Talk:Maurice Ravel

Editors and Infoboxes

I was asked to take a look at this discussion. What I see is, first, that some editors have strong feelings about infoboxes, and, second, some of those editors would do well to recognize that other editors have differing strong feelings about infoboxes, and, third, discussion will not be useful, and snarky comments will not be useful.

One editor makes the non-helpful suggestion that another editor look for the definition of suppressing in the Oxford English Dictionary, and there are non-helpful comments about the use of English by editors whose English is correct. Since this is Wikipedia, suppression or suppressing also has a precise meaning that is probably not found in the Oxford English Dictionary, an enhanced form of redaction available to some functionaries. None of the participants in this debate appear to have that privilege.

In this case, like other infobox disputes, and especially other infobox disputes about composers, it appears that the best, or anyway the least harmful, option will be an RFC. I am willing to prepare an RFC, and to launch it when there is agreement as to how to present the RFC.

It will be useful if editors recognize that other editors have strong feelings about infoboxes, and to recognize that it is best to be respectful of those editors as fellow humans with different feelings.

Shall we prepare an RFC on whether Maurice Ravel needs an infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Now that the Powers that Be have banished three editors with nearly 200 featured articles between them from contributing their various views to such discussions it seems sadly inevitable that the drive-by Must-Have-An-Info-box absolutists will force their way through. Tim riley talk 19:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

An RFC sounds good to me. 12lettername (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

An RfC seems a waste of time to me. Of course Ravel doesn't need an infobox, but it would be an additional service to a few readers. It would be much easier, if you, Tim riley, would look at the arguments of earlier RfCs, for example Voceditenore, 2023, for Mozart, linked above:

"Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed artcle. The "repetition" argument is simply a canard. The Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't have a problem with "repetition" via infoboxes . Nor does the Australian Dictionary of Biography .

The other "oppose" reasons are equally weak.

•They contain "unimportant factoids"?? The dates and places of birth and death, the subject's primary occupation are not factoids, they are highly salient and essential facts of a biography which is why music reference books include them in the first sentence of an entry. Not the current WP artcle, though. As for the omission of [virtuoso] pianist from the box, well this is also missing from the WP lede and given quite short shrift in the article overall. Simply add pianist to the occupation field, although I should add this is not what Mozart is primarily known for, c.f. his entry in Grove.

•This is the most recently removed infobox. There is nothing in that box which is misleading, requiring nuance, or not part of essential biographical information.

•There is no evidence for the assertion that vandalism is harder to detect in infoboxes than in the article text. In fact, if the "oppose" arguments are taken at face value, the deleterious attention grabbing nature of infoboxes should make it even easier to detect. Note also that infoboxes can contain refs and/or footnotes if required. I have used them on rare occasions. The additional proposal that Mozart's infobox will attract "fan cruft" is frankly preposterous.

•The notion that an infobox attracts less valuable editors and its absence will somehow make them edit the article text instead is equally preposterous and patronizing to boot. Editors do all kinds of valuable work that keeps WP working for our readers, from adding categories to patrolling new artcles. The main thing is that we are producing an encyclopedia that benefits all kinds of readers on all kinds of devices, not simply our own notion of how they should be using it. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)")

... and then perhaps restore the infobox that 12lettername added, even if it seems "clutter" to you. I don't have any feelings regarding infoboxes, - I just think that if we can help a few readers, why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This conversation appeared to had died down before someone unnecessarily went to an admin for a minor disagreement. There is no need for an RfC simply because the demand for one is absent at this juncture. The editors on this page can agree if one is needed without forcing the issue for no reason. Barbarbarty (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Well of course it doesn't need a box - judging by most them in the music field they are misleading. As for "The fact that Ravel's signature is missing from the article is a major flaw." I have to say I assumed that was a joke! A nice minor detail well down the article, but Ravel's signature is probably the most irrelevant thing about him. How many serious studies and biographies of composers contain the subject's signature? Now if you'd said an example of their writing in manuscript, that might have been worth discussing. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for at least providing an opinion, rather than a Gish gallop of appeals to authority and petty legalistic quibbles. But what an extraordinary opinion - you claim most musical infoboxes to be misleading? Please give examples, because I don't like to see misleading statements (even though many such are an ineluctable result of the WP process).

