Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

No Infobox

Why is there no infobox for this page? It looks rather strange, compared to other figures' articles. NipponGinko (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

it is done now, it's kinda clunky the fact that it doesn't get info immediately from wikidata but oh well, just did it manually Antniomanso (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

got taken out :/ Antniomanso (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably because not only is it not required, it's not really needed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

well yeah they don’t really bring new information to the article, but i always found them super useful for the way they condensate important facts in the start of the article, for example on korsakov you have to scroll through his whole biography section just to find out where he died, unnecessary with a simple infobox Antniomanso (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can call much of what goes into an IB "important", in encyclopaedic terms, except the small amount that can also be seen in the opening line of the article. IBs tend to focus on trivia (and where someone dies is trivial in most instances). The example you added recently was stuff full of equally pointless little factoids that don't assist readers in gaining an understanding of the man, his work or his place in the development of music - the long list of non-notable relatives, for a start: how to they bring understanding to a reader? - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with SchroCat here - the proposal seems a detriment rather than a benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

i added the IB based on the portuguese one, where it goes fetch all info directly from wikidata instead of manual entry, but ofc part of the information could have been ommited instead

and based on personal experience (and academic peers as well), the trivia facts prove themselves quite useful in IB format instead of even-the-short-intro format when one is researching through unmeasurable articles, as the trivia is in a very predictable and concise format Antniomanso (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for Portuguese, but highlighting trivia doesn't seem like a positive. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven have infoboxes, Rimsky-Korsakov certainly should. The point is not to summarize trivia. It is to create a guide for readers with links to pertinent articles. Rimsky's wife and two of his kids have their own Wikipedia articles, and two generations earlier, one of his relatives was sleeping with the empress. An Infobox is a great way to send people directly to the information they need. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The editors who oppose an infobox have all turtled and gone back into their shells. User:SchroCat deleted the Infobox without discussing it here, and he refuses to discuss it on his page. So too with User:Ian_Rose who reverted an Infobox addition without discussing it here first and also will not engage on his talk page. So where does that lack of cooperation leave us? Should we start a request for comment? Is there some other process we can use to unjam these logs? Trumpetrep (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear. Not at all (and please don't try to personalise matters). I have given my opinion above (thus I have discussed it here) and I won't discuss it on my talk page because this is the right venue for a discussion. There is no lack of cooperation from anyone, but not everyone has to jump just because you've posted something. Your rationale for wanting a box is deeply flawed (the point of an IB is not "to send people directly to the information they need", for example), and no-one is going to add an IB on that basis. If other people want to chip in to change the current consensus, they are able to join in the discussion to add; there is no rush if it helps building consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The consensus about Featured Articles on composers is generally not to use them – they add nothing of value and are not helpful to the reader. A few FAs on composers have them but most do not. You are entirely incorrect in saying that i-boxes are there to send people directly to different articles. That is precisely the opposite of their purpose. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and in particular MOS:IBP and MOS:INFOBOXUSE. Tim riley talk 14:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's quite a contortion of my statement that Infoboxes are "a guide for readers" into the notion that they are "there to send people directly to different articles". The fact that they may contain links to other Wikipedia articles is a secondary benefit. The purpose clearly is to give a quick snapshot of important information for readers. Moreover, where is this "consensus about Featured Articles on composers" that you speak of? Is this a "Featured Article"? Why should a "Featured Article" be any different than a non-featured article?

I requested a Dispute Resolution for this issue. Perhaps you can weigh in there. The form said that I should notify all the editors about the process. It seems best to do that here rather than on user pages. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If you let you eyes stray up the page you will see the words "Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". You probably haven't had time yet to read the Manual of Style guidelines but please do so carefully. Tim riley talk 15:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "An Infobox is a great way to send people directly to the information they need": there's no contortion at all - it's clear what you said in the first place, even if you have now clarified it. Yes, this is a featured article (it's flagged as such in the box at the top of the page). The featured status also provides a fairly solid consensus for the absence of an IB (although, as we all know, consensus can change - but that needs to be by discussion, not forcing the issue through edit warring)

Dispute Resolution is a singularly poor place for an IB discussion (particularly one where a series of falsehoods have been given), which should take place here not elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk)

It was a Featured Article. Is that like being President, and the honorific follows you around for time immemorial? More importantly, where is this so-called consensus about infoboxes in "Featured Articles on composers"? The Manual of Style has an entire section on Infoboxes. It specifically states, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."Trumpetrep (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No, It is a featured article, as the big box at the top says.

