada  ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
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)