here's three - Beethoven says nothing about his music or his importance in musical history (the first paragraph of the article does to some extent), parents are not remotely important information, likewise the signature; poor Tchaikovsky is saddled with two (!) signature images, but nothing whatever about his music; Britten has all his honours in place but not a word about why he may have earned them - in other words by focussing on peripheral facts and ignoring the important, the reader is misled into assuming an understanding about the subject of the article, when none is offered Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This strikes me an an extraordinary interpretation of "misleading". To quote infobox, "An infobox is a digital or physical table used to collect and present a subset of information about its subject". Subset is an important word: the infobox is absolutely not a "microsummary" of the article; it is an adjunct, which presents information which can easily or optimally be presented in non-prose form. No-one can sum up Beethoven adequately other than in prose, which is why (mercifully!) the infobox does not attempt to do so. The only person who would be "misled" by this is someone who cannot grasp the point of presenting selected information in non-prose form. Perhaps such people should get someone to write a plug-in for them which will simply hide all non-prose presentation. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That's an interestingly selective quote from the infobox article, so let me add mine (from the first subsection specifically about Wikipedia) "An infobox may be used to summarize the information of an article on Wikipedia.[3]" Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I quoted the first sentence of the article. You quote the first sentence specifically about WP. I don't think it is very well written - I suppose "information" should be "content". It says "may". In some cases perhaps it may - what do you think about the infobox for acetylene? Could this mislead someone, since it does not say "It's a chemical" in the infobox? Do you notice that the token example from outside WP is from a British Rail carriage of some sort, and this does not even mention the wheels. Frankly your argument is beyond absurd. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You ask about books: I have A Ravel reader, letters mostly, collected by Arbie Orenstein. The preface talks about an earlier publication, Ravel, Man and Musician, pub. 1975 and says that the most perceptive comments about him were made by Ravel himself. By the third paragraph of the preface he tells us how at the age of twenty Ravel started to form the letter 'a' in a rather idiosyncratic form. And how he apparently held a pen between the second and third fingers of his right hand... so it seems unlikely to me that this author regards Ravel's handwriting as "irrelevant". How on earth could it be irrelevant to the man in general, as opposed for example to being irrelevant to his choice of time signatures?

it may be worth mentioning in a book - but in a box purporting to offer the key information about someone (and without the commentary a book allows) is meaningless - by all means shove it low down in an article but not in an "information box".Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, yes of course the book includes plates, with several instances of his signature on letters. Again, your choice of the word "manuscript" is baffling, but of course it might good to add a page of a score, or a letter. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Baffling? 'manuscript' in a musical discussion is just that - the writing of a score (which is what composers are famous for doing), not letters (where content is the thing - hand-writing is peripheral). Janáček and Bach are examples that come immediately to mind and indeed have good examples in their proper place in the article, but not at the top of the page/article. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, you can put this one down to a fit of the giggles. I saw "We don't want to see how he writes [his name] by hand, we want to see some manuscript", and I thought it was rather funny. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

And incidentally ("we don't want letters...") - I just found a selection of Fauré piano pieces, pub. by Cramer, London, with a letter from Gabriel to the publishers Metzler as the front cover. A cover is oddly similar to a side panel, infobox, whatever, in that it is not prose. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