Is there any chance you could learn to indent properly too please, rather than dropping back to the left constantly; instructions can be found here; it's important for screen readers which aid those with accessibility problems. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"Sending" is not exclusive to external content. For instance, Rimsky married Nadezhda Purgold who is an important enough figure to merit her own Wikipedia article. That is top-line information. However, a reader will not learn it until they've read several hundred words and made it to the third section of Rimsky's biography section.

The infobox can deliver that information to the reader right up front.Trumpetrep (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As an observer, I can't see a reason not to include an Infobox. While not required, it does make it easier for users to obtain quick, timeline info SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Trumpetrep may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules and guidance. I have provided links to the relevant MoS section and hope s/he will carefully read it. SchroCat is quite correct, IMO. Tim riley talk 15:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Since Dispute Resolution is apparently not the place to do this, how about we do a quick tally here? There are currently 4 in favor of an Infobox, and 3 opposed. The Manual of Style expressly allows for Infoboxes. Featured Articles almost all use them. There's supposedly a consensus that there is a carveout for Featured Articles on composers that disallows Infoboxes but no one has produced evidence of this. Why should the minority's view hold sway? Trumpetrep (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, see WP:VOTE. We don't just count votes to decide consensus. That's particularly true if you claim "Featured Articles almost all use them", which is patently false. (Also again, please learn to indent). - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, voting is not the same as consensus. However, it is a helpful indicator of where the consensus lies, and in this discussion, it is in favor of an Infobox. So why shouldn't there be one added to the article? Update: I just clicked through a dozen of today's Featured Articles. Not a single one lacked an infobox. Can you find a Featured Article from today that does not have an infobox? Trumpetrep (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it's not even close to being an indicator because it's about the arguments, not about voting - did you actually read WP:VOTE? And even if we did look at voting, 4-3 is 'no consensus', rather than a consensus either way. Just let the discussion run its course without forcing the issue.

Of course I can find FAs without IBs. From the first line of the music bios alone at WP:FA: Charles-Valentin Alkan, Walter Bache, John Barbirolli, Arnold Bax, Thomas Beecham, William Sterndale Bennett, Hector Berlioz and Georges Bizet. I stopped at that point, but I think you get the idea. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And can you find a composer FA among them? In between carefully reading the MoS perhaps Trumpetrep might check the OED on "consensus": "Agreement in opinion, feeling, or purpose among a group of people, esp. in the context of decision-making. Also: the collective unanimous opinion of a number of people." A 4:3 split vote isn't a consensus or anything like it. Tim riley talk 15:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox not required as it will not show anything that should be found in a well-written lead section. Jack1956 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Both Bach & Mozart have infoboxes. Both were featured. As Sherlock Holmes said, "An exception disproves the rule". I agree that a vote ≠ consensus. All it does is show where opinions are. Since there is no actual rule disallowing infoboxes on composer articles (featured or not), why not add one?Trumpetrep (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Two do and an awful lot don't (and they are featured, not "were" featured: being featured is a standard that articles achieve after rigorous review processes, and articles retain that status until they go through a delisting process). The reasons have been explained by people above. I am not sure that continually repeating them just because you keep asking for a box would be helpful. Please just let other people post their opinions without constantly asking the same question: if you don't respect their opinions, they are unlikely to respect yours. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Could we persuade Trumpetrep to tell the truth rather than fabrications? Neither Bach nor Mozart is an FA. Both B class. Tim riley talk 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It literally says, "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is a former featured article" on its Talk page. It seems I made a mistake about Bach. I did not know that Featured Article was an honorific that remained with an article when it was no longer actually featured on the front page.

