Talk:Felix Mendelssohn

message: this is the 5th time you’ve reverted it with the incomprehensible rationale “see FAC”. I don’t see how looking at WP:FAC explains why you are systematically blocking an infobox from this page. Dronebogus (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Such an addition was proposed and opposed during this article's FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which was when…? Dronebogus (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 2018. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

text: One proposer, two decliners. That is not an overwhelming decision, and an old one. I am in favor of including an infobox, just as in any recent FA.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , can you explain what you mean by "just as in any recent FA" - I'm not sure what you mean. - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about a variety of "From today's featured article" on the main en.wiki page, which appear to have infoboxes. Additionally, :MOS:INFOBOXUSE directs us to discuss this on the article talk page, not a relatively hidden FA discussion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. A couple of my last FACs don't have IBs and one of them - Pasqua Rosée - appeared on the main page six days ago without such a box. Another one without a box will appear on the MP in a couple of weeks. An FAC isn't a "relatively hidden ... discussion": it's a central review process that is highlighted on the talk page. All it means in this case is that there is a consensus that needs to be overturned through discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal rule is that indeterminate birth/death dates = no infobox, because the main utility of an infobox is auto-calculating age. Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it really, really isn't. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

text: All right, I've added the age at death to the lead, so now there's no need. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the article looks ugly and weird without an infobox, but that’s still considerate. Dronebogus (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "ugly and weird" isn't an argument for inclusion (People can also say an IB looks ugly and weird - it's not a basis for argument): de gustibus and all that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m totally aware of that. But I still feel like it’s a lot of really pointless busywork to aggressively block an infobox from this or any article without any good reason besides the familiar “I don’t like them” “they’re stupid and make people stupider” “read the darn lead” “redundant” “liberal arts biographies” or “the composers project said so”. People expect these things in 2023 and get weirded out when they’re gone. Dronebogus (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Personally I still feel like it’s a lot of really pointless busywork to aggressively push for an infobox from this or any article without any good reason besides the familiar “I like them” or any made up reason. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: People would add these organically if they weren’t being blocked. No-one besides a select few would remove them organically. Dronebogus (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know: it's a real pain when people have a different opinion, but it's not a question of "blocking" things: it's a question of having a different point of view. And I think you're likely wrong on the removing: the reason people don't do it is that it leads to a massive crapstorm by people aggressively pushing or defending them. Most people just want to edit nice and peacefully without all the grief that comes from getting involved in the debate or its ramifications. - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m going to be blunt: the reason composers don’t have infoboxes is because 10-something years ago the Composers WikiProject declared them haram, and you know it. This is a clear case of a Wikiproject making and enforcing  its own rules unilaterally, which is no different than multi-party ownership. I’m not just some pro-infobox fanatic, I’m frustrated that a project has been given so much power against all rules. Dronebogus (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You've grabbed one small, very historical detail and drawn a poor conclusion from it. And, as I mentioned on your talk page, I advise again that you stop throwing around unfounded accusations of ownership: it will only end badly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, then explain what Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes is supposed to be, other than a project making up “house rules” for its articles? Dronebogus (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That local consensus started in 2007 and was last discussed by the project just over ten years ago. Back in 2007 (and even in 2013) the rules were very different to what they are now, which is why that section is more historical than anything else. As I have said: You've grabbed one small, very historical detail and drawn a poor conclusion from it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If that’s historical why is it a. not marked as such and b. still enforced? Dronebogus (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Historical" was the wrong word for me to use. "Long-standing" would have been better. Although it is old and the rules have changed since it was first agreed upon, it still carries weight, although not as much as it once did. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point me to something that says projects are allowed to make their own rules? Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Outsider's perspective: I really do think  was being a bit close-minded by reverting these contributions multiple times. The infobox as it appears in this revision is a perfectly good contribution, and the onus of proof is on you if you think it should not be included. In short, I think 's argument about  is the other way around. You're the one who has to have a good reason to remove the infobox given that it's well-formatted and not out of place, and frankly I don't see a good reason. 8 total words from a FAC from 6 years ago aren't gospel. This is a biographic article, which usually contain  as a matter of course. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Festucalex, your assertions here are not correct. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content; there is no presumption in favour of inclusion, as you suggest. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be true if an actual reason was given above for exclusion, but the only thing even resembling an argument against inclusion in the wall of text above is , which then yields two comments from 2017:  and . Nothing else is given. I'd say there needs to be prima facie evidence against inclusion for the presumption in favor of exclusion to kick in, and I don't see that at all. It would be helpful if you'd summarize your reasons below. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Festucalex, you may say that, but that is not reality. The addition was previously proposed and did not obtain consensus; the rationale given here of lacking age at death has been addressed, and otherwise there doesn't seem to be any rationale given other than a personal feeling that it looks nice. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

text: As there is a long-standing consensus, let alone the very long-standing status quo, you need a consensus to include a box. That’s the way it’s always been for any challenged changes to an article. - SchroCat (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm one of those in favor of infoboxes, but I also recognize that group consensus is pretty much the only way to decide on infobox issues. - kosboot (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Since there’s a discussion going on about this currently, should this article have an infobox? Dantus21 (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc for infobox 

message: # The purpose of an infobox is . Users expect to be able to quickly reference information via the infobox. Yes, that information is generally found in the lead, but it’s not summarized in a way that’s quick to consume.Infoboxes are a valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Wikipedia. Data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in the infobox valuable. Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities and that's the purpose of an infobox. This article would be improved if one were included. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: #The proposed infobox takes up prime real estate at the top of the page with little benefit. It adds two kinds of information: (1) info that is already immensely prominent in the first two sentences of the lead (name, birth/date dates, occupation), and (2) information that isn't in the lead because it's not important enough to be featured at the top of the article (birth place, death place, the nation Leipzig was in at the time of his death, and his signature). Enshrining that information in an infobox just takes up for (in my opinion) little payoff. Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: *Given the history regarding infobox discussions I oppose attempts to close this on procedural grounds. It's very unlikely given the sometimes contentious nature of this debate that this will be settled in any other way except via RfC. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In answer to your question here: yes, I've read it. Have you? "For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit." Between that and the CREDITS issue, please self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its helpful info to the readers and inline with MOS. Please stop going around messing with infoboxes. There is very clear consensus to have one and that was the most recent one that people were looking at when they gave their opinion in the RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: PackMecEng, no, it's not "inline with MOS", as already explained, and nobody above argued otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The first few yes votes agreed and mentioned the purposed version. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reference to any specific version among the yes votes appears to be your own. While I appreciate you may like that version, it still isn't MOS-compliant. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple things, again it is MOS-compliant since it's in the infobox. The section you mention is about the body mostly. Second your edit did not just unlink a location that no longer exists, which we do normally link if they are no long around, it removed a bunch of other things. Next, don't just blind link things and give that as an explanation, it's unhelpful and disruptive. If you want to cite a something explain how it applies, like I have. Now given the large removals and incorrect interpretation of MOS I think we should move on. PackMecEng (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the incorrect interpretation of MOS here is yours. The section I mention includes no exemption for infobox vs body text, nor for "if they are no long around". I've also pointed out CREDITS: "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should contain only key facts of the article's subject" (emphasis added). Now, we can move on as soon as you revert yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Style