A Draft RFC

The arguments in favor of and against infoboxes in general have been argued at excessive length for more than a decade, and do not need to be argued again. What we need to decide is whether this article should have an infobox. One editor says: An RfC seems a waste of time to me Another editor says: There is no need for an RfC simply because the demand for one is absent at this juncture. The editors on this page can agree if one is needed without forcing the issue for no reason. I don't know how the editors on this page will agree without the formality of an RFC. So I have composed a draft RFC, which can be seen at Talk:Maurice Ravel/RFC on Infobox. It doesn't ask whether the article should have "an infobox". It asks whether the article should have the infobox that was prepared by 12lettername and was then reverted as "clutter". After reviewing any comments, I plan to launch the RFC by moving it to this article talk page and by activating it. I think that it is more likely that we will arrive at a rough consensus for or against the infobox by running the RFC than by continuing to discuss here, likely without closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this would be useful to focus the discussion. Generally an RFC shouldn't be needed but without specifics this discussion evidently can't get beyond snarking about infobox generalities. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Maurice Ravel/RFC on Infobox

 – keep discussion on article talk page Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Again I fail to see how this was needed. The conversation had been dying down, and I think it would have continued that way without worrying that “this could not be resolved without an RfC.” Again, this comes across as forcing the issue where the issue did not need to be forced at all. Also I fail to understand the point in asking if an RfC should be drafted and then less than 24 hours deciding to do it anyways despite multiple editors questioning the need for one. Barbarbarty (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion left me speechless, saying that there's dishonesty in linking to the list of a composer's compositions (after several compromise solutions and RfCs - some of those linked - had found that as a compromise, indicating that the person is a composer, therefore no "Occupation=composer" needed). I found no witty reply, and I had a busy weekend. I still found no witty reply, - help appreciated. We have a running RfC for Rimsky-Korsakov, and I suggest to at least wait for that before starting another one. Barbarbarty, In that RfC I left a question for you that you didn't answer until yesterday, - I had no time to look today yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Two Questions

There seem to be two questions. The first question is whether there should be an infobox. Some editors feel strongly that infoboxes are useful, at least to a group of editors who use them, and some editors feel strongly that infoboxes do not provide value to the reader. There have been ArbCom cases on infoboxes. ArbCom stated:

The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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.

Sometimes an RFC is the means of determining consensus.

The second question appears to be whether there should be an RFC on an infobox. At least one editor has said that an RFC is unnecessary because the editors should be able to decide that by discussion on this talk page. At least one editor wants an infobox, and has added it, and one editor who does not want an infobox reverted it. What is the alternative to an RFC as the means for determining consensus when there are well-defined conflicting opinions? Is the editor who is saying that an RFC is unnecessary saying that the proponents of the infobox should simply defer to the opponents of infoboxes? Is the editor who is saying that an RFC is unnecessary saying that the opponents of infoboxes should defer to their supporters?

My first thought is to launch the RFC. My second thought is to launch the RFC. However, I am asking whether there is another way that the dispute can be resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the easiest course of action is to just let the discussion flow as it was before, with it being resolved on the talk page. I think it is quite odd to demand their be an RfC when there was absolutely, positively, no need at all for one. This conversation had actually not had a reply in nearly four days before this whole mess about “we need an RfC” happened. This appears to be, again, forcing an issue when there was no need. Barbarbarty (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally speaking, RFC's are useful for discussions like this where there's really no policy to lean on, local consensus is a concern, and there's an entrenched group fighting over it where broader input can help. As long as editors are willing to fight about this innocuous topic I believe @Robert McClenon is wise to create a RFC so this question is shelved one way or the other for a time. Nemov (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on whether there should be an infobox, but the debate over whether there should be an RFC is beginning to persuade me on the subject of the infobox. I am finding the argument against an RFC to be very unpersuasive, and to be disrespectful to the supporters of an infobox, who have asked for an RFC rather than edit-warring. An RFC is being referred to as forcing the issue. I don't understand, because the opposition to an RFC appears to be forcing the conclusion by preventing the community from resolving the issue. Is there an argument in English as to what will be harmful about an RFC?Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no such thing as “forcing the conclusion,” frankly I find it more disrespectful that multiple editors have critiqued the need for an RfC only to be dismissed as apparently not being convincing. If you have decided the best course of action to be an RfC, then by all means start one. But I fail to see the utility in asking other editors if an RfC is needed just to seemingly dismiss editors who happen to oppose one. And by “forcing the issue,” I mean when this thread had several days with no activity, with no indication of ongoing controversy, that to say the only way to resolve a dispute that was barely a dispute to begin with is an RfC, such a course of conduct is by its very definition forcing the issue. I fail to see how such a statement is either disrespectful or controversial. Barbarbarty (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are suggesting that he is being disingenuous or unfair for simply asking what would be harmful about having an RfC on a question where there is genuine disagreement. Over the last few years, there have been a number of RfCs on this subject, though thankfully they are becoming less common. Isn't finding consensus the ultimate goal here? Again, what is the real harm in seeking broader input? Nemov (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