But as to that, 63% of the "Featured Articles" that are bios of individual musicians have infoboxes. That seems like another exception to this purported consensus. That's not to mention that a similar discussion about infoboxes has sprawled over Mahler's talk page. Similar discussions have occurred on Monteverdi's, Britten's, and Berlioz's pages. I'm sure there are many more. They seem to get shut down by the same handful of editors. I was completely unaware of this aversion to infoboxes until today. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It literally says former, so it's not a featured article. Neither is it an honorific; as I explained just above, "Featured" is a standard of excellence - the highest we have on WP and a sign that the article has been through rigorous review processes to get it up to that standard. Trumpetrep, it seems people have to explain things multiple times before you take them on board: can you just slow down and read what people are saying without assuming you already know it, it will save a lot of back and forth with the same minor points being explained on multiple occasions - the point about indenting your comments has been made three or four times now, and you still fail to do it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it was a featured article, and it has an infobox as do Chopin, Schumann, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, and Mendelssohn. Per your standard of the "Featured Article" honorific, the vast majority of the music bios have infoboxes which would seem that the consensus is for their use. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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 box would misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, 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. Particular problems with the suggested box include: (1) The birth and death dates are given in better context in the opening sentence of the Lead section, including the explanatory footnote. (2) His place of death is not such "key" information that it should be one of the 9 things we highlight about him at the top of the article or on someone's phone screen. (3) Era: this link does not explain much about R-K's style, choices or techniques, unlike the Lead section, which ls much more descriptive and useful. (4) This link to a list of R-K's compositions does not help the reader prioritize or contextualize them. (5) Again, this factoid about his children is not one of the 9 most important things a reader should know about him. (6) His distant relationship to Ivan R-K is not one of the 9 most important things a reader should know about him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there has been now been some WP:CANVASSing going on to try and sway the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

How is an athlete or politician's bio different from a composer's? They all were born, died, and did various things in between that merit a guide at the top of the article. User:Jack1956 suggested an infobox wouldn't contain anything that wasn't in a "well-written lead". Yet, the lead does not contain a portrait. It does not contain a signature. Both of those are in a box off to the side. So, the article already has a kind of infobox with a picture and an autograph in it. Furthermore, a well-written lead will not mention Rimsky's wife and children by name, as this one does not. So, we've already established that there is no actual consensus to avoid infoboxes on composers, and that a "well-written lead" will not contain everything an infobox will. It's unclear why there is such resistance to an obviously utile addition. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As for "Canvassing", the text describes precisely what I did: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." I welcome as many users as possible to join this discussion. That is why I submitted this discussion to Dispute Resolution. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I see Trumprep has spread his/her campaigning to the Mahler article. I hope s/he will refrain from telling untruths there as well as here. Tim riley talk 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are good. Most people use them. It's not a campaign. Someone tried to add an infobox to Mahler's article in 2011, 2012, and 2020. It's interesting to see the same names frequently crop up in opposition, including my dear departed friend Jerry Kohl. As I've demonstrated, infoboxes provide a function that leads do not, and there is no consensus that they should not be used on classical composer articles. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The unsupported claims of three Wikipedians mean diddly squat for such a claim. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have taken, jointly or on my own, 59 articles through FAC to FA. Of these I think about half have i-boxes, giving career stats etc (prime ministers, bishops, plays, shows, locations, authors and so on) where we can put substantive information into an i-box. Where I or my co-authors could not find useful encyclopaedic information for an i-box we have omitted them. In a few cases, e.g. Schumann, as there was an existing i-box I was not so arrogant as to remove it, but left it in place despite thinking it pretty useless. (The much missed Jerome Kohl, never one to miss tweaking my tail good humouredly, never demurred about the eschewal of an i-box for FAC composer articles that I put forward.) Tim riley talk 23:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a nice track record of quality Wikipedia edits, Tim. If 50% of those have infoboxes, that disproves any notion that they are defects in an article's quality. If you will happily edit an article with a box, why would you prevent the creation of one when other editors see it as beneficial? That's the mystifying part of this debate. I understand you don't think it's worthwhile, but other people do. (I learned far more from Jerry than he did from me, but I could often convince him to change his mind when the facts were on my side!) Trumpetrep (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

All people are born and eventually die, but the activities they take part in in between are different, and are best presented differently. A sportsperson is often summarized by statistics - what titles they won when, what medals they won at which games, their goals/runs/etc scored. Politicians often have a run of "served in office X between dates A and B, preceded by Jane Doe and succeeded by John Smith", which are well suited to tabular presentation. But the accomplishments and activities of composers are more typically best provided by prose description. Efforts to shoehorn them into data-pair presentations tend to result in oversimplification of complex datapoints and/or overemphasis of minor datapoints that happen to be simple to display. The argument regarding the lead goes towards the latter: if a particular claim was not deemed sufficiently key to warrant mention anywhere in the lead, it definitely isn't sufficiently key to warrant even more prominent positioning.