For one thing, I never said it would cause “harm.” Second, I fully explained myself as to why the question appeared to be begging the question. If someone asks “should there be an RfC,” and multiple editors emphatically state “no,” then ignoring those editors because of simple disagreement suggests that a decision has already been made. Nothing is harmful about RfCs in the same way that nothing would be harmful if there was no RfC. Simple as that. Arguing that editors who want an infobox are somehow entitled to escalate every single reverted ibox to an RfC would only exacerbate the debate over the issue, not resolve it. The fact remains that one only need to look at the edit history of this page to determine that absolutely no one was asking to bring this to RfC initially, and then all of a sudden it became a pressing need. I simply have a hard time seeing it that way. Barbarbarty (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Barbarbarty How are the editors who have said no being ignored by someone asking a good faith question? It's not a strange process that a disagreement leads to an RFC, especially on a topic without community guidance. Nemov (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

If I’m not mistaken, I have answered this question multiple times, so I’ll let my previous comments stand for themselves. I’ll only add that I have not accused anyone of being “unfair.” It has been stated by the user I replied to that he sees an RfC as the best course of action, and he’s perfectly allowed to think that. Even if 9 out of 10 people did not want an RfC, the tenth person is entitled to start one if I’m not mistaken. He has the right to not be convinced by opposing arguments, and I have the right to not be convinced at all of arguments opposing my position. But I have made my position extremely clear in my view, so I do not understand your confusion. Barbarbarty (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I've looked at the responses to Robert McClenon's very specific question on whether we should hold an RFC to settle the evident disagreement on this page about whether there should be an infobox. By my count, four editors (Robert McClenon, 12lettername, Nemov and MichaelMaggs) are in favour of the RFC, one (Barbarbarty) is strongly against, and one (Gerda Arendt) considers it would be a waste of time. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The second question, whether to have an RFC about the infobox, was a distraction. The real question is whether to have an infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Simple infobox, simple question

This simple infobox is based on the Beethoven model (2015). Who can agree to the compromise (with or without signature)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