As to the canvassing issue, WP:INAPPNOTE notes that non-neutral notifications and those targeting specific users thought to have a particular viewpoint are problematic - the example mentioned above is both of those. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

A bad Mozart article would include "Getreidegasse 9 in Salzburg" in its lead. A good infobox includes that fact. It appears in the infobox 360 words before it appears in the article. Likewise, his wife's name appears in the infobox 2600 words before it does in the article. That is why these tools exist.

As to the athlete comparison, Mozart's career was marked by several distinct periods and professional associations, just like an athlete. That could easily be tabulated in an infobox. Just as an athlete's college is in his infobox, a composer's teachers are an important part of their identity. The comparison is more apt than you realize.

Moreover, there's something disingenuous about the nature of this discussion. Until today, I had no idea this was even an issue. There's a lot of wasted duplicative effort over an issue that has already been arbitrated and discussed ad infinitum. The overarching tenor seems to be a consensus that these article should have infoboxes, and a passionate minority that thinks they should not. It doesn't seem like an issue that is worth warring over.

Since the arguments against Infoboxes are so insubstantial, how is it not worth including something that most editors think is a useful tool? To put it another way, no one is arguing for something unencyclopedic like embedding social media content or relying on message boards as sources. We're arguing for a widely accepted style that is used all over this site. There is no harm created by employing it. So, why oppose it? Trumpetrep (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The arguments are not insubstantial, despite the fact that you don’t agree with them. Less than half WP articles have an IB, so their use is not as much of a de facto state as you may think. And the reason we discuss them at each article is both practical (the subjects, and therefore the drawbacks of the IB, are different at each article), and partly procedural (both the MOS and ArbCom state that is the way it has to be, because each subject is different). Attempts to litigate that IBs need to implemented at all articles, or all biographies, have been rejected on numerous occasions by the community as a whole. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of arbitration, was the well-publicized community discussion held? If so, can you link to it? I've learned a lot today about what some folks consider peccadillos. I'd like to read the community discussion that happened after the Arbitration.

That's a separate issue from the question I've been asking which remains the same: What harm does adding an Infobox do? Since so many editors prefer them, and understandably add them without thinking it's an issue, what is the benefit to reverting them?Trumpetrep (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Learn to indent, for crying out loud - it's essential for people who need screen readers and it helps everyone else understand who you're replying to - long threads like this one become completely unmanageable if people don't bother to do it properly and it's just disruptive to keep ignoring it. I've left the link on your page twice to help you understand how to do it.

As I said above, there have been several centralised discussions Three of the more recent ones that I have been involved with are here, here and here, but there are several others which you can find by searching the archives. As to what harm they do, that's covered in the links there, but we're not discussing IBs in general, we're discussing the consensus for an IB on this specific article, no more. As to the claim that "so many editors prefer them", this misses the point entirely. It's should never be about what editors prefer, but about readers - remember them: the people we are actually here to serve. Unfortunately the Foundation has never dipped one of its short arms into its over-deep, very full pockets to do any research into asking readers what their impressions are. Its notable that the only people who turn up at IB discussions aren't readers, but editors - even when an article is on the main page and we get the huge influx of non-editors looking at the page, it's only rarely that a reader will ask about the lack of an IB.

ps. This is not the place for a general discussion about IBs. Per note at the top and (particularly) ArbCom, this page is to discuss matters relating solely to this article and whether the status quo should change, not a general discussion about IBs. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, SchroCat. So, it sounds like that discussion the arbitrators recommended never took place. Regarding this article's infobox, you have not participated in the Dispute Resolution for the issue. Would it be better to proceed by a Request for Comment? Trumpetrep (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Infobox for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Should the article on Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov include the following infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov
Portrait of Rimsky-Korsakov in 1898 by Valentin Serov (detail)
Born	(1844-03-18)March 18, 1844 Tikhvin, Tikhvinsky Uyezd, Russian Empire
Died	June 21, 1908(1908-06-21) (aged 64) Luga, Luzhsky Uyezd, Russian Empire
Cause of death	Myocardial infarction
Resting place	Tikhvin Cemetery
Nationality	Russian Empire
Alma mater	Naval Cadet Corps, Saint Petersburg
Era	Romantic
Employer	Saint Petersburg Conservatory
Known for	composer, maestro, musicologist, autobiographer, music professor, music theorist, university professor, military officer, librettist
Notable work	Scheherazade Symphony No. 1 The Golden Cockerel
Spouse	Nadezhda Rimskaya-Korsakova
Children	Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov Mikhail Nikolaevich Rimskiy-Korsakov Vladimir Rimsky-Korsakov
Parents	Andrey Petrovich Rimskiy-Korsakov (father) Sofia Vasilievna Skaryatina (mother)
Relatives	Voin Rimsky-Korsakov (brother)
Signature

Please write Yes or No with a brief statement in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion is for.