update: the infobox was taken for an RfC below, therefore commented out here because it caused layout problems and a wrong inclusion count. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I have revised the draft infobox so that it is this infobox. The issue to be resolved by the RFC is whether there should be an infobox, so the RFC should provide the minimal infobox. When the RFC is closed, if the consensus is no infobox, it doesn't matter what infobox we don't have, and if the consensus was an infobox, we can discuss the details later. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Good approach. Agreed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - allow people to read the first four paragraphs (a minute's reading) and start to get a picture of the man, music and the world he inhabited. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Concurring with Cg2p0B0u8m: I'm relieved to see a suggestion based on what is helpful to our readers rather than the familiar doctrinal must-have-an-i-box assertion. But I am giving up fighting the good fight, as the Arbitrary Committee has banned me from agreeing with those who agree with me. Tim riley talk 18:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree completely. The infobox is not meant to give a picture of the man, but to provide a collection of basic facts that are usually found at the beginning of biographies in encyclopedias, and usually found on Wikipedia for writers, painters, scientists .... The two features serve different purposes, and I have never seen a reason not to provide both (since 2012 that is). I don't believe that any short infobox is "distracting", and I don't believe that the proposed infobox is "misleading". Project classical music changed their guidelines, - are you aware of that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "An infobox may be used to summarize the information of an article". Or is that article also misleading? But I'm glad to have confirmed that this proposed box will not offer "a picture of the man, music and the world he inhabited". Clearly we disagree, and no, I do not have time to follow every change in guidelines and regulations here. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we have a different understanding of what "summarize" means in the guideline you quote; - for me it's a collection of facts by given parameters. If that is misleading, please get it changed. Nobody here can follow every guideline change, but the change from a view (2010) that a whole project has a guideline deviating from the rest of Wikipedia to no longer doing that seems fundamental enough to be noticed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Your "minute's reading" comment is a curiously explicit confirmation of my suspicion that this is all driven by "HNPP", hatred of non-prose presentation. What about people (me, even!) who already have a picture of the man and his music, but just can't remember where he was born? Imaginatorium (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Editors who have contributed to the general discussion above but who haven't yet expressed on opinion on the specific question in the RFC (immediately below) might like to consider doing so. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes - as has over the years become increasingly the standard for biographies on Wikipedia. This infobox well summarises but does not supplant the key facts that appear in the article per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. As with other similar infoboxes, it provides quick access to key biographical information without having to scroll through the entire text, and in this case also provides a convenient link to a list of the composer's works. I have no strong views as to whether the signature should be included, and I would support this infobox either with or without that parameter. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes – I don't see why not, considering it follows MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Infoboxes are part and parcel of Wikipedia, and the standard way of formatting the lead image for a biography is to put it inside of an infobox, because at that point you're already taking up space anyways. It's what readers are used to, and unless there is good reason not to we should try to be consistent in the way we present things to readers. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 00:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes - Infoboxes are about everywhere, and for good reason - the provide some important information in one convinient place. The inforbox given looks like it fulfills the purpose well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• No: I oppose the usage of File:RavelSignature.png as vector renderings of signatures are preferable to raster renderings. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 01:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Do we have a vector rendering to use? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 02:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've just uploaded one to c:File:RavelSignature.svg. In solidarity, nil ^nz 02:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why is a vector preferable? Trumpetrep (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Quality reasons, mainly. See the image at Vector graphics. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 02:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've replaced the png with the new svg format. Shouldn't make any difference to the overall RFC question for most editors. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That svg rendering does not have a transparent background, and furthermore I cannot access the ultimate source to verify its authenticity. As a result I have uploaded my own original rendering which is taken from a Christie's auction: File:Maurice Ravel signature.svg ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Technically false. The illustration at vector graphics is of a logo, font glyph, or similar, where the "actual" shape is defined as a vector. Here we have an image, which is inevitably downgraded by being converted to a vector representation. (There must, obviously, be less information in the vector form.) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yes - In line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE it would be useful on this article. I find infoboxes on articles of the size useful and I'm sure there's some number of readers who feel the same. Since an infobox is of no real harm to the project or to the article, we should lean in favor of something that is helpful to some number of readers. Thanks Nemov (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. This is a no-brainer. I'd add his father to the infobox. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  @User:Trumpetrep I fail to see how this is a “no-brainer.” Do at least provide a reason. Barbarbarty (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The reason I provided is that it's a no-brainer. I'm agreeing with all the other Yes votes, which spell out a variety of reasons to include an infobox. I think this one should also include Ravel's father, given his notability. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  User:Trumpetrep That doesn’t answer my question. I see a lot of other (in my view very weak) arguments in favor of infoboxes in general, which I have never found convincing. I think it’s objectively wrong to say something is a “no-brainer” given if that were the case an RfC wouldn’t be needed either. I’ll likely refrain from voting, however, given that the situation will probably be satisfactorily resolved one way or another without my input. Barbarbarty (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It may not answer the question to your satisfaction, but it has been answered, nevertheless. This discussion includes a variety of justifications for an affirmative vote. I concur with them. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  User:Trumpetrep I am deeply sorry but you, in fact, did not answer my question until your most recent reply. I also fail to see these “variety of justifications” you are referring to. It is nothing so significant as to raise further issue though. Cheers! Barbarbarty (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hey, as long as you got there in the end. That's all that matters. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I wasn’t aware I needed to “get” anywhere just for asking for some clarification, but again it’s nothing to worry about anyways. Barbarbarty (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please be civil. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. While I am personally of the opinion that infoboxes like this are redundant and not truly needed, we've reached a stage in wikipedia's history where infobox inclusion is expected if not required. This issue is only going to keep coming back in non-ending talk page discussions until a box is present... So for the sake of avoiding future time sucking conversations/ future RFCs on this same issue, I support this version of the info box as the least offensive box option. I'm not going to spend time justifying its merits, because frankly I don't believe that info boxes of this kind have merits other than maybe superficial cosmetic ones. I've just accepted that the community wants them, and there's no sense in fighting a non-ending battle. The only way this problem will find closure is by accepting a box of this kind. So... I endorse this box just so we can all move on to better uses of our time. 4meter4 (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Well, I oppose it (for all the reasons I give above which might be summarized as: the text is distracting and misleading elevating minor facts to key information), but nonetheless agree completely with the points that 4meter4 sets out (apart from 'the community wants them'). One mustn't despair, I suppose, and just hope that regular readers, absent from these discussions, will ignore it and read the article or the bits which interest them. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it despair as much as pragmatism. I've seen infobox wars going on for nearly 20 years. This issue results in repetitive RFCs, ARBCOM cases, lots of talk page discussion/arguments, etc. There's a lot of time waisted, and often bad behavior around these contentious discussions. It's been a toxic culture war. The end result of late has been to endorse boxes as the number of editors wanting them has increased and the number of editors opposed to them has diminished as older editors retire/leave. As an old guard editor myself (I created the WP:DISINFOBOX essay under my old username back in 2008), I do perceive a generational shift towards embracing infoboxes. Newer/younger editors are far more likely to want them, and the overall support for infoboxes is up. I see the writing on the wall. It's time to just accept the battle is lost, and go with the box that is the least damaging. The benefit of accepting minimalist boxes is it saves time, and it fulfills an aesthetic need for visual uniformity across the encyclopedia. I honestly think that's why editors want them. It's not that the box is giving them "key facts" or a "meaningful summary" (boxes can't do that in my opinion) but that it gives the page a sense of order/design/completion that they are looking for. It fulfills a psychological need for many editors, and that is the real appeal for infobox supporters.4meter4 (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