• As a reminder to all who !vote, and by way of background: ArbCom’s rulings on IB’s state that arguments should be based on whether an IB is appropriate on the specific article in question, not a general discussion or vote in favour of IBs in general - decisions of 2013 and 2018, plus many active discussions in the intervening period.

Survey

• Oppose There has been no consensus in the above thread that there is any need for an IB, let alone a bloated, MOS-breaching monstrosity like this one. a reminder, per the text above: !votes should be about this specific article, not a general and vague "IBs are helpful"-type vote. This laughable box is an embarrassment of trivia and nonsense which confuses by obfuscation, giving too much WEIGHT to trivia to bamboozle readers. The factoids it contains are stripped of context and nuance, providing gibberish in return (“Nationality: Russian Empire”? Good grief!) the only useful bits of information there is merely a repetition of the first sentence, making it utterly superfluous and pointless. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I do find it funny how this all started because a user apparently from Portuguese Wikipedia decided to add this in response to a single talk page comment made almost a year ago. Apparently that counts as huge demand for an infobox these days. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sadly nothing surprises me in IB discussions any more. Ps. Barbarbarty, don’t forget to leave a !vote with your opinion in this section. The more input the better. - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes Infoboxes for larger biographies are helpful. There is no policy or MOS issue with proposed infobox. Specific elements can be addressed later if the community agrees on its inclusion. Nemov (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes: Rimsky-Korsakov's wife is shown right away in the infobox. A reader will not encounter her name in the article until 3,000 words have elapsed. Infoboxes are designed specifically for purposes like this, to consolidate and summarize key facts of a complicated articles. Rimsky-Korsakov was a massive figure in the history of music. His career was complicated and multi-faceted, and an infobox is a helpful tool for readers.Trumpetrep (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - no consensus for an IB and no need for one either Jack1956 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• No – oppose. Per my comments in the discussion above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• No: i-boxes are excellent in the right place (I've created two articles in the last week and included an i-box in each) but it isn't an one-size-fits-all arrangement, and our Wikipedia policy ordains that whether to include an i-box or not is a matter to be agreed article by article. If there are editors in this thread who think all WP articles must have i-boxes they should have the honesty to propose such a change to WP policy in the appropriate place. Tim riley talk 22:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• No. MOS:IBP indicates that "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content". The proposal here is the opposite of that. Add to that all of its other MOS problems and content issues, and it's clear this would not be a net positive. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• No. The article as it stands is more than adequate for giving critical information about Rimsky-Korsakov than the proposed infobox comprised of relative trivia (do we really need a whole line up front saying that he died of a myocardial infarction). I also repeat the concerns of Nikkimaria. Therefore, I see no need to add an infobox at this point. Barbarbarty (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to short (modest, Mozart-like) infobox (B), No to long infobox (A) per Nikkimaria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• No to a long infobox as in the example illustrated. A milder still no to a short, Mozart-like infobox. I'm not a regular at this article. I came to find out something about R-K, and was pleasantly surprised to find a comprehensive and insightful article that gave me broader context right from the lede. While I am not fundamentally opposed to infoboxes, I've always found the longish, all-sorts-of-trivia style bloated and visually disruptive - and these days, if you want a very specific bit of info, like name of wife or cause of death, it's much more practical to ask your favorite genAI (which btw does a very good job on the random trivia for R-K in the proposal, except of course not providing wikilinks). The role of a good article is to go beyond, and this one does that in spades. As to the Mozart-style infobox, it's less obtrusive, so I mind it less; but still I find it an unnecessary use of prime screen real estate. Things like birth address and signature are not unencyclopedic per se, but hardly what matters most. And a number of the other bits are essentially internal links inside the article that a reader can find in seconds by browsing the TOC, so why bother? So I end up in the "it ain't broke [by having no infobox here] so don't fix it [especially by something bloated]" camp. Kudos and thanks to the article contributors! Martinp (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• No, this is a well-written FA, and for the reasons that Nikkimaria and Martinp said. Broadly, for arts biographies, IB's lack nuance. For example, Ralph Vaughan Williams is another FA does not have an infobox. Simply saying in the IB that RVW was married twice and listing his spouse's names does the reader a disservice as it doesn't say why he married them, and that an affair with his muse and companion (presumably with the ailing Adeline's blessing) invigorated his composing. R-K is a similar situation: his wife was more than a domestic partner, and in fact, was a strong musical influence on him. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, though it should be trimmed (cause of death, nationality, employer, alma mater) like the example below. Infoboxes portray the information in a different, more standardized summarized manner. It's value is more than trivia, like a nutritional facts label: useful at-a-glance information. SWinxy (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I would have to agree with above user SWinxy, the proposed infobox seems long and could be trimmed, and if it is I do think it would improve the article.