That seems to me a most thoughtful and intelligent take on the matter. Looking elsewhere, I remain inclined to resist pointless i-boxes, but such a measured and undogmatic approach as 4meter4's is as appealing as it is rare. I hate it when bullies get their way, but in this year of grace 2026, bullies are bullying everywhere one looks, and Wikipedia is not immune. O tempora, o mores! Tim riley talk 13:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you help me understand this bullying problem. If someone said, The article has been peer reviewed by six editors and reviewed again as a featured article candidate by seven editors. Why do you think you know better than all of them? this strikes me as sneering, and not very civil, but not surely actual bullying. Can you give some quotes of this bullying, or name some of the bullies? You suggest there is a continuum between the "infobox at all costs" and (presumably) the "no infobox at all costs" lobbies; where on this continuum would you say you stand? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on Tim's comment below. We don't need to have it in two places. It's also distracting from the primary purpose of this thread.4meter4 (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• In favor Yes, infoboxes are cosmetic. But the proposed version doesn't elevate irrelevant information. It's simple, clean, and briefly summarizes, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Go for it. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, although ideally I'd have his career listed in the infobox. Give someone a good clue of who he is in a short bite.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes: I think that what the anti-infobox warriors are missing is the value of non-prose presentation of information, which is an adjunct to prose, and not an equivalent or replacement. FWIW I prefer the .png version of the signature, because it is an accurate representation of an image, of the actual signature on an actual piece of paper, rather than an artificially sharpened idealisation of the signature, for no obvious gain in this situation. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes per MichaelMaggs's reasons. Shogeneral (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes Infoboxes are extremly useful for readers for getting a few bits of information at a glance. Wikipedia should consistently strive to be as user friendly as possible for the reader, since without the readers, there is no point in even having an encyclopedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) - I agree with the majority sentiment above that the infobox is a great standard for biographies on Wikipedia and do not see any reasoning behind obstructing the addition of one to this particular article. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• No So the only info from the infobox that isn't elsewhere in the lead is his age at death, and his birthplace and place of death? I think the article is fine without the infobox. Some1 (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, forgot about his signature. Not really important, though. Some1 (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  The places of birth and death are standard for a biography (which out MoS doesn't want in the lead). There's also the list of compositions, indicating an occupation. You are free to suggest additional parameters to be discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Yes, but agree with Ortizesp about having his career (and his years active) included too. This is a beautifully written article, and I sympathise with wanting people to read it rather than rely on an infobox, but at the end of the day I believe we are here to serve our readers first and foremost. Infoboxes complement (not replace) the prose, and give key information to our readers who may be put off by dense blocks of prose for whatever reason (time-poor, cognitive, attention span, ESL, etc.). On the flipside, an infobox allows a reader to get the basic facts straight away and then be the reason why they choose to stay and read the whole article. In solidarity, nil ^nz 01:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• Tim riley, you mention not liking it when bullies get their way. Could you clarify whom you are referring to in this discussion, and point to a specific comment or action that you consider bullying? That's a serious characterization, so it would be helpful to understand the evidence supporting it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I read Tim's comment in a much more innocuous light. He was simply affirming 4meter4's lament of so much time wasted and spleens vented on such a picayune issue. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nemov:, Tim's been involved in many contentious infobox discussions lasting almost two decades. He also was recently sanctioned somewhat oddly (and in my view unfairly) at ARBCOM in a case brought against another user which has limited his ability to participate in certain discussions in which certain other editors are participating. I read his comment as expressing a feeling of overall frustration with the current zeitgeist in the wiki community, and I can understand him feeling bullied given he has been gagged from participating fully in certain discussions even though his editing history has actually been non-problematic in my opinion. (ie he is civil and behaves himself even when disagreeing with others) In other words there is history here. That said, I can't see any evidence of bullying happening in this specific thread. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Tim specifically framed the issue in 2026 as: this year of grace 2026, bullies are bullying everywhere one looks, and Wikipedia is not immune.

I understand the contentious history surrounding this topic. That's why I was asking for clarification, as this discussion has been cordial. The rhetoric of framing old disputes as "us versus them" and portraying editors with different opinions as bullies needs to end for good. Nemov (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

As 4meter4 suggested, we can extend a little grace. There's no need to belabor this. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't targeted at anyone specific (and not even clearly at this discussion's participants), so I don't think it quite stretched into mislabeling a group of editors as bullies or rose to the level of a clear accusation of bullying on this page. We have to be careful not to police language too much, or then we create a culture where people don't feel free to say what they really think. That is worse for the health of WP:CONSENSUS discussions than anything else. I would just WP:AGF and let this one go.4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

My comment here about bullying was not ad hominem or even, despite past encounters, ad feminam. It was to do with current norms. I had in mind rulers such as Messrs Ka——i, Ki——n, N——u, P——n, T——p and X——g. "The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you". The current brand of bullying seems to me far more prevalent than in the world as it was when I began editing here twenty years ago and which alas seems more accepted. I think something of that may have affected Wikipedia, though I hope not. Tim riley talk 16:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, it is true that the social mores once pressuring us to be civil seemed to have flipped entirely to encourage the opposite. Thankfully, decency remains a pillar of Wikipedia. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)