  MaximusEditor (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes but shortened. Certainly, there's enough information on this person representable in an infobox to be useful. Infoboxes are useful for highlighting basic information such that it can be found faster than if it were in prose; keep in mind that a plurality of readers only view the lead section and many only search to find one or a few basic facts. The argument I made before is a general one because, despite statements by anti-infobox activists to the contrary, it isn't really true that the merit of an infobox varies much from article-to-article within a broad category (e.g. musician biographoes can handle them well, philosophical concepts not so much).

  With that being said, in the specific proposal by McClenon, the "nationality" and "parents" parameters can be cut outright, and the "known for" parameter should be trimmed. Mach61 01:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Don’t know what the statement about “anti-infobox activists” has to do with anything but none of these arguments are compelling at all. I don’t see how vague aspersions to “same purposes” means much when it blatantly isn’t true. And I’m not even going to mention the laughable comparison of infoboxes to nutritional fact labels. The idea that those two can even be compared fails at the starting gate. Barbarbarty (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Include an abridged infobox much closer to Gerda and Trumpetrep's version than to the original proposal. Failing that, I would much prefer no infobox to the original proposal. Remsense ‥ 论 05:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I still fail to see what an abridged infobox will add to the article. I think Martinp’s points are informative here. Barbarbarty (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is where it is potentially helpful to think about the breadth rather than depth of readers' experience, even if we're still mostly examining narrow margins of utility here. Some readers expect infoboxes more readily and more readily acquire information from them. Even if they are perfectly informationally redundant—and indeed, arguably spatially worse for some—others may appreciate one even if the stellar writing has made its utility much more marginal than usual. For most, we're probably talking about seconds. If I may be blunt, as much as I get frustrated at reader reactions toward full paragraphs as somehow being themselves odious, on an encyclopedia—there's a gradient of moment-to-moment difficulties there. Good or bad, some people find it some degrees more difficult to focus on reading prose than others. That's most of my argument, anyway. Remsense ‥ 论 07:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I can appreciate the measured response, but I fail to see the merit in such an argument when we have no evidence that readers have been confused by this page specifically not having an infobox. We have one comment from last year and that’s it, and to be frank probably the main cause of this RfC is that people neglected to archive that comment on the talk page after eleven months of no other activity. I do not think we should be changing FA’s based on what readers “might” expect with zero evidence that there is an issue. Otherwise this might as well apply to every bio without an infobox. Barbarbarty (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• No infobox as first preference; or a Mozart-ian infobox as second. The proposed infobox is replete with trivia there-in negating the supposed benefit of having it present in the first place. The Mozart-esque infobox is a marked improvement, but I don't find that it is superior to the current no infobox. The main benefit to having the abridged IB is the direct link to a list of Rimsky-Korsakov's compositions; perhaps there is some marginal benefit to the links for other notable members of his family as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Short infobox is my first choice; like Remsense, I prefer no infobox to the long, originally proposed infobox. Per MOS:IBP, the less information an infobox contains, the more effective it is. The original proposal most certainly does not conform to this guideline—look at the "known for", "parents", "children", or "notable work" parameters—and tries to force absurd simplifications like the laughable "nationality" parameter. However, not including an infobox would be confusing for some readers, because nearly all articles, especially long ones, have them. Thus, a minimal infobox is preferred, and if closed as such, there should certainly be a prohibition against adding extraneous information in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, if your argument is simply relying on “nearly all articles” have infoboxes, that’s simply not true. In fact, a plurality of articles on Wikipedia do not have infoboxes. Barbarbarty (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• No. I am a great fan of infoboxes. I have never created an article without one; all 110 of my GANs have one, as do all 64 of my FACs. However, I do not feel that this infobox improves this article, for much the reasons advanced by SchroCat but about 80% less vehemently. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• No. It's not an improvement and it's redundant here. Graham Beards (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• No, along the lines of the reasoning Martinp, Mr rnddude, Airship, and Nikkimaria, but even beyond that, viewing the shorter proposal in the Discussion section, I do not understand the purpose of adding items like number of children to a lead or infobox, and don't see how either the long or proposed short version improves this article.
  In this specific case, I don't see how "Rimsky-Korsakov was a massive figure in the history of music. His career was complicated and multi-faceted, and an infobox is a helpful tool for readers" is used as reasoning to support the need to highlight the name of his wife. Reading the lead is what reinforces the importance of the individual--how does knowing the name of his wife or how many children relate to this "massive" importance? If those items were so relevant, then the FAC reviewers would have/should have asked for them to be mentioned in the lead.
  Even with the reminder at the beginning of the RFC, it appears that several responses lodged already do not engage this article, and there are indications of the need for arb enforcement in some inflammatory language used in a few responses (eg "anti-infobox activists" and other declarations that don't remain focused on this article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• I would support the minimalist infobox set out below, and would suggest that we branch off into a separate discussion: most of the oppose arguments above are tied to the nature of the "maximalist" infobox above, and so it will be difficult to establish whether consensus is for a smaller infobox versus none at all. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• I'd prefer the more focused infobox below, or at least to remove a few items from the original, including Nationality (which is the same as both place of birth and place of death), Cause of death (because it's not relevant), and Parents (because neither of them are notable). I'd also prefer to link to List of compositions by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov than to pick a 'top 3'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, an (un?abridged) infobox is appropriate in most cases, this one included. JayCubby 00:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not to immediately pile onto the brave dissenter, but I'm curious whether and why you consider |death_cause=, |resting_place=, |nationality=, |alma_mater=, |parents=, |relatives= key facts for this subject. Remsense ‥ 论 00:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, I would also ask him why he thinks it is suitable for this specific article, which is how infoboxes are supposed to be evaluated. 108.254.223.171 (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  (I did ask him that.) Remsense ‥ 论 02:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Forgot to log in before that, but looking back I misread your comment. Much apologies! Barbarbarty (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Short infobox, like the one below, though I think it should also include a "Notable work" section to get across as much key information in a concise way. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per Nemov and Trumpetrep. Wikipedia articles should facilitate both in-depth reading and the brief collection of vital facts. The more significant the figure (and in his field he is obviously of the highest significance) the more important such facts should be collated for easy retrieval; a reader should not have to pick through thousands of words to find the name of a spouse or alma mater. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, that's not how it works. It's indeed the case that—in general, proportional to the whole article—fewer facts are key to a subject the longer and more in-depth an article is. If you want the alma mater, that's only reflective for certain of your needs, not necessarily those of the subject. Remsense ‥ 论 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• I suggest, Robert, to propose a modest infobox, following the Mozart example which found consensus. This one has many problems, - I fixed only the most obvious one, and have no time for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'd prefer the Mozart version over the proposed version. Nemov (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Given this was copied from elsewhere without attribution, it's probably best it was amended anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am a neutral facilitator, and have prepared this infobox RFC for User:Trumpetrep. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is the infobox that was created by User:Antniomanso on October 13 and reverted by User:Nikkimaria on October 14. It seems easy enough to make it more compact along the lines of Mozart's infobox.Trumpetrep (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  To User:Tim riley, please specify the "appropriate place" to propose a change to the infobox policy for composers. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  No idea, but there will be one if you look for it. Tim riley talk 09:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• If we use the Mozart infobox as an acceptable model, the Rimsky infobox would look like this:

  Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
  Portrait, 1898.
  Born	(1844-03-18)March 18, 1844 Tikhvin, Tikhvinsky Uyezd, Russian Empire
  Died	June 21, 1908(1908-06-21) (aged 64) Luga, Luzhsky Uyezd, Russian Empire
  Works	List of compositions
  Spouse	Nadezhda Rimskaya-Korsakova
  Children	3, including Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov
  Relatives	Voin Rimsky-Korsakov (brother)
  Signature

  Trumpetrep (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I changed Works list to "List of compositions", because someone looking at the infobox should see at a glance that he was a composer (not a writer or painter). That would come out more if we also had parameter occupation, for him not only conductor (somewhat given for a composer at Mozart's time) but officer